Upcoming Seattle School Board Meeting Should Be a Doozy

 Update 2:

Kids, my plans have changed and I will be live-blogging the Board meeting tonight. Doing so is quite difficult as I have learned from past attempts. But I'd rather do it here than on Twitter. 

So if you see spelling/grammar errors, you'll have to give me some grace. I'll clean it all up when I write a proper blog post. 

Also I see a Black Lives Matter at School Week Proclamation will be made during the Superintendent comments but there is nothing attached to that notice. Usually the Board has a Resolution on this topic. Hmmm.

end of update

 

Update: 

As I predicted, a huge public testimony list for tomorrow night's Board meeting. There are 25 scheduled speakers and a waitlist of 31. 

It appears the student speaker - always the first speaker - will speak on Ethnic Studies courses and I see a student speaker from Decatur Elementary but no topic listed. 

Former director Leslie Harris will be speaking on the Hughbanks Scholarship Bequest (info in this post).

Four speakers for the BLM issue, more Ethnic Studies speakers, and at least 4 speakers on Indian education. The waitlist includes more of the same with just one person speaking on the two open Board seats and a couple of speakers on student safety at school. 

end of update

Here's the agenda for Wednesday's Board meeting, the first without Directors Rivera and Song. Unfortunately I will not be able to do live blogging but, as in the past, I will sit down the next day and review the entire meeting. 

As I previously stated, after the Roll Call, there will be an "acknowledgement and announcement" of the resignations. I'm hoping President Liza Rankin will have a written statement because speaking extemporaneously is not her forte. I hope all the statements she makes will be truthful and transparent (meaning, don't keep saying King County Elections should have addressed this issue). 

Naturally, if this is where they make the announcement for the process to fill those two seats, that will also be interesting. Even if they don't give precise details at this meeting, they need to get this messaging out this week. If there is any foot-dragging, it will not look good for this Board. 

 

Then there will be Superintendent comments, student board comments and Board comments. Again, what is said here should be followed closely. If every Board member does not speak, I will find that troubling. You don't lose two members of your Board and then have nothing to say. This is one time when the Board president should not speak for everyone. 

 

Then there will be public testimony. And that is going to be very entertaining to say the least as it appears that multiple groups all want to take the majority of speaker slots. (I do wish, in situations like that, that the Board would have 3 people per topic so that everyone's topics have a chance to be heard.) If any speakers do talk about the resignations, that will be interesting to hear another take on the situation.

I see that the Board office is continuing their amusing timetable. The meeting starts at 4:15pm and public testimony starts at 4:30pm. That is just not going to happen.

 

Then there will be two Progress Reports; one on 3rd Grade Reading and one on 7th Grade Math. 

The 3rd Grade Reading Report is troubling read because here's the first two items:

Goal
The percentage of Black boys who achieve English Language Arts proficiency or higher on the 3 rd grade Smarter Balanced Assessment will increase from 28% in June 2019, to 70% in June 2024.
Status
Orange: Interim metrics indicate results are unlikely to be delivered without significant changes

They then list different data points which, on the whole, don't look great but staff then says:

Taken together, these results indicate that SPS’s strategy is beginning to take hold and have an impact at the 13 Priority Schools.

They go on:
SBA results show that SPS did not meet its Spring 2023 strategic plan targets for AAM or SoCFFEJ.

Results are slightly below though consistent with pre-pandemic proficiency rates. A notable year-over-year increase was observed for Multilingual leaners, consistent with a positive upward trajectory since 2016-17.

That last data point looks very promising. 

Staff again frets over the absenteeism rate.

Onto the 7th Grade Math report. 

Goal
The percentage of Black boys and teens in 7 th grade who achieve proficiency or higher on the 7 th grade Smarter Balanced Assessment in math will increase from 23% in June 2019, to 45% in June 2024 and to 70% in June 2026 – essentially doubling over 3 years and reaching the targeted 70% in 5 years.
Status
Orange: Interim metrics indicate results are unlikely to be delivered without significant changes

This report apparently has little good news so they talk about the SEMI (Seattle Excellence Math Initiative which they started in school year 2022-2023. 

There is this:

SBA results show that SPS did not meet its Spring 2023 strategic plan targets. Results for AAM students
declined by 4.2 points from 24.4 to 20.2 percent of students scoring proficient or higher, which is 14.8
points below the 2023 target. Results for Student of Color FFEJ remained flat compared to 2021-22.
Math proficiency rates remain below pre-pandemic levels for both AAM students and Students of
Color FFEJ.

Staff urges the Board to basically be cheerleaders for these efforts and then they say this:

Governance – The Board can help the entire school system stay focused on the strategy and goals of
SEMI by staying committed to Student Outcomes Focused Governance. As we have shared in prior
memos, we are grateful for the Board’s focus on this critical area of learning through its Student
Outcomes Focused Governance. Already this process has enabled new opportunities for alignment,
transparency, and collaboration within the organization.

Why is it important to tell the Board to stay the course in this report? 

I also see no mention of the absenteeism rate for 7th graders. 

 

Then it's onto the Consent Agenda which is laden with 18 items, most of them Capital spending. 

The first item - acceptance of "scholarship" dollars in the amount of $250,000.

This Board Action Report authorizes acceptance of an anticipated multi-year gift from the C.
David Hughbanks Donor Advised Fund for student scholarships to be awarded by the Seattle
Schools Scholarship Fund.

