The Board Office maintains the archive for documents that were presented at the meeting. Due to the June 2015 change to the district website, documents for this meeting are provided on the pages below.

Work Session: City of Seattle’s Families & Education Levy Update; Work Session: Program Changes-Process, Communication, & Decision-Making; and

Work Session: Superintendent SMART Goal #3, Special Education Wednesday, March 23, 2016, 4:30-8:00pm

Auditorium, John Stanford Center

Agenda

Call to Order 4:30pm Work Session: City of Seattle’s Families & Education Levy Update Levy Investment Overview

Supporting SPS Goals o Academic Milestones o Commitment to Equity o Effective Teachers and Leaders o Positive School Environments o Stakeholder Engagement and Satisfaction

Next Steps

Work Session: Program Changes - Process, Communication, and Decision-Making

5:30pm*

Overview of suggested amendments to Board policies and procedures

Discussion: What problem(s) are we trying to solve?

Current System

Linkages/Impact

Feedback

Next Steps

Work Session: Superintendent SMART Goal #3: Special Education 7:00pm* Review of SMART Goal 3

MOU background

MOU verification activities and preparation

Progress update

Successes and challenges

Principal feedback

Example of process improvement – Indicator 12

Working towards sustained impact

Data systems and reporting

Central Office operations

Questions

Adjourn 8:00pm*

(*times given are estimated)

Board Special Meeting

2445 – 3rd

Avenue South, Seattle WA 98134

D E P A R T M E N T O F E D U C A T I O N A N D E A R L Y L E A R N I N G F a m i l i e s a n d E d u c a t i o n L e v y 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 S c h o o l Y e a r O v e r v i e w a n d H i g h l i g h t s C I T Y O F S E AT T L E | S E AT T L E S C H O O L B O A R D

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 1

PURPOSE OF TODAY’S PRESENTATION

Families and Education Levy Annual Presentation Agenda

• Levy Investment Overview • Supporting SPS Goals

– Academic Milestones – Commitment to Equity – Effective Teachers and Leaders – Positive School Environments – Stakeholder Engagement and

Satisfaction • Next Steps

Inform new School Board members of the work of the Families and Education Levy

Recognize successes from the 2014-15 SY and opportunities for improvement

Identify additional areas where SPS and the City can partner as we work toward common goals

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 2

L E V Y I N V E S T M E N T O V E R V I E W

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 3

2011 FAMILIES & EDUCATION LEVY

• The Families and Education Levy is ...

– A property tax levy approved by Seattle voters in 2011, with funding awarded from school year 2012-13 through 2018-19

– Administered by the City's Dept. of Education & Early Learning, in collaboration with the Seattle School District

– Accountable to a community Levy Oversight Committee and the Seattle City Council

– Built on previous levies approved in 1990, 1997, and 2004

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 4

2011 FAMILIES & EDUCATION LEVY • Innovation and Linkage Schools

– Seattle’s public elementary, middle and high schools that meet criteria for at-risk populations are eligible to apply to become Innovation schools.

– All Seattle public middle or K-8 schools are eligible to apply to become Linkage Schools.

• Summer Learning – Summer learning programs in elementary, middle, and high schools, as well as in community-based

organizations.

• Family Support – Community-based family support focuses on closing the achievement gap for low-income students,

students of color, and English Language Learners.

• Health – School-based health services focus on treating and preventing health issues that interfere with

academic achievement, including immunizations, chronic disease management, reproductive health care, oral health, and behavioral health counseling.

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 5

Children will be ready for school

All students will achieve academically and the

achievement gap will be reduced

All students will graduate from school college/career ready

Goals

Process for Achieving Levy Goals

Families and Education Levy Goals

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 6

DEEL sets contract

Indicator and Outcome

targets

• Unique annual targets set for each

provider/school based on historical

data

DEEL provides data and ongoing

analytical support to grantees

Grantees make course

corrections to improve

implementation efforts

Students achieve improved outcomes

Continuous Improvement Cycle

2011 FAMILIES AND EDUCATION LEVY PROGRAM INVESTMENTS

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 7

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Award Majority of Investments (New Elementary, Summer Learning, and Pilot Community-Based Family

Support Awards)

Analyze Implementation Efforts and Make Course Corrections

Review Student Outcomes

$20.9 M

$26. M $28.9 M

$31.9 M $35. M

$38.1 M $39.6 M

Note: Totals include administrative costs.

Third Year of Implementation

2014-15 FAMILIES AND EDUCATION LEVY ANNUAL BUDGET

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 8

Note: School- and Community-Based Family Support funds are represented within Elementary. Summer Learning funds are represented in the Elementary, Middle, and High School areas. Budgeted funds include administrative costs and will therefore differ from total amounts awarded on slide 3.

