Seattle School Board Meeting, February 11, 2026

Agenda

This was the first Board meeting for new superintendent, Ben Shuldiner. 

Topp welcomed Superintendent Ben Shuldiner and noted his first 10 days included tragic deaths of students and a "beloved" leader (I must have missed something).  She noted his school visits and handling a major event, the Seahawks victory  parade. 

Superintendent Comments

He thanked everyone from teachers to the Seattle community for being so welcoming. He offered condolences on the loss of the two students and called it "heartbreaking." Among his remarks:

"All of our children matter, all of our children are our children."

"Seattle is a pretty amazing city and I have visited over 20 schools."

"Seattle Public Schools are great but we can be better." 

He noted the huge budget deficit. He thanked the head of SEA as well as JSCEE staff.  He also stated he is a Jets fan but congratulated the Seahawks for their Super Bowl victory. 

Student Board Members

Student Director Yoon noted a visit to Ballard High School and how that community appreciated the time. 

She mentioned the Board retreat; I am hoping to see the minutes from that. I don't think it was recorded. 

President Topp said that the Board meeting needed to end promptly at 9 pm.

Liaison Reports

Director Joe Mizrahi is liaison for the City's FEEP levy that funds both community college and pre-K for Seattle residents. He noted that the timeline for SPS budget and City budget for these funds don't align.

Director Liza Rankin, SPS rep for CGCS (Council for Great City Schools) said she talked about issues around ICE issues at schools with this group. 

Director Vivian Song, legislative rep, went over various bills related to public education. One key bill is to raise the level of funding for subs. She noted that at the Budget meeting last week, the spending for subs is one deficit issue.  She also talked about a sales tax bill that passed last session which has a bill this session to exempt public schools from it. 

Public Testimony

There were 23 people on the list and one surprise speaker. Most of the speakers either wanted to speak on HC or safety.  

Most of the HC talk was around the possible addition of two more cohort schools.  (I am behind on my posts and need to write about the HC changes but yes, the district is considering two new HC designated schools, Rainier Beach Elementary and Alki Elementary. ) However, there were complaints about how overly complicated application forms are and this is an equity issue. 

Also of interest was the testimony from a Highland Park Elementary teacher who said HC was not equitable. She said that all teachers should get more PD and that they are being encouraged "to use AI" to provide those services. 

There were several speakers who advocated for Ethnic Studies in SPS, one even starting in kindergarten. 

But there were a couple of moving testimonies about student safety. One Rainier Beach parent said:

"Student safety is not just physical but emotional. The students carry fear. "

She asked for strengthened campus safety measures and asked where are cameras and updated locks that have been promised?

Janis White, former school board candidate, weighed in on Special Education and HC saying that she believed does not address families whose children qualify but also have Special Education needs.She noted that "not one of the HC cohort elementaries - including two new ones - offer any thing beyond resource services. " Which may be a violation of Policy 2190.

And then who was a last minute speaker? Former SB director Michelle Sarju. She was her usual hectoring  self, ignoring the time cues. (She was on the Board for 4 years and still doesn't know public testimony is for 2 minutes, not 3?) 

Among things she said, "The only reason I came is to welcome the new superintendent. That was probably the only best decision we ever made. The biggest threat to his success is the seven chairs. " She claims that the Board is being "performative" on safety.  (I hope that "only reason I came" is true because her coming to the Board to sneer at them is not helpful.)

Really? And what did she do in 4 years on the Board? What initiatives did she bring forth? Hmmm

"For you white people in the room, enslavement is your history and how me and my ancestors survived it is black history. "

Consent Agenda 

Item 4 - a Special Education contract for over $1M - was removed by Director Song. 

Song said she had submitted questions in advance. Staff said when the behavioral support team is considering a non-public placement ,it tends to be more restrictive. OSPI has some recent rule changes about making sure any non-public placement is visited at least once a year. She said local ones tend to get more visits.  She got very in the weeds and I sure would like to hear from a Special Education parent on this. 

Rankin said that this situation of a Special Education contract coming forth with questions from the Board which then gets approval by the Board and she wanted the Superintendent to understand that as the Board has struggled with previous superintendents over it. She didn't ask him for answer but to put it on his radar. 

The item was then passed by the Board.

Action Items

There were two BARs. One was about changing the policy on student school board members. Little discussion, it passed easily. 

The other item was an amendment to Board policy 1240 on committees.  Director Rankin spoke on this, saying that at the Board retreat, she was excited to get clarity on this issue. (This is the same person who wanted, who advocated to get rid of committees but said last night, "this is a great way to delegate board work."

