Seattle School Board Meeting 10/12/2022, Part Two

 I decided that there will be three parts to this post, not two. That's because I got through the part with the discussion on the revisions to the school calendar and the part with the discussion about director boundaries. I thought those two topics deserved their own space precisely because what was said during the discussions.

Waiting for the meeting to resume after the Work Session, I noted that the student rep, Nassira Hassan, was sitting at the end of the dais, all by herself. No one was engaging with her and, in her own remarks way back at the beginning of the meeting, she said that the student reps needed more mentoring from Board directors. Hmmm.

Revision to School Calendar Due to Teachers Strike

Dr. Sarah Pritchett who is the head of HR was unable to be at the meeting and so Dr. Concie Pedroza stood in for her. Pedroza said the negotiations over the contract had been done and this was just an amendment. Meaning, the negotiations were already finished and the Board had already voted to accept the contract. 

Then the back-and-forth started. 

Director Lisa Rivera-Smith said she had spoke with Pritchett and had the million dollar question - why not shave days off the Mid-Winter Break and/or Spring Break?

Pedroza said there HAD been that discussion but that with the impacts of finding subs and the number of personal leaves as well as PASS impacts (principal group). She said she had empathy for seniors and had one of her own. I'll interject here that that I would be surprised that there would be so many teachers who would need a sub. That many teachers actually travel during Mid-Winter Break? 

Pedroza said she didn't want to "go into specifics" about personal days or vacation days because she wasn't there for the original discussion. Okay but if staff in charge sends someone to rep them in a discussion, maybe they should send someone who CAN go into specifics.

Rivera-Smith said there was parental concern over snow days that would drive the calendar into July. Pedroza said that the district could get two waiver days from the State for snow days. The district cannot use those waiver days for strike days. 

Rivera-Smith persisted saying, she is hearing from many parents and wondered out loud about what students thought. She also asked how comfortable school buildings are if it gets hot. 

Pedroza said she didn't have info on that but they would have to adjust the summer learning schedule and had always had summer school so most buildings are fine.

Then Rivera-Smith dropped a bit of a bombshell (at least to me) - she pointed out that there was a Board policy on oversight that included the school year calendar. She said that the Board had that "leverage" and they need to adhere to their policy. She said she just wanted to get that on the record.

Pedroza said that the amendment was just to the timeframe but she wasn't sure about what Rivera-Smith was talking about.

Director Chandra Hampson jumped in, saying that the Board just doesn't have clarity on this issue and how the Board and Superintendent should come to agreement on it. She said "unfortunately that's where we are now and we have not been as clear with the Superintendent via policy" that the Board does have - via state law - and if "we don't explicitly reserve that right" then the Board has to accept what bargaining has decided. 

It might have been good if anyone on the Board had been considering this during the strike because then the Board could have reserve that right.

Director Liza Rankin, joining the meeting from home, said she had "a child disruption" and so had missed the earlier discussion. (I'll let that sit there and sink in.) She asked about problems with grads who attend graduation before school is finished. Pedroza said that the State has been understanding in the past about that issue. 

Rankin then went on a ramble about the bargaining being centered around students and that it's the job of the Board to "create conditions for better decision-making around this kind of thing. She rightly said whatever they did it would be inconvenient for somebody.

She then casually stated that there's evidence it's better if there's a shorter summer vacation with extended weekend breaks throughout the year but "that's a different conversation." Is she advocating for year-round schools? Hmmm.

Pedroza pointed out that SPS opens usually a full week behind other regional districts. 

The Student Board Member, Nassira Hassan, pointed out that this proposal affects both students and teachers and were students asked for input at all? Pedroza said she didn't know and would look into it. The student continued saying this new calendar puts AP and IB kids at a disadvantage because of the fixed spring dates for exams. She said she struggled to see how this helps students.

The Superintendent went on a ramble about "multiple layers" and "how to honor each layer." He basically added nothing to the conversation.

Director Leslie Harris then had some thoughts. She said the decision felt "polarized" and why couldn't some days be shaved off breaks to bring the calendar back to the same original ending dates? 

