Seattle School Board Meeting, October 8, 2025
Here's the agenda for the meeting which starts at 4:30 pm at the JSCEE.
There are 22 people on the Speakers List. Most of the speakers will be talking about student safety.
There are several facilities items that are rolled into the Consent agenda including one for a whopping $71M for electronic upgrades at many schools. These upgrades include AV, intercoms, and security systems. This project is in four phases and they have nearly completed 15 schools. This is Phase 2 and will include 24 schools and the JSCEE. Phase 3 will be 30 schools and there was no Phase 4 projects noted.
I see that this is the THIRD amendment for this contract. I see that amendments seem to be the new craze for Capital Facilities. It's a good way to present one cost for approval and then keep bumping it up as you go along (see Rainier Beach High School). Documentation is not attached. Not good.
It's interesting as well that they are doing $11M worth of upgrades to John Marshall School for it to continue serve as an interim school during renovations at other schools. What I find interesting is that they are including a geothermal system for an interim school. That's a big expense for an interim school. Also, this project includes "seismic updates" and yet they did some at Marshall in 2004 and 2013. Is it a good idea to do these in a piecemeal fashion? Hmmmm
The BIGGEST item on the agenda comes under "Action" and that is to approve an amendment to Board Policy 4311, School Safety and Security Services Program.
As you may recall, at the last Board meeting the directors were poised to vote on one amendment to the policy in order to okay the pilot SEO program at Garfield High School. But the directors felt the language wasn't clear and so they bumped that item to this meeting.
Now, Director Joe Mizrahi has an amendment to the amendment. It "clarifies law enforcement access to school buildings" and that the SEO program at Garfield "will focus on external threats and preventing those external threats from impacting the learning environment" and not school discipline issues. It provides for a process for family/staff/student complaints. It authorizes collection of data collected in the execution of this plan.
Mizrahi says:
The sponsor engaged in conversations with parents, families, and students, as well as community groups focused on gun violence and community safety to develop the amendment proposal.
However, I also see this:
Approval of this item would direct the Superintendent to provide the Board with a plan and timeline no later than December 31, 2025 for collecting data, including through community engagement, to assess the effectiveness of the School Engagement Officer pilot program at Garfield High School.
Wait, what? So does this mean this action gets kicked down the road until next January? Stay tuned.
Also, there is a required statement from the Board about how much money they will be collected by levies passed by voters.
The $TBD collection is based on the 2026 calendar year, so it is divided across two
school years as noted:
FY25-26 54.22 % $TBD
FY26-27 45.78 % $TBD
100.00 % $TBD
General Fund Levy Amount Approved by voters for 2026…………… $250,000,000
Less Amount of Rollback……………………………………………... $TBD
General Fund Levy Amount for 2026 after Rollback ………………... $TBD
Capital Projects Fund Levy Amount for 2026………………………… $430,500,000
The SECOND most important item is the 2025-2026 Highly Capable Plan.
The testing and outreach data looks much better and that is reflected on page 5.
On that page - Number of Students Identified by Grade Level - the data is quite interesting. By changing the testing to universal, it looks like they have doubled the number of Black students and Hispanic students. And yet, somehow, they have greatly reduced the number of students who are free/reduced lunch. I wonder what could account for that.
Another finding is that the number of HC students in Option Schools is quite low. As well, I am surprised at the number of parents who keep their child at their neighborhood school versus a pathway school. Maybe there isn't room at the pathway schools or the transportation time would be too great. I know the latter issue is why many parents in West Seattle keep their kid in their neighborhood school.
Page 7 has a somewhat confusing chart of the "Identification and Eligibility Process." I am surprised to see appeals because I thought that option had gone away.
However, page 8 goes to C-SIPs for each school to explain what they will be doing for eligible students. It says for elementary:
Neighborhood schools offer an inclusive instructional program that aligns with SPS core instructional strategies, including Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Students experience learning in multiple ways according to their demonstrated strengths and needs. Each neighborhood school’s C-SIP describes how HC services are integrated into classroom instruction.
What is new to me is they say at cohort schools there is a "district-approved curriculum." I have never heard that the curriculum at cohort schools is different than at elementary schools except in depth and pacing. But again, what is offered will vary from school to school.
In middle school, there is a "cluster group model" for Language Arts and "all students have access to Compacted Math 7/8 in 7th grade which enables students to enroll in Algebra in 8th grade..." They do not explain if students just enroll in the class or if here is some kind of testing for non-HC students?
They also state that they are launching a "Highly Capable Math Project" for 4-6th grades at 5 elementaries and 5 pathway middle schools. It is:
a collaborative, job-embedded initiative focused on inclusive math instruction for all students at or above grade level in grades four through sixth.
They later explain teachers are also learning how to support twice exceptional students in HC.
Their program goals are:
- Expanded Access in Neighborhood Schools
- Ensuring Students Meet Growth Goals
- Improving Identification Processes
- Strengthening Professional Development.
I am glad for all this but to say that every single school gets to decide on their own what those HC services look like via their C-SIP is troubling to me. Not every principal supports HC so will those schools get "HC lite?" If one school's outcomes are better for HC students, will the district learn from that or still allow schools to pick and choose?
Also, here is info on the testing timeline via an HC parent Facebook page:
- Fall: October 6-24, 2025
- Winter (K only): January 26-February 13, 2026
- Spring: May 18-June 5, 2026
Comments