The Entire Board Must Vote No on the Science Adoption

You'll note the use of the word "must" in the headline for this post.  I have gone from "should" to "must" based on new information I received today via public disclosure documents from the district.
I had put in a request weeks ago and received a message that there were over 900 emails between the head of Science, Mary Margaret Welch, and Amplify.   I'm not surprised that there were some but that is quite a volume for less than two years.

However, there were 25 other emails between Welch and several other people that I asked the good folks in the Public Disclosure area to send as soon as they could.  They were kind enough to get them to me yesterday.

They reveal that Welch entered into an agreement in early August 2017 with Lawrence Hall at UC Berkeley (who had a grant from IES - a federal agency, Institute of Education Sciences) and SRI International (who is the entity carrying out the research for the grant).  The grant was to study the efficacy of Amplify Science for first graders around literacy and science. 

If funded, districts would receive the full curriculum package along with teacher professional development and support over the two years of implementation at no cost to the participating districts.  Districts also receive a stipend to partner with us to coordinate and support the successful implementation of the curriculum.  Moreover, all participating teachers will receive stipends for their participation in study activities.

The prep year is this year with the first year of implementation in 2019-2020.  Welch submitted a letter, on SPS letterhead, saying yes.  It includes giving the researchers "learning outcome data."

Update: There are no waivers filed for first grade science. None.  There were only four waivers in elementary (part of the 20 schools that SPS said had waivers):  Decatur, Cascadia, Genessee Hill and Cedar Park. To note, Cedar Park and Decatur had  just opened and so this was purely a principal decision.  This does not negate the fact that Welch and her staff have not revealed this information about their dealings with NSF and Amplify.

end of update

NONE of this has been revealed to the Board by Welch or anyone else.   This kind of deception cannot be allowed.

Amplify, in its proposal, said that they have been working in 69 schools but Ms. Welch hastily said that was just an error and it was far fewer schools with waivers (about 20).   I think Amplify was just being honest as opposed to the dissembling that Welch was doing.

In short, along with Ms. Welch's four varying stories about how Amplify came to be in SPS, she now has this factual issue.  

Additionally, in those public disclosure emails are three curious ones.  They came to Ms. Welch via an NSF maildrop called FastLane about three different "temporary proposals."

Email #1 - October 12, 2017 -  Welch is added as a "co-PI" on a "temporary proposal."  " PI Last Name: Bell.  Co-PI email address; mmwelch@seattleschools.org

Email#2 - October 13, 2017 - Welch is added as a "co-PI" on a "temporary proposal."  " PI Last Name: Thompson.  Co-PI email address; mmwelch@seattleschools.org

Email #3 - November 7, 2018 - Welch is added as a "co-PI" on a "temporary proposal."  " PI Last Name: Thompson.  Co-PI email address; mmwelch@seattleschools.org

What does this mean?  I suspect it's about Amplify Science, given those dates but Welch didn't mention any of this to the Board.  I will be doing further research on this.  

I also expect to receive partial results from my FOIA that I filed with the NSF around a study of Amplify Science Middle School by Monday and I suspect I will find more of the same.

No matter the vote by the Board on Wednesday, I will absolutely be filing a request with the State Auditor's office to investigate this science adoption process.  

How We Got Here

To note, Ms. Welch did nothing wrong in looking for opportunities for the district to try new curriculum cost-free.

However, she must tell the Board all that she has done when there is a curriculum adoption. And she hasn't.

Of course, the union and the teachers might want Amplify.  They have already been using it AND some of them received stipends for doing so.

Additionally, in Amplify's RFI, they stated that "Seattle Public Schools leadership providing key insight and feedback on future Amplify product and curriculum redesign."  Also, the RFI says that activity will "support to promote adoption."  Very shady.

Again, I state the following:

- The adoption committees have worked very hard and put in huge amounts of time.  None of this is their fault and I'd bet none of them know this.  (Some key staff, however, probably do.)  They are the curriculum experts.

- But it is not the Board's job to be curriculum experts and they should look to the committees for their recommendations.  That said, the Board does NOT, legally or otherwise, have to take any or all of the committees recommendations.  Especially because:

- There is evidence that Board policies were not followed.  Legal counsel, Ronald Boy, says the policies have been followed.  The end of this thread raises more questions and I suspect that if the State Auditor looked into it, they would disagree.

The Board's role in curriculum adoption is to be certain that ALL policies were followed.  The Board has to make sure that each vendor has been treated fairly there was no favoritism shown to any one vendor.