Briggs pushed back a bit on "role clarity" because the Board and Super have different jobs. Song said she believed they need standing committees for long-term planning. It highlights the need for a policy committee to do the work they are speaking of right this minute.

It passed unanimously.

Intro Items

At this point they were through most of the agenda but somehow there was an hour more. I would assume that the Intro items were what took up most of that time. 

One item was Approval of Student Assignment Transition Plan.

Fred Podesta noted changes. There are minor updates but three major ones. 

- Will keep HC cohort schools

- Change enrollment timeline

-Two new HC cohort schools

Director Song asked about the "newcomer program."

Marni Campbell came to the mic for that question. She did say something I completely didn't get. 

"I just want to say I am really happy for Frank Podesta's soul. That it's feeling good right now. So that's great. After the confession, you asked a few questions."

Huh?

Campbell talked about many parents want to keep child in their neighborhood. She went on to say that the World School is also a good choice for these students. But Song said that some schools don't feel supported when they have students who need supports. 

LaVallee said she got lots of feedback from parents about changes and she said proposing a change to the process - mid-process - and confusion coming from that.  She also talked about confusion about the two new HC schools and what they would be offering. 

Campbell said "We own that absolutely." She spoke of allowing access to choice "earlier on." 

Dr. Montgomery, head of Advanced Learning, spoke on the HC changes. "We are prepared - as soon as tomorrow - to send out letters to provide clarity (if the Board were to vote today and the Super approve it which was not going to happen as this was an Intro item.)  

Math acceleration and language arts acceleration that is happening at current cohort schools would happen as well at the two new sites. 

She said both schools are excited about this possibility. Timeline to make this choice for families is March 31st. Podesta comes back to the podium and states the oft-used "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" and should they be offering these changes this year or not? It mentioned capacity issues at some sites and that would help that issue. He thinks "folks don't want to wait a whole other year."

Rankin said - grasping for words - that this is an important step to provide access to more students. She thinks they need clarity on sites forever or could this change?  (I will note that Alki Elementary is new but Rainier Beach Elementary is very much not.)

Schuldiner weighed in. "No question this was done quickly, one might even say hastily, but I think that what you heard well before I became superintendent was an overwhelming desire to create these programs and so I think the staff hearing from both the Board and the community was quite thoughtful. We need to see how it works and then make decisions. " I find that last statement a bit confusing. Is this a pilot? Is this happening before a Board vote? 

LaVallee share the concern of the location (her region containing RB Elementary). She said "it serves some students but not others." 

She asked, "If there are middle school options from this decision for advanced math course work?" Also was there an analysis impact on these plans for enrollment AND for HC? 

Campbell said success does look different to different people as Schuldiner said. LaVallee broke in, asking about measures used to call it a success. 

Montgomery said that all HC students will feed into their pathway middle schools including Washington Middle School. But all of them will have geometry by 8th grade. She said in the HC program they have 2nd graders doing 5th grade math. But she questioned if they have the resources to offer higher math at all schools.

Song asked what the criteria were that led staff to these choices. 

Campbell - capacity, projected enrollment, leadership, readiness of staff.

Second item was: 

Amendment to Board Policy Nos. 6114, Gifts, Grants, and Donations and 6220, Procurement. Approval of this item would amend Board Policy No. 6114, Gifts, Grants, and Donations and Board Policy No. 6220, Procurement, as attached to the Board Action Report. 

Two things would happen from this - lower Board approval for contracts from $1M to $500,000 and second, change the level of Board approval for grants from $250,00 to $500,000.  I found her reasoning - looking at money going out the door more intently and less for money coming in the door - to be sound.

Rankin says it might be a good idea for this to be moved to one of the new committees they just voted in.  She is also concerned about the grants issue. (Again,  this from the person who helped raise the amount needed for Board oversight on spending from $250,000 to $1M.)

Mizrahi thought that it would be easier to get money than spend it so this works for him. "One thing, though, that bugs me is a contract just under the threshold and then we spend over that and the money has already been spent." Song said that is something that needs to be addressed. 

Also on the agenda, the required declarations about conflict sof interest from the Board and senior staff.

There was nothing of interest from the staff declarations.  I note that several of the Board members do serve on non-profit boards and that is to their credit. Also, I think the Board should be required to be specific on where they and their partners work currently and if they have family members in the district, who they are and what is the relationship.