This gift results from the generosity of the late civic leader C. David Hughbanks and his family.
Hughbanks graduated from Ballard High School and long supported Seattle schools and student
scholarships, founding the Ballard High School Foundation 25 years ago, and bequeathing the
present gift through his estate.

This gift would be part of the Seattle Schools Scholarship Fund which is:

offered to Seattle Public Schools students and are expected to be awarded consistent with existing scholarship fund selection criteria, such as financial need. Criteria applicable to the Hughbanks Family
Scholarships are also anticipated to include continuation of education in Washington State, as
stated in the donor’s letter of intent.

In addition to this gift to the Seattle Schools Scholarship Fund, the C. David Hughbanks Donor
Advised Fund has announced a substantial contribution to the Ballard High School Foundation.
As a non-profit organization independent of Seattle Public Schools, Board approval is not
required for acceptance of this additional gift, which will also support post-secondary
opportunities for Seattle students.

I believe the Ballard High School Foundation is one of the oldest high school foundations in SPS. It's something to ponder that the Board wants to go after the inequity of PTA dollars in schools but not these foundations and their dollars. From past experience, I believe these foundations can pretty much spend dollars as they see fit with little oversight from the district. 

 

The two jaw-dropping items on the Consent Agenda are both about the rebuild of Rainier Beach High School. Altogether, the district wants to spend another $4M on the project.

The first item asks for more money because of subsurface issues and this would push completion of this project to August 8, 2026. They would use the money for more FTE for administration of the project and a feasibility study for tennis courts.

The second item on RBHS finds more issues with the ground, this time for "soil conditions." 

I find both of these deeply troubling. SPS had these issues with the rebuild of Garfield High School. Does the district not do extensive testing of soils areas before it issues RFPs? This issue comes up again and again and always the district throws its collective hands up as if to say, "Who knew?"

I will add that somehow they overlooked the need for a Visitor Ticketing and Concession building at the football field/track area. How did that happen? And now the cost is $1.6M. 

Again, I don't want to hear that "on time and on budget" nonsense from SPS. As well, other districts in this region can build high schools for a lot less money. 

 

Both of the Introduction items are of interest.

The first is the announcement that each school's C-SIP report is now online at the school's webpage at the SPS website. I'm highlighting items of interest that you might want to check for at your child's school. The last three bulleted items are ones I have not seen before.

WAC 180-16-220(2)(a) requires that each school in the district “be approved annually by the
school district board of directors….” A School Board’s annual approval of schools certifies to
the State that each school has a school improvement plan in place. School improvement plans
must be data-driven, promote a positive impact on student learning, and include a continuous
improvement process for monitoring, adjusting, and updating the plan. Each school’s Continuous
School Improvement Plan (C-SIP) includes these elements.

As in the past, and consistent with WAC 180-16-220, C-SIPs are designed to be working
documents, which the principal and the Building Leadership Team (BLT) will review during the
school year for the purpose of progress monitoring the impact of the plan on student outcomes.
The principal and the BLT will adjust goals and strategies within the plan as additional data is
made available to schools as guided by the 2023-24 SPS assessment plan.

Additionally, this annual approval ensures that each school has a data-driven school
improvement plan to promote student learning, fulfills compliance with WAC 180-16-220, and
responds to Board requirements related to the development and contents of C-SIPs, including:

• Board Policy No. 2422, Homework: To ensure consistency across schools, school-based
homework policies will be reviewed each fall as part of the school’s Continuous School
Improvement Plan (C-SIP).
• Board Policy No. 4130, Title I Parent and Family Engagement: Each school’s C-SIP
will address Title I parent/guardian involvement as per Board Policy No. 4130, Title I
Parent and Family Engagement, and will specify what opportunities are in place to help
ensure that parents/guardians are full academic partners.
• Board Policy No. 3405, Student Wellness: Each school should incorporate a Wellness
Goal (Learning Environments Safe and Welcoming Goal) in their Comprehensive School
Improvement Plan (C-SIP).

The other Intro item is a revision to Board policy 113, Board Member Residency. Of interest:

School board directors are responsible for ensuring they fulfill all residency requirements as stated in this policy and as provided in state law.

State law requires that a director must remain a resident and registered voter of the Seattle School District to serve as a school board director. 

I had no idea that state law requires candidates to be registered voters. 

Additionally state law, including statutes listed below, limits the eligibility of directors to continue serving if a director’s residence changes to a different director district within the Seattle School District.

Hmmmm, I will have to read all of the citations on state law.

They took out any mention of changes in boundaries but they cite the WSSDA form (Washington State School Directors Association) which DOES address  boundary lines.

I again state - every year at a legislative Board meeting, every single director should announce that yes, they continue to live in the district that they ran from.

Then there is this:

Board Director Questions and Staff Responses for February 7, 2024 Regular Board Meeting (Materials to be added prior to meeting)

It will be interesting to see if any questions from Song or Rivera are there as they were almost the only directors to ask questions of staff. 

Update: this item has been struck from the agenda. I suspect that's because it probably had just questions from Song and Rivera who are now gone. 

Lastly, there are the annual financial disclosures for both senior leadership and board directors. I didn't see anything in the directors' submissions (except that Gina Topp seems to have kept her maiden name).  I do think one director does have a conflict of interest but I'm still looking into that. 

I saw nothing in the senior leaders' submissions.