More From Wednesday's Board Meeting on Recess As Well As Teacher Contract

Here's the transcript from the School Board meeting on Wednesday, September 16, 2026. 

This is what Superintendent Ben Shuldiner had to say on the subject of elementary school recess. In short, he is saying that schools need to show their work. Meaning, are you meeting state requirements for teaching time for subjects? I'll highlight pertinent sections.

I really do want to thank everybody who has reached out to discuss some of the things that came up in my last week's newsletter and I'm happy to certainly pontificate on this a lot. 

I had a really wonderful meeting in Magnolia. 

We packed the house last night at a community meeting and really what I want to make sure people understand is that Our job is to make sure that our children are getting a holistic education and part of that is certainly recess, part of that is PE, part of that is lunch, but it's also of course English and math and science and social studies. 

And what we did was we looked at the schedules that were already in existence. 

About 75% of our schools had a structure around three, around two recesses. 

25% of the schools had a structure around two recesses, sorry, around three recesses. 

And we just wanted to make sure that we had some sort of codification.
And we also have to be cognizant about some of the state laws.
You know, there is a law that says you have to have 100 minutes of P.E.
every week. 

I'll be honest, I'm really not sure we're hitting all of that and we gotta make sure that we focus on that. 

We also have requirements in terms of ELA and math and even though we don't have a particular full social studies curriculum, there are standards within the state of Washington as well as of course the Time Immemorial structure.
And so what we wanted to do was present a a schedule that we thought made a lot of sense. 

But we also know that each school has its own individual needs.
And so by creating a waiver system, all we wanted to say to the principals and the schools was, look, if you want three recesses, hey, if you want four recesses, if you want to change it from this kind of like draft expected schedule.
We just need to know, are you in fact meeting the requirements? 

That's it. 

That's really what we want to do. 

And so what we've been able to see is some thoughtful conversations already with some principals, where instead of having science five days a week and social studies five days a week for 45 minutes and 30 minutes, there was a conversation with one of the schools was, hey, could we do a three and two where we do science for three days a week and social studies for two days a week as long as we can prove that we're hitting the Amplify curriculum and the state standards for social studies. 

Sounds great. And so we just want to make sure that as a district we are really focusing on getting the kids what they need in a holistic manner. 

But what I don't want to see happen is 106 schools doing 106 different things and some of them not even meeting the state requirements or the curricular requirements that this board has passed. 

We did collectively pass a ELA curriculum adoption from K-5 and it is 120 minutes a day. That's the deal, and that was what was approved. 

 

I, as the shepherd of the district in some respects, have to make sure that we're saying within the structure of the day, we're gonna do that.
But please don't think that this is fifth graders sitting in a chair for 120 minutes. 

The reason why this curriculum was adopted was because it is a panoply of different activities. Hands on, small group, independent, there's all sorts of things that go on in 120 minutes. 

It's not like a kid is just sitting in a chair, you know, listening to a teacher lecture.
So, you know, again, I know there's a lot of people that care deeply about this and they want to be very clear about what they think is best for their child.
I think that's wonderful. 

Pease just reach out to your principal and make sure that they are aware of and that they work with you on creating a waiver and it's possible that the waiver might want to include more time for music those are things too but as a district we need to be very clear about trying to have some sort of expectation that we can then modify from. 

But the thing that worried me the most was that the district didn't even have a standardized set of expectations of what English, math, history, science, art, music looked like.

And that's where this all came from.

And the last thing I'll say, I know it's 5:01, but the last thing I'll say is it's not like this was done in a vacuum what was happening was large conversations with multiple schools around their current structure and trying to find a kind of best fit that would say look this seems like a pretty good baseline and if we want to do a change let's work off of this baseline rather than some other baseline.

So I'm happy again to answer any questions.

I know a lot of people have emailed me and trying to get back to you.

But really please know that with the recess conversation, it's really not about recess per se.

It's about making sure that the child, especially our K-5 children, are getting a holistic education in a way that we deem that we're hitting the state rules, the district rules, and what's great for kids.

Now onto the discussion that occurred before the Board vote on the new teachers contract.

In a nutshell, the Superintendent believes it's a good contract that buys the district "another year" of breathing room as they continue to stop the financial bleeding. 

Director Vivian Song asked about "the financial implications of this contract."

Shuldiner (partial):

We are broke, we have an $87 million deficit, depending on how you look at it, and we're gonna have about $40 million left in the bank after this year.

And so what I was really thankful around from SCA was a reality and an understanding of our current situation.

The cola that's in the contract allows us to catch our breath.

Now there are some additions, things like the longevity, but those met out to not that much.

There's this wonderful part that is in the contract around VEBA, but that doesn't start until the second year.

So what I feel very comfortable about with this contract is that it gives us a year of breathing room.

Now, I've been very clear, this year, starting now, the 26-27 school year, is going to involve a lot of cuts.

If we had agreed to a lot more, we weren't gonna be at that 40 million, we were gonna be at negative, and then that means binding conditions.

Now, in year two, It certainly does add more money.

So it's COLA plus 0.5 or COLA plus 0.75, depending.

And it does add some other FTEs.

But the hope is that through the hard work and determination of the entire district, over the course of this current year, we're gonna be able to save money so that we will be able to kind of be okay.

He also said this:

And so I feel very comfortable that certainly for the 26-27 school year, unless something crazy happens, which it could, right, like a huge lawsuit that we have to pay out, yeah, that's money that we're not counting on.

To which I say - wait for it. Maybe not this year but yes, there are several cases coming down the pike and payouts will happen. But that's part of the long-term work - NOT having these situations escalate to that point.