She then mentioned that there had been an SEA survey post strike about what members wanted. She asked if that had been shared with SPS staff and if not, why not? 

She said that students furthest from educational justice would be greatly affected and mentioned the IB programs in her region. She claimed that her email had it about 50/50 with parents who didn't want days taken off Mid-Winter Break versus the end of the school year. But she said the number of issues for end of June - vacations, camps, jobs, internships - seemed to be greater. She also said that the Board should start this work on the school year calendar in Year Two of the teacher contract and not wait until the next round of teacher contract negotiations. 

The vote was then taken and it was 4 ayes, 2 nos (Song Maritz and Rivera Smith)  and 1 abstainment (that was Harris). There was a bit of tension when Harris' vote was called for and she asked to be last. Hersey said she should just vote and she said, in the past that Hersey had allowed other directors to move their vote. He said no but said okayed anyway. I think if there were 3 no votes, Harris would have voted no as well. 

I do think it striking that there was not a united vote on issue.  Good for the many parents who gave voice to this issue because I think there was this idea from staff that the Board would just roll over on the changes.

Redistricting Director Regions

As previously noted, based on state law after each census, director regions have to be redrawn based on any population shifts. 

President Hersey noted that there were four amendments to the originally chosen scenario from the FLO consultants. He stated that if any amendment was accepted, then they would seek input with an October 26th meeting for community input. No details yet. 

A FLO consultant was available remotely as well as outside legal counsel, Noel Treat. (Mr. Treat did work in SPS Legal for several years but SPS has its own legal counsel so it's unclear why they had to hire Treat. When the district wonders why they are in financial trouble, rather than constantly looking at Special Education and transportation, take a look at all the consulting being paid for.) 

Song Maritz explained that Amendment 1 would bring back the Chinatown area/Little Saigon into one region as the scenario chosen had split them. 

Song Maritz also stated that Amendment 2 would do the same but includes changes to the Central region that had ended up with no middle school in it. (Which is what I also pointed out when the maps were first available.) 

Director Hampson said Amendment 3 left out consideration of City Council regions with its overarching social justice approach. She said their map was "well-researched." She said both the SPS districts and City Council districts each have seven regions, even if they are not exactly the same. 

I'll stop here to ask - how was this alignment with the City Council regions or even just the similarities not considered by the consultants? Did the Board think of this AFTER that work got done?

Hampson also used an acronym you might be hearing a lot - COI (communities of interest). 

Amendment 4 includes the City Council maps even if not exactly aligned. She noted that lines had shifted slightly to keep Lincoln HS in District 4. 

Director Harris asked if any changes would displace a sitting Board member? Hersey said Amendment 3 would but Amendment 4 would fix that. The director who would be affected would be Director Rivera Smith.  Harris asked for advice from Noel Treat.

He said that as long as the Board followed the state mandates, they are free to bring in any other issues - like director address - that they want to. 

Rivera Smith was trying to address each amendment and their differences which was helpful for the rest of us non-directors. 

Hampson then went off on some non-sequitur about Lowell, claiming it had become something else. She struggled on this and then realized her mistake and the discussion continued.  Weird.

Treat said they need to adopt a plan by November 15th and if any amendments were approved tonight, they would have to make sure it was publicly available for review before that date. He also stated that the LAST vote taken would be the binding one, meaning, it didn't matter how many votes any given amendment had, the last vote was the only one binding.

Rankin then said that most of the borders "have nothing to do with where schools are or attendance areas" but noted that the state mandates don't have that as a consideration. She said it was important to keep the Central district and the International district intact. She said she didn't care if the new planning changed current director representation.  (To which I thought, sure, it's not your district that would be affected.)

Then the vote was taken and this was one time I wished directors explained why they voted the way they did because it was unclear to me.

Amendment Two got two ayes, from Song Maritz and Rivera Smith, and the rest voted no. 

Amendment Four had a no vote from Song Maritz and Rivera Smith with the other Board members voting yes. So Amendment Four, which keeps the Central district and the ID district each intact.

I'll throw up the new maps when they become available along with how you can give input.