Early Learning and School Readiness

$7.7M 27%

Elementary Academic

Achievement $6.4M 22%

Middle School Academic

Achievement $5.9M 21%

High School Academic

Achievement $2.6M

9%

Student Health $6.3M 22%

TOTAL = $28.9 MILLION

$12.7 MILLION IN K-12 LEVY INVESTMENTS DIRECT TO SPS

$3,933 $3,894

$1,921

$1,340

$604 $553 $496

Middle SchoolInnovation &

Linkage

ElementaryInnovation

High SchoolInnovation

Family SupportProgram

School HealthSupport

Sports andTransportation

Summer Learning

SPS Direct Funding (In Thousands)

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 9

DISTRIBUTION OF 2014-15 FAMILIES AND EDUCATION LEVY INVESTMENTS

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 10

• Levy Investments spread throughout the City

• Many sites have multiple Levy investments

• Concentration of Levy investments in southeast and south west

L E V Y S U P P O R T S S P S G O A L S 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 S C H O O L Y E A R

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board

11

LEVY WORK SUPPORTS DISTRICT GOALS

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 12

Categories • Academic Milestones

• Commitment to Equity

• Effective Teachers and

Leaders

• Positive School Environments

• Stakeholder Engagement and Satisfaction

ACADEMIC MILESTONES & COMMITMENT TO EQUIT Y: 3RD AND 7TH GRADERS DEMONSTRATE PROFICIENCY IN MATH AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS • Additional instructional time with teachers during the school day and in before and after school

programming.

• Expanded learning opportunities provided by community partners, such as the Parks Department, City Year, Communities in Schools, and University Tutors.

• Teacher professional development, enriching Multi-Tier System of Support (MTSS) for students, supporting professional learning communities, and utilizing data analysis for monitoring progress of student learning.

• Attendance Campaigns run in collaboration between school staff, health providers, and community partners that focus on engaging students and families and addressing barriers that prevent students from getting to school.

• Summer Learning Last summer, DEEL funded 12 summer programs serving more than 1,000 elementary and middle school students across 18 sites.

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 13

ACADEMIC MILESTONES & COMMITMENT TO EQUIT Y: 9TH GRADERS EARNING SUFFICIENT CREDITS

• Link Crew provided peer to peer mentoring, engagement and academic activities to connect 9th graders to high school.

• Math Labs provided struggling students with opportunities to master key math skills, making them

more likely to complete Algebra.

• Focus Classes provided struggling students extra academic and social/emotional support to help students pass core courses.

• Summer Learning Last summer, DEEL funded 4 summer programs serving more than 540 high school students across 7 sites.

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the

Seattle School Board 14

EFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND LEADERS: EACH AND EVERY STUDENT IS TAUGHT BY A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE TEACHER • Partnership with the University of Washington provided over 200 teachers the opportunity to

participate in the Teacher and Leadership Academies, Math and Literacy Professional Development and Learning Labs offering educators job-embedded professional learning experiences in mathematics and literacy.

• The Empowerment Math Project (EMP) supported teachers, working to change the math mindset of hundreds of middle school students. Second year of implementation and seeing promising results in student academic growth. The EMP program was highlighted here on the Seattle Channel.

• Math and Literacy Professional Learning Communities to enhance strong core instruction and intervention support.

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 15

POSITIVE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT: POSITIVE SCHOOL CLIMATE, MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT • Levy-funded elementary schools employed specific social-emotional learning curriculum and used a tiered

approach to supporting individual student growth as well as classroom and school culture. RULER has been a critical part of this strategy and was highlighted on the Seattle Channel.

• Levy-funded health services staff worked alongside school staff to support elementary school social emotional learning initiatives leading to reduced student discipline issues.

• Growth mindset training for staff at the elementary, middle and high school levels, helping teachers help students to develop key 21st century learning skills, including persistence, effort & self-reflection.

• Middle school teachers participated in Sound Grading Practices professional development, aimed at bringing transparency, clear expectations, and mastery of skills to the forefront of grading.

• School-based health providers increased the use of standardized mental health assessment and progress monitoring to measurably reduce depression and anxiety.

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 16

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND SATISFACTION: POSITIVE FAMILY RESPONSE TO FAMILY ENGAGEMENT SURVEY • Student and Family Support Professional Development and Collaboration brings

together school staff and community-based organizations with the purpose of creating a stronger system of social, emotional, and family supports.

• Home Visits and Parenting Classes to support families and help address barriers to learning such as student attendance.

• Student-Led Conferences at the middle and high school level provide students an opportunity to share their academic and personal goals with school staff and a family member.

