From Last Week's Seattle School Board Meeting

 For the first time in a long time, every director was up on the dais. President Gina Topp said they wanted to honor the three outgoing directors - Brandon Hersey, Sarah Clark, and Michelle Sarju. (Coincidentally, their departure signals the last of any Black directors on the Board. I note that there were no Black candidates in the General Election. Of course, there was -  Sarah Clark - thanks for the correction.) 

Superintendent Fred Podesta was asked for his remarks first. He had attended the Black college expo where 2,000 students attended (and I would assume not just SPS students) and 700 enrolled at that time, some with scholarships attached.

He said that being a board director was "pound for pound" the hardest work in public service, noting his career had been in public service so he had seen a lot. 

Director Hersey brought his month-old son, Avery. Naturally, everyone was quite taken with this sweet little baby. Apparently he has been so busy he didn't realize this was his last meeting as a director. He said the work had brought "low lows but those pale in comparison to highs like handing a student a diploma." 

He said, "I think I did a pretty good job" and went on to say there is no real training or expertise that prepares anyone for this work. He said he would be continue to be laser-focused on children, "specifically Black children." He said that children are not "widgets." 

He also said there is a baby boom and everyone he knows is pregnant. I would have to look into that statement because when you are in that age-range where all your friends are married, you tend to see babies everywhere. Somebody help me out - is there a baby boom in Seattle? 

The Board had to stop the director reflections in order to start Public Testimony on time. 

Emily Cherkin had the most interesting testimony. She is an SPS parent, works at UW and is an activist in big tech education. I will have a separate post on AI in schools that will include Ms. Cherkin. She came to speak because of an item on the agenda, the Work Session: AI & Data Privacy.

Her big question? When did the Board decide it was okay to give children access to unproven products created by Big Tech companies who put profits before people?

She had one great stat about using tech - research shows that putting in AC has a better effect on student learning than getting a Chromebook. She makes a good point about parental permission to use these new items, noting that there is nothing in the Work Session documentation about getting that permission. 

1) When did the district decide to provide generative AI products to children that are proven to be harmful?

2) Are children using these products to do their homework? She says they are. 

3) How does the district intend to get parental consent for EACH product used? 

To which I would add, what do teachers tell students about each product and how to use it?

Back to Director Comments

Michelle Sarju brought a grandson to the dais.

Sarah Clark said she also didn't realize this was her last meeting as a director. She referenced being an SPS graduate and how terrible her experience was and she had been glad to be up at the dais in the role of helping SPS students. 

Michelle Sarju, true to form, went a bit off the rails. She sang happy birthday to her grandson. Then she talked about running for office and her family. Her priority in running was to help marginalized kids. 

Then there was a break.

The student board directors gave their comments including working with the NAACP Youth Council on the student directors' role and their policy as well as cell phone use in schools. There was also a notation that students at some schools do NOT feel they have the courses they need to meet life goals. 

President Topp acknowledged that they had selected Ben Shuldiner as their next permanent superintendent  and that he is eager to come to SPS. She also noted that on December 3rd, the new Board directors will be sworn into office. 

Director Liza Rankin talked about how the federal government is back online but that in January, it could shutdown again. The Department of Education is slowly being shut down (I will have a separate post.)

Agenda

The Consent Agenda was passed with zero discussion. They moved onto the Action Items. The first one is the State Legislative Agenda.

Director Liza Rankin as the legislative liaison gave input. She noted that this legislative session is a short one. This item passed.

The next Action Item was approval of the new superintendent employment agreement. Topp said Shuldiner would start Feb 1, 2026 and the contract would run through June 2028. Why it is just for two years was not explained was later explained. She spoke of his abilities and experience. 

Rankin asked about the shorter contract. She referenced something about state law where a super contract can only be three school years. That Shuldiner is coming into the work in the middle of a school year still counts as a year. 

Work Session on Student Cellphone and Personal Technology – Presentation

Topp said that they had been hearing from parents, students, and educators about cell phones in the classroom as well as AI concerns. 

She stated that she and Superintendent Podesta went to Cleveland High school to hear from students and educators and that it was "fascinating." She handed the presentation over to the Superintendent. They want to standardize these policies but still have "a bit of work" to do in understanding parents and students' reactions.

I note that all three of the exiting directors had left the meeting by this point. 

He said that digital devices are "a blessing and a curse." 

Dr. Rocky Torres-Morales started the presentation and then handed it off to Chief Tech officer, Carlos Del Valle. Board policies 2022 and 2023 come into play in this discussion. He said any updates to the accompanying Superintendent procedure would need to be done after the discussion is finished. 

Some schools use wall space with pouches to contain cell phones. Some schools still use them for student work. Student leaders do support standards but not ones that are overly prescriptive. 