The Board's role is to make sure that there was the ability for parents, staff and the public to examine curriculum materials and give input PER Board policy and not just from some structure set up by staff, (see Board policy 2015 and Superintendent Procedure 2015 SP.B). 

The Board's role is to use a critical eye over all the process.  I'm truly not sure how any rational adult could take the four varying stories that Ms. Welch gave about how Amplify got into our schools in the first place.  That does not speak for the veracity of the process.

The Board's other jobs in this process -  which they did not truly consider, nor was this covered by the committees or staff - is two-fold.  They did not consider the data-gathering that may have gone on by Amplify and what that might mean for adoption of Amplify.  They also did not consider the ramifications of more screen time for students.

(We can have a separate discussion about screen time but the district has some kind of digital learning team and it would be great to understand the vision SPS has for increased screentime BEFORE they adoption curriculum that forces that issue.   I'll just note that many Silicon Valley families choose schools that don't use tech.  Also, the impacts of the costs of the needed technology will set this district on a road where you will see more and more capital dollars diverted for tech (because 85% of tech in SPS comes from BEX/BTA).

Circling back to Amplify, there is also the question of all this "free" stuff from Amplify?  Again, anyone looking at the situation would say, "Tell us everything you got from Amplify, its estimated cost, when you got it and who used it."

Sue Peters, former president of the school board, asked to see numbers for all these freebies from district data.  The spreadsheet she received shows costs of $.01 for 37 units for First Grade Physical Science (which we now know is coming free via the NSF grant).  The last column -for every single item - has the notation, "Still to be invoiced for value." 

It also says that 9,000 subscriptions were purchased in August 2018 for a little over $50K.  Wait, what? We were told those were given to SPS for free.  And, this vendor request falls squarely during the adoption period which would be in conflict with RCW bid rules.

Those basic questions have NOT been answered and, at this point, that is suspicious.  

At this late date, that is unacceptable and should be the final dealbreaker.

The Board needs to know the value so that they can ascertain if Washington law - not just their own policies - may have been broken.  Districts cannot accept goods/services over a certain amount without Board approval.  Seattle School Board cannot approve anything if they don't know the dollar amounts.

Because the district does not support teaching and learning as it should by providing materials that are needed, they have allowed some PTSAs to use fundraising dollars to supplement science teaching at their schools.  I know in the case of Hamilton International Middle School that the science teachers directly asked the PTSA to spend funds on science professional development by sending the entire science department to a science conference (where they were trained on Amplify Science).

That is an equity issue but one of the district's own making.  Their central job is teaching and learning; how can it be that so many schools lacked basic materials and professional development?

(I will have a separate thread on the issue of PTSA fundraising and spending but let's just say, the district is willing collaborator who will tell the public how inequitable the disparities among schools is but, behind closed doors at JSCEE, willingly accept PTSA dollars that help support those schools so the district doesn't have to.)

RCW Issues via Robert Femiano
Former SPS teacher and Presidential Award for Excellence in Math and Science Teaching, 2002 

Issue #1: Can the District accept gifts from vendors, before or during the competitive bid process?

The District website notes, "In May 2018, Seattle Public Schools initiated an adoption process for instructional materials to support science in grades K through 12". Under the FAQ, it says, “Amplify provided the program subscriptions (the digital portion) for free to SPS.”

(a) Was RCW 39.26.020 (1a) * (Ethics in public contracting) violated when the District solicited via purchase orders and then accepted gifts of Amplify subscriptions or licenses immediately prior to the competitive bid period on 3/7/18 (Open P.O. for license) and again during the adoption review process (7/25/18 for 160 licenses and again on 8/29/18 for 9000 licenses and again on 11/19/18 for 1 license), in violation of RCW 42.52.140 ** (gifts)?

(b) According to the District's SAP spreadsheet showing Amplify purchases from 2015-2019 (presented during public testimony at Board meeting 5/15/19), the licenses in (a) above, totaled $1,610, $25, $50,040 and $3,525, respectively, but each shows $0 under "still to be invoiced". If these purchases are in essence a loan, was RCW 39.26.020 (1a) * (Ethics in public contracting) violated when the District accepted loaned instructional materials, immediately before and again during the adoption process?

Issue #2: Can a bidder change its bid once it is a finalist, and then again after being awarded the contract?

(a) The original April 5th C&I BAR report for middle school shows the licensing cost at $1,503,829 but the May 15th Introduction BAR lists a new licensing fee at $2,069,686 -- over 37% increase! Are bidders allowed to change the price after they are (tentatively) awarded the contract?

