Board Special Meeting, March 18, 2026

 As I mentioned in my wrap-up of the last Seattle School Board meeting on March 11th, the agenda was so full that President Gina Topp had to schedule another one (a "special meeting") to cover the Introduction items. Agenda.

 

There was a large amount of time spent discussing the new curriculum for K-5 English Language Arts. The proposed pick is McGraw Hill's Emerge! Elementary School Curriculum.  Superintendent Shuldiner acknowledged the K-5 English Language Adoption Selection committee and how long and hard they worked to make this selection, saying it was an 18-month process. He brought up Mike Starosky, Kathleen Vasquez, and Cachel Toner to sit with him and answer questions. All of them are on the Academic side. 

He stated that one important part of teaching is professional development which would include literacy coaching, a reading plan, and a curriculum "that allows our teachers to be able to have the supports and tools that they need to address the learning needs of all of our students." 

He stated that the new curriculum is aligned to the Science of Reading as well as HB 1295 around professional development and teacher supports. 

He and the panel took questions and concerns from Board directors.

Director Evan Briggs said she was worried about how new the selected curriculum is and "the relatively short pilot window that we had to test it out in our schools, and that the superintendent "wasn't in any way involved in the process." She said, "I would feel way more confident in voting yes to spend this money and adopt this new curriculum." She asked what it would look like to wait a year. 

She was told that it couldn't be a year but another 18 months. Basically, they said it would be "very difficult to go back to." 

Briggs said she understood that the superintendent is not part of the process but asked if he could weigh into the Board about his thoughts on this curriculum. Shuldiner said he was happy to give his thoughts but said he had not been at SPS when most of the work happened. 

Starosky said the Board could ask the committee and the team questions "so you feel comfortable with the work they did because I would never want to take the legs out from underneath all the hard work that was done."

I'll pause here to remark that you will find staff - from all departments - will always use this reasoning. "It's wrong to disregard the committee's work, blah, blah." I would agree that thought must be put into any changes at this point but this district has had many committees where they ignored the outcome and did something else.  

Questions from Directors

Rankin: When does the current K-5 adoption expire. 

Toner said it was adopted in 2017 so it was at the end of its cycle.  She said the publisher of the current curriculum doesn't make it any more "so this year we have a year extension for them to continue to give us access to it."

There was discussion around dual language use of the curriculum. Currently, those teachers are apparently creating their own content. 

Rankin asked about K-5 students with disabilities and would they be able to use this curriculum? 

Toner answered that they DO purchase with all students in mind. She also said there are "funds available at the school level that are designed for teachers working with IEPs around what those students need.

Rankin continued saying, schools with higher disability needs have to buy separate materials and curriculum from their building funds and "it's really a shame that they are not supported centrally."

Rankin said that Cascade Parent Partnership creates their own curriculum for both remote learning and in-person.

Director Vivian Song spoke up next and had three questions. One was if the Board was voting only for this recommendation alone. Yes it is and if you voted no, the process would have to be restarted.

Two, was what was it about Emerge! that you felt like it was going to serve our Special Education students and our multilingual students in a way other curriculums could not. 

Vasquez said, the Committee looked at foundation skill instruction (which has been a problem). They needed to be reading in third grade where we aren't still teaching them then. As well, working on phonics and early learning. 

She went on to say it was a very "high caliber group of teachers" who had worked on the committee, including reading specialists and Special Education teachers. She said the curriculum is "a whole group foundational skill instruction model." It also helps support students with dyslexia and teacher corrective feedback. She said struggling students need "multiple exposures  in order for learning to take hold."

She said it is a culturally responsive text that is "very much aligned to the science and social studies instruction." She said the other curriculum had these qualities as well. She said this curriculum had instruction language support for dual language. 

Song's last question was about using capital funds to pay for the curriculum, is it a WAC or a budget proviso?  Basically, "what is the mechanism that enables us to use capital funds to pay for curriculum and is there criteria that we had to meet in order to be able to do that?"

Toner said, the levy language had intersectionality with the digital component so those capital dollars could be accessed and "it's challenging to hold 9 or so million dollars of General Fund. She said it wasn't 
"ideal" to use levy funds but "that's sort of our reality right now." 

It was noted this had been done before. 

Song - "I think in this particular curriculum, what gives me a little pause is the kind of discomfort around kinders and first graders learning on an iPad. What is the curriculum for them that is not digital?"

Toner started about there being anchor charts "well beyond the walls" and manipulatives for kids to use. But the digital offers opportunities for collaboration especially for teams. But in the lower grades, apparently, the "digital part is pretty limited."

There are 2-hour literacy block times with about 20 minutes on digital.

Director Joe Mizrahi brought up the idea of a "sort of crisis where we have learning from home" but what about the reverse of that, "some sort of directive from the school board or superintendent to limit technology use in the classrooms, especially in younger classrooms, and would this be flexible enough to be used without access to technology."

The answer was teachers could log info online or in a physical form. 