Del Valle talked a pilot program at several schools that they have learned a lot from. 

What is interesting is that it appears schools and students want flexibility in what kind of enforcement is used BUT also complain that the enforcement varies from teacher to teacher. I would guess that's why you need a standardized policy that they all use, with minor exceptions. 

High School vs Middle School input showed there are differences. He said high school students, particularly juniors and seniors did not like the "policing" of their cell phone use as they get ready to go to college. They didn't feel at their level, that cell phone use was being abused. (I'd love to hear from their teachers about that.) 

Questions

Podesta mentioned that at Cleveland, he and President Topp heard this phrase, "no cell, bell to bell." 

Director Evan Briggs had a few questions. 

On consulting with students, we want to include them but, speaking as the parent of two teenagers, they will definitely tell me they want more access to their phones. "It's a constant fight." My concern is this "away for the day" does not address the inconsistencies from school to school "or even within school buildings."

She believes they know how to be "good digital citizens" and they don't need them during the day in order to get to college. 

Her overarching question was around best practices elsewhere. 

Del Valle said in the briefing paper there is one page on that as well as comparisons to neighboring districts. This is true. If someone had read this presentation, they would see that. 

Briggs said "away for the day" should be a middle and high school levels. She thinks it's an unfair burden for teachers to police kids. 

Mizrahi had three questions.

1) Other than circumventing AI, why would teachers want a student to use their cell phone?

Del Valle said "instructional flexibility" as well as "regulation skills." 

2) Enforcement piece. Mizrahi said his kids are at Hamilton and had seen what the policy was for 6th grade and now for 8th grade. For 7th/8th grade now, it is zero tolerance (and he knows this because he had to go to the school to pick up a phone). Teachers say zero tolerance policy is much easier to enforce. He was wondering what building leaders is telling JSCEE staff. 

Torres-Morales said that it's easier for a building-wide ban during the day, whether they use pouches or not. Should we do the same thing for high schools as middle schools?

3) On pouches, he thinks pouches are not used as intended but their presence reminds kids about the policy. Will you roll this out? Torres-Morales said they don't have a plan for pouches everywhere but again, whether a school has them or not, the school-wide rule works. He went on to say that it has to be consistent and the messaging to families clear. 

Director Sarju wanted to respond to the self-regulation comment. She said the brain does not support teenagers being able to do that. She said it is factually false. She said the zero tolerance policy is best.

Next was Director Rankin. She asked about data. What kind of behavior are happening now that we are attributing to cell phone use and are they seeing less of that? 

Torres-Morales said if she was asking about cyber-bullying but Rankin interrupted and said no, but other things like interruption to teaching time. They then talked about "accommodations" for a student who needs to use a cell phone but staff said they hadn't heard much about issues around that topic. 

Briggs suggested that when students arrive at school, they go to their last period class so the phone would be there for them to pick up at the end of that class (and their school day). 

There was also some discussion about students accessing their phones at lunch. I can see that point if parents send their child a text about after school issues so that the student knows what to expect at lunchtime and not right at the end of the school day. 

Student director Josephine Mangelsen stated that she knew some elementary students had phones because they walk home alone and can then let an adult know they got home safely. Podesta said they had not yet really engaged with elementary parents on this issue. 

Student director Sabi Yoonalso brought up the issue of personal laptops which can also be a distraction. 

AI Presentation and Discussion

Podesta described this as "a fast-moving field." Mike Starosky came forward to represent digital learning and technology folks. 

"We acknowledge that policy lags behind what is actually happening out there for our students and for our teachers. AI should serve to help student learning."

He also said they need to be responsive to how things are changing. 

He gave an example of how a student might use AI on their district laptop for a chemistry lesson. He said she has to assess if she understands what she is being told (good) and if it is accurate (laughable). 

Do I think most students will plug in a question to AI and then wonder about its validity? I do not. They just want to finish their homework.

There is a website for AI use in SPS with resources for families. That information is on Slides 6 and 7. 

There was a cohort group last year consisting of 36% of secondary students around piloting AI. As well, there is also a Steering Committee (I can find nothing on the district website about this committee). Also, here is a link you can use to ask the district questions around AI use. 

Staff started to showed a video of West Seattle students who piloted the program. Unfortunately, it was not working properly so it was not possible to hear it. Starosky said that last May there was an AI literacy day in some schools. 

Del Valle talked about security and named a number of federal systems. Directors need to know how very tepid these controls are, especially FERPA which is a toothless tiger. And now, with the Department of Education being broken up, these are even less useful. 

Student Director Yoon brought up that maybe learning can be helped with AI but there is also the issue of ChatGPT and not students not writing their own essays. She said, "We really need to lean onto the cons of (of its use)." Good for her. She also brilliantly stated that students need to understand how AI usage will inform what the workforce of the future looks like.