Song also said this (which is important to know as school districts around the state ask for more money):

I think over the course of this process I learned something new that for example about the effect of IPD. So I think it would be interesting for us as we're developing the subsequent budgets to really understand what is funded by the prototypical formula and what is above and beyond .

So for example I can see immediately the prototypical formula does not fund these additional nurses and psychologists and what I think is interesting is like at the same time the state is requiring us to do increase work that would require increased staffing but then we're also not funded so as we're developing the budget it would be helpful to understand the limitations

Shuldiner:

Yeah, I would be thrilled to point out all of the unfunded mandates that we have from the state, and I think our wonderful partners in SEA would be very happy to join us in pointing that out as well.

One of the problems with being a superintendent, and there are many, is that you can only play the hand that's dealt to you.

And we have been dealt a hand that includes lots of rules and regulations and not a funding formula that comes anywhere close to that.

And so my hope is that We get through this wonderful process, and we all hold hands and link arms and say to Olympia, you need to fund us appropriately.

I mean, the big one that certainly SEA has nothing to do with, transportation.

We spend 77% more than what we're given because the formulas they use for Seattle are the same formulas for Walla Walla.

And the last time I checked, going across the Ship Canal is a little bit different than driving some back road somewhere.

Director Joe Mizrahi asked about Special Education and worries that it's something of "kicking the can down the road."

Shuldiner:

Let's rethink everything, right?

SCA and SPS inherited this contract.

It's not like we all wrote this just yesterday.

It's a contract that is additive.

Every paragraph, every page is one more thing and one more thing.

And sometimes you need to just step back and go, wait a second.

Let's be friends here.

Let's be thought partners here.

Let's start and say what's best for kids.

And I'm so thrilled that by year three, we're going to be able to do the thing.

And then I think not only will it really help our children, but it'll allow our district to be structured in a way that allows us to stay solvent.

To which Mizrahi said:

I think that anyone who's been around Seattle politics, and definitely I think school politics, Hearing the terms study group, pilots, it triggers a generational trauma response.

But this is not that, right?

These are definite things with teeth, defined terms, that both the union and and SPS have to agree to.

So I want to highlight that when I was looking at this, it was clear to me that this is different than what we hear often when we hear about study groups.

Shuldiner:

I mean, there is a specific timeline, there's a specific outcome, and there's a specific way that the only way the pilots stop is if it's mutually agreed to.

That's really powerful.

That is a sense of trust that I hope people really recognize.

Is it, Gentlemen? I think time will tell on that one. 

And then we come to the lengthy remarks of Director Liza Rankin. This section is definitely a partial one:

What I am concerned about is what I have seen that predates everybody up here and I think and most people out here as well.

The cards we've been dealt, as you say.

What we have is, so my concern is around provisions in this contract that are big outliers from other systems, even in Washington state, that really conflict with the ability of the board to set direction on behalf of the community and the superintendent to be able to implement that direction and then be held accountable for results.

There has been a lot of confusion in Seattle about who's in charge of what, who gets to decide, and a lot of what would be funny if it didn't impact kids in our community so much is that a lot of the consternation around having a governance framework based on best practices was worry that the board was giving away its power.

if you know board governance and if you know policy and if you've read this agreement, 25 years ago the board gave away all its power.

It's all in the CBA.

Governance authority on behalf of the community who elects us is actually not available to us in a lot of ways.

She also says this and I appreciate her honesty.

2022, I wanted to vote no because the plan of solvency didn't make any sense and I was really concerned about special education.

I was sold a bill of goods and am embarrassed that I agreed to look collegial and vote yes so that it would look good for everybody because one no vote wouldn't make a difference anyway is what I allowed myself to be convinced and I don't care about that as much anymore and it has nothing to do with you Ben and it has nothing to do with you SEA leadership, it has to do with my experience being through this cycle and being I just won't believe it till I see it.

Here's her point on Special Education and it is a good one:

So in 2022, recommits to a joint special education task force with members from the Seattle Education Association, special education central office staff, and family representatives to plan for the transition to more inclusive practices throughout the system.

That was four years ago, and now we're talking like that never happened.

And that's really frustrating and sad and what was really, really hard was to see the same weaponization and othering of students with disabilities being used for leverage in a bargaining that's about adult working conditions.

Here's her example:

A specific example where policy conflicts with what's in this contract, that again is not something that was discussed this cycle, I don't believe, is isolation and restraint.

Our policy on isolation and restraint is centered around providing safe environments for children and says that physical intervention is a last resort when there is a serious risk of eminent harm.

That means you do not grab children unless there's something really serious about to happen and there's no other option.

We set that policy.

That policy was supported by the broader community and by a lot of educators.

The contract says teachers can grab kids if they feel like it.

Not in those words, but So our policy doesn't matter.

She concludes with:

The policy that we adopted based on the values of our community is unable to be implemented because the contract says actually you're allowed to do that.

But my vote's going to be no because I can't, with full knowledge, say yes to violating our policies that are intended to protect our students.

I would love to talk more about how between now and year three, can we have some collaborative conversations about where the CBA and policy and management pieces might conflict.



Director Kathleen Smith had thoughtful comments and one area she questioned was about AI. President Gina Topp noted that there will be an informational study session on Technology that includes AI, probably in November.

What no one said (but I will) is that the AI addressed in the contract is ONLY around teachers. And I guess that makes sense but WHAT ABOUT THE STUDENTS? 

As an aside, I really need to start a list of all the interesting verbiage that the Superintendent uses in explaining issues. At this meeting it was - Tablula Rasa "this idea of let's start from putting kids first."

He also had this good line:

Because anybody who's ever been in the classroom, the old adage of culture eats strategy for breakfast, relationships eats everything for breakfast.