Director Jen LaVallee had a question about the 9 year timeline for using this curriculum. "A lot can change in 9 years and if there are shifts in learning, is there flexibility in some of this? Or will it become out of date quickly and we're still paying for it. "

Vasquez said apparently this DID happen for grade 6-8 ELA where the company changed some items but the district contract had language in it for it to receive any updates (which wasn't done for the last K-5 adoption). 

Another question about the Science of Reading and trainings for teachers because SPS has not used this methodology. 

Dr. Starosky said the district "definitely does have strong leaders both at the building level and central level who are expertly trained in the Science of reading. He said using SoR will "prepare students for advanced coursework." The district has a 3-year professional development plan that does include "stand-alone SoR. 

Mizrahi asked about process, um, one thing I noticed was Hill scored the lowest at 74% and then, in feedback round two, when it was with the smaller adoption committee, it was that it tied with the Amplify or in roughly the same position. So wondering what the reason was for that delta between those two phases?

 

Vasquez answer that in the RFP asked for every grade level about not getting only a sampling at two grade levels but every other provider had all grade levels. Somehow the verbage was such to vendors for just one grade and that's all McGraw Hill sent. But in field testing, McGraw hill scored higher. 

 

Director Smith asked about community feedback and the different rounds and transparency.

 

Vasquez said the K-5 ELA adoption website has all our minutes from every single meeting. This got a very lengthy answer that centered around bias and sensitivity issues. Apparently the two curriculums that did not win "the bias and sensitivity issues were egregious." 

 

Director Smith said she will have a kindergartener and worries about any delay in adopting new curriculum for K-5 ELA.  

 

Song circled back to the question of why a 9-year contract. Oddly, the panel seemed a bit stumped.

 

Toner answer was that they want all teachers to use it and so a longer duration ensures that but they are open to feedback. 

 

Song thought there were no dual language reps on the Committee but apparently there was a dual language teacher from Concord Elementary on the committee.

 

Superintendent Shuldiner said yeah, a 9-year contract is very long and not typical in education "because the world changes really, really quickly." But he feels it is a good curriculum. 

 

I" think that again in the next 3 or 4 weeks to understand why and then are there outs, right? "A lot of times you can sign a 9-year contract with the idea that after 2 or 3, you can say thank you, we're both going to move on." But he quickly said, you don't really want to do that. 

 

He worries about our large multi-learner population as well as dual language programs. And, as well, that it will be able to worry with HC students who are learning faster.  

 

Mizrahi asked about amendment that the contract is not to exceed 9 years or $9M. What might a 7 or 8 year contract look like?

 

I will pause here as that topic for discussion ended there. Just as at the Board meeting and the long and open discussion around the policy on spending caps, this was a good, meaty discussion. This district needs more of this because then it allows the Board to ask important questions. I don't know if Topp or Shuldiner or both are responsible for this happening but I think it a good thing.

 

For the Board not to just rubberstamp the choice and to ask the whys of cost, length of contract, and how this works for specific learning groups makes me very happy. Under SOFG, there is no way this would happen. 

 

The next discussion was around the legally required CSIPs (Continuous School Improvement Plan) for each school and ALE (alternative learning experiences).

Ted Howard led this discussion and he said within a school their BLT sits down "with communities and families to align their time, interventions and budget to close the achievement gap." 

One, does every school have a BLT? Does every BLT include at least one parent rep? Does every school bring their community into this work? Hmmm

Questions from the Board

Director Rankin asked about alignment and "making it more relevant." The answer mentioned how the CSIPs had evolved over time from even 5 years ago. It was noted that there could be conversations about what "continuous school improvement plans look like." 

 

The next item was about updating payments to be electronic for vendors and ending the practice of paper checks. Not a lot of discussion there.

 

The last item was about sponsorships for proposed WSSDA (Washington State School Directors Association) positions. Rankin lead this discussion.  Some of the discussion was around curbing gun violence, cellphones, AI, and screentime in general. 

 

Those were the Intro items. They then moved to an item that was added on March 17th with no attached documentation - Grants Process Update. The Superintendent introduced Kurt Buttleman of Finances about website updates for more "clear information, more succinct information" and they had sent that info to principals with a template if they have grant donations over $250,000. Those should be sent back to the district by March 31st. The Board would have to vote to accept it.

The Superintendent said it was "a complicated thing" but it was good that they created a new structure in the form of the template. After the template is received, the regional ED would work with others at JSCEE to create a BAR for acceptance. 

There then was discussion about possible upcoming displacements that include math teachers and that info must be done by May 15th. 

 Director Rankin observed that in some places policy is not being followed and PTA isn't even mentioned in the policy and yet "at some point in the system, PTAs were treated differently than other grantmaking organizations in a totally inappropriate way."

To which I ask, whose fault is that?

Fine, change the policy, enforce the policy but it's not any PTA's fault. 

 

The last discussion was around the listed Board Goals.

They adjourned at 6:38 pm.