(b) Are bidders allowed to renegotiate the contract after being awarded the bid? According to said BAR report, Attachment A: (Amplify Education, Inc. Proposal): “Following the recommendation to purchase AmplifyScience, Seattle Public Schools’ Purchasing Office will request a third round of pricing options from Amplify Education, Inc.” Could the price increase yet again, without public oversight?

Issue #3: Did District Procurement Actions favor Amplify from the start?

District Procurement policy 6220 requires that “District staff shall use sound business and financial practices...and shall promote fair competition...”

(a) According to the Superintendent's May 10 Memo to the Board, the district was responsible for all the costs associated with printing workbooks and assembling kits for the 20 waiver schools. How sound is it to have spent public money and resources on an experimental pilot product and without Board authorization? Could that financial decision have been influenced by an assumption it was an investment in a future adoption?

(b) How financially sound is it for the District to have spent $9600 on 8/15/17 and $10,105 on 9/20/17 on professional development specifically to implement the Amplify pilot program? (Invoices #5106632845 and 5106652610, respectively) Does this early financial commitment make the District more prone to accept a bid from the vendor?

(c) Is it "sound business and financial practice" to use taxpayer money to pay for a company's instructional materials so that the same company may use the pilot data to improve its sales?

Issue #4: Does a long-standing relationship with a vendor preclude engaging with them in competitive bidding?

(a) Since August 2016, the District has been involved in implementing Amplify science program, scaling up the involvement in 2017-2019 through its pilot programs. From material submitted by Amplify during the competitive bid process, it is clear the vendor considers itself in a “partnership” with the District. “Since the 2016-2017 school year, we have partnered with Seattle Public Schools to pilot Amplify Science as a K-8 core curriculum”. Is it ethically acceptable to engage in competitive bidding with a vendor in which you have a current relationship?

(b) According to Amplify bid materials, the intent of the partnership was to influence adoption of the their products. They state: “Over the past two years Seattle and Amplify have built a strong alignment across teams and continue to provide customized professional services for schools and broad service support to promote adoption and continuity.” Once this is known, is it legal/ethical to allow them to remain in the competitive bid process?

Issue #5: Would it violate Competitive Bid ethics if the District had contact with a vendor after submitting its bid to discuss or negotiate financial issues around licenses and/or debt relief?

(a) Is there an pre-existing Agreement outlining each party's financial obligations under their “partnership”? If so, was the Agreement accepted by the Board of Directors?

(b) How would other bidders perceive these actions, if there were discussions?

Given the hidden history and the long-standing "partnership" with Amplify prior to the adoption, along with the above seeming irregularities involving fair bidding rules and the unannounced price increases on the Board Action Report on May 15th, it may make sense at this point to seek individual outside legal advice before proceeding with any Motion to adopt Amplify. Perhaps the State Attorney General's office can be of assistance with their many legal advisers.

* RCW 39.26.020 Ethics in public contracting.

(1)(a) A state officer or employee of an agency who seeks to acquire goods or services or who participates in those contractual matters is subject to the requirements in RCW 42.52.150.

(b) A contractor who contracts with an agency to perform services related to the acquisition of goods and services for or on behalf of the state is subject to the requirements in RCW 42.52.150.

(2) No person or entity who seeks or may seek a contract with a state agency may give, loan, transfer, or deliver to any person something of economic value for which receipt of such item would cause a state officer or employee to be in a violation of RCW 42.52.040, 42.52.110, 42.52.120, 42.52.140, or 42.52.150.

** RCW 42.52.140 Gifts.

No state officer or state employee may receive, accept, take, seek, or solicit, directly or indirectly, any thing of economic value as a gift, gratuity, or favor from a person if it could be reasonably expected that the gift, gratuity, or favor would influence the vote, action, or judgment of the officer or employee, or be considered as part of a reward for action or inaction.
RCW 39.30.020

Contracts requiring competitive bidding or procurement of services—Violations by municipal officer—Penalties.

In addition to any other remedies or penalties contained in any law, municipal charter, ordinance, resolution or other enactment, any municipal officer by or through whom or under whose supervision, in whole or in part, any contract is made in willful and intentional violation of any law, municipal charter, ordinance, resolution or other enactment requiring competitive bidding or procurement procedures for consulting, architectural, engineering, or other services, upon such contract shall be held liable to a civil penalty of not less than three hundred dollars and may be held liable, jointly and severally with any other such municipal officer, for all consequential damages to the municipal corporation. If, as a result of a criminal action, the violation is found to have been intentional, the municipal officer shall immediately forfeit his or her office. For purposes of this section, "municipal officer" means an "officer" or "municipal officer" as those terms are defined in RCW 42.23.020(2).