Seattle School Board Meeting Coming Up, March 11, 2026

Wednesday night sees a regular Board meeting on the calendar. Here's the agenda. The Board office is still taking names for public testimony but if I see any trends there when it is released, I'll update this post. 

Items of note from the agenda:

- Licton Springs@Webster is losing its principal, Ammon McWashington, Jr. That does not seem a good sign.

Consent Agenda

- Approval of funding from the City's FEPP (Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise) program at over $16M. 

This funding will allow the District to continue operating 43 current Seattle Preschool Program (SPP) classrooms, convert three SPP classrooms to SPP Plus, and add two new SPP Plus classrooms for a total of 48 classrooms in the 2026-27 school year. 

Boy, the City is just chugging right along in expansion in SPS.  The SPP Plus classrooms are for Special Education PK students and the SPP DLL is for dual-language PK. But, if you think about it, the City sees SPS enrollment falling and then their program fills those empty classrooms. 

Question is, when SPS closes some schools (and they will), what happens to all those SPP students?

I continue to note that the City pays the district zero in rent for those classrooms. 

- There is also an acceptance item for summer learning from the Puget Sound Educational Service District.  I see this in the BAR:

SPS moved from half-day programming to full day programming with afternoon Science,Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) enrichment opportunities provided by community-based organizations.

Beginning in the summer of 2026, the program day will expand from 6.5 hours to 8 hours, including three hours of academic instruction, increased free-play recess, structured play to build Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) skills, a whole-school community breakfast, and afternoon STEAM enrichment provided by a community-based organization. Intentional support is provided for students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs), with case managers ensuring that all necessary documentation and accommodations are in place so every student can be fully engaged, enriched, and enjoy a fun summer experience. Based on family feedback via empathy interviews, the district has also ensured that each of our summer sites are able to offer on-site childcare for families, and transportation is provided for any student living beyond a one mile walk zone. The Summer Quarter also provides all necessary supplies, meals, and snacks for every student.

Currently, the district has 6,000 students who qualify for the Elementary Summer Quarter and only 1,500 seats available. Summer Discovery would support Seattle Public Schools being able to increase our 1,500 seats by adding 1,300 seats for a total of 2,800 seats.

- In the "you never know what you will find reading BARs" category, I was reading over the BAR about the renovation of Aki Kurose Middle School ($158M) and found this notation:

Lastly, WAC 392-347-030 requires that any school facilities modernized under WAC 392-347-015 must be used for instructional purposes for at least five years beyond the completion of the modernization (date as determined by the board’s final acceptance of the project) and WAC 392-347-015 requires that the proposed modernization project will extend the life of the modernized school facility by at least 30 years (again as determined by the board’s final acceptance of the project), and that the board adopt a resolution in this regard. This requirement applies to the Aki Kurose Middle School Modernization and Addition project.

While this law is likely a given for all the renovated buildings in SPS, it is good to know it's out there.

- There was this citation in the BAR for acceptance of the work done at Concord Elementary School:

The construction project was not able to meet the 15% Apprenticeship Utilization rate, but the contract did put forth a Good Faith Effort to achieve it.  

Learned something new because GFE is a construction term. 

Action Items

-  Approving updates to the Student Assignment Plan for 2026-2027

- Dueling interests in the Board Policy around "gift, grants, donations, and fundraising proceeds" as well as "procurement." Director Vivian Song has one amendment to the policy while Director Liza Rankin. I perceive that most of Rankin's amendment was written by AI. 

- A new Board policy No. 2416 that would allow a performance-based pathway for high school graduation for students in ALE (Alternative Learning Experience) programs.

Intro Items

- CSIP plans (Continuous School Improvement Plan). These are plans each school has to provide under state law but they are usually vague especially around serving HC students. 

- Looks like the district has finally decided that electronic payments to vendors should be implemented (they do this for employees already). 

- Adoption of K-5 English Language Arts Instructional Materials

This would be for the McGraw Hill Emerge! ELA. This will cost the district $9M ...

including student books, consumables and licensing to digital products for school years 2026-27 through 2034-2035 and professional development beginning Spring and Summer 2026 and extending through school year 2028-29.

Seattle Public Schools adopted Center for the Collaborative Classroom (CCC) as its K–5 English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum in May 2017 following a review of ten vendors, with CCC ranked highest by teachers, families, and field testers for its foundational skills instruction, usability, and comprehensive reading supports. Now in its eighth year, the curriculum no longer meets district needs.

Most importantly, the curriculum’s pedagogy does not reflect current literacy research or alignment with the Science of Reading, including the need for systematic, whole-class explicit phonics instruction, intentional integration of reading, vocabulary, and writing, consistent use of grade-level complex texts, and coherent knowledge-building structures to develop students’ background knowledge and comprehension.

In May, 2025, a K-5 ELA Adoption Committee was formed, in compliance with Board Policy No. 2015, Selection and Adoption of Instructional Materials, to begin the process of selecting new materials aligned with the Science of Reading.

But look at this:

The adoption committee examined Round I survey data from families and communities as part of their decision-making process when naming finalists. Families and community members were invited to participate in a review of all ten vendors in Round I. Through schools, social media, Smore and Talking Points, families learned about the review. Links to instructional resources for every grade level were available as were videos from each vendor describing their programs. Once their review was complete, families and community took a survey, resulting in the following favorability

Ratings Round 1:

-American Reading Company 97%

-Amplify 94%

-Arts and Letters 85%

-McGraw Hill 74%

McGraw Hill was at the bottom? Hmm. They then eliminated American Reading Company - the highest ranked one - because it had "limited cultural authenticity and lack of diverse and contemporary representation in their materials which is not in alignment with district policy 0030, which calls for racially equitable, inclusive and culturally responsive instructional materials that reflect and affirm the identities of all students."

So, how the heck did it even get on the list in the first place? Again, hmmm.

Ratings Round 2

Both Amplify and McGraw Hill show strikingly similar data with McGraw Hill at a slight advantage:

- Amplify CKLA - Staff Survey 2 positivity rating: 73%, Family & Community positivity rating: 92%

- Great Minds Arts & Letters with Really Great Reading - Staff Survey 2 positivity rating: 89%

Family & Community 2 positivity rating: 76%

- McGraw Hill Emerge! - Staff Survey 2 positivity rating: 73%, 

Family & Community 2 positivity rating: 96%

But, but, what about Great Minds Arts&Letters with Real Great Reading with the highest scores? No explanation of how it got kicked out. Kinda feels like the fix was in for Emerge!

- 2026 Board Goals Proposal

Goals

1. Publicly recognize the efforts of schools in improving student learning

(WSSDA Assessment question 55, Standard 4)

Lead: Full Board

• Establish structure and cadence for presentation of student work at Regular Board Meetings

2. Ensure the public is well-informed of the Board’s roles and responsibilities

(WSSDA Assessment question 67, Standard 5)

Lead: Policy Committee

• Establish clear and consistent practices for how new policy ideas and individual Board actions are introduced, considered, and advanced.

3. Ensure a high degree of coherence between the district plan and school improvement plans

(WSSDA Assessment question 53, Standard 4)

Lead: Operations Committee

4. Provide guidelines for budget development, including a clearly defined expectation for a reasonable ending fund balance and that the process includes seeking public input.

(WSSDA Assessment questions 48/49, Standard 3)

Lead: Finance & Audit Committee

Presentation of student work at Board meetings? While I miss some of the student performances that used to happen at Board meetings, they also took up time. I'm not sure this one should be in the top four goals. 

But I love the third one which would hopefully hold schools accountable to their CSIP.

As for the last one, they need to define "reasonable ending fund balance."