• Mother’s Night Out events for mothers in the Somali community started as a small group between South Shore PreK-8 and Graham Hill ES and has grown to include over 100 families from 7 schools in the southeast region.

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 17

N E X T S T E P S

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 18

OPPORTUNITIES TO LEARN AND COLLABORATE • New SPS/DEEL partnership process

• Invitation to visit a Levy-funded site in your region

• Possible future presentations/discussions:

Lessons learned from successful Innovation Schools

How Levy-funded health services supports SPS students

Improving access to and quality of summer learning programs

2014-15 Families and Education Levy Presentation to the Seattle School Board 19

Photos by Susie Fitzhugh

Program Changes – Process, Communication and Decision-Making

March 23, 2016 Work Session

Building a Shared Understanding of Policy and Superintendent Procedure 2200

Equitable Access to

Programs & Services

2

School • Registered with OSPI according to state statutes • Provides or directly supervises PK-12 education services,

programs, or curricular foci received by students in one or more PK-12 grade groups

• May provide more than one program

Definitions Per Superintendent Procedure 2200SP

3

SPS has the following types of schools: Attendance Area School • One to which elementary, middle and high-school students

are assigned based on where they live, as long as the school offers the services the student needs – Ex. Wedgwood Elementary, Eckstein Middle and Roosevelt

High – Other names: Neighborhood School

Types of Schools

4

Option Schools • Offer a variety of approaches and instructional methods for

families looking for choices in addition to their attendance area schools

• Most, but not all, option schools have geo-zones which provide priority to students who live near the school – Ex. John Stanford International Elementary, Pathfinder K8,

Seattle World School, Seattle Skills Center

Types of Schools

5

Service Schools • Schools and services that are available to meet individual

student’s needs. Students may request assignment to a service school and/or may be referred there and assigned individually as appropriate

• Unlike attendance area schools and option schools: – students may transition into or out of service schools

during the school year – the annual timeline and deadlines for assignment do not

apply – Ex. Interagency, Middle College, South Lake – Other Name: Safety Net

Types of Schools

6

• Board Policy H 01.00 outlines the steps to close a school • Policy aligns with Revised Code of Washington • The School Board makes the final decision on opening or

closing of a school

Opening/Closing of Schools

7

Service • Supplementary support to basic education that is required by

federal, state or local law and/or regulations • Should be provided at appropriate locations that give students

equitable access to the services • Location and capacity need to be flexible to meet changing

student needs for required services

Definitions Per Superintendent Procedure 2200SP

8

Special Education (SPED) • A service, not a place. • Provided to students with disabilities from birth-21 who

qualify for an individual education plan • Once a student is qualified, s/he will be assigned to the

appropriate services [e.g., Deaf Hard Hearing (DHH), Vision, Social / Emotional, Access]

Types of Services

9

• Students eligible for Special Education Resource Services are assigned to their attendance area school. Students eligible for Special Education Intensive Services are assigned to the appropriate services at a school in their service area or another nearby school.

• “Linked Elementary Schools and Location of Student Services and Programs” chart outlines the assignment of students

• Linked MS and HS documents also exists

Accessing SPED Services

10

Highly Capable Cohort (HCC) • A service for advanced learners that meet the following

criteria: – Cognitive abilities in the 98-99th percentile on two areas of

the CogAT – Achievement scores in the 95th or above percentile in both

math and reading – Teacher and parent/guardian input

Types of Services

11

• During Open Enrollment families can apply to attend a school (listed below) with self-contained HCC services – Elementary - Fairmont Park, Thurgood Marshall, Cascadia – Middle - Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jane Addams – High - IBX or IB at Ingraham, Garfield

Accessing HCC Services

12

English Language Learner (ELL) • Students that are learning English as a second language • Identified by a home language survey and the Washington

Language Proficiency Test (WLPT)

Types of Services

13

Program • Offers educational opportunity not mandated by law or

regulations • Should be equitably distributed, although they can be limited

by resources and feasibility – Ex. Spectrum, FareStart Culinary and Customer Service

Youth Training Program, Fire Science Program

Definitions Per Superintendent Procedure 2200SP

14

• Accessed through an established assignment process

consistent with the student assignment plan • Opt in and/or qualify for a program

– Ex. Spectrum at View Ridge Elementary, STEM at Boren

Accessing Programs

15

Curricular Focus • Teaching or instructional approach offered by a school Accessing Curricular Focus • Accessed through enrollment in the school

– Ex. Language Immersion at Concord Elementary, STEM at Arbor Heights

Definitions Per Superintendent Procedure 2200SP

16

• Service and/or Program changes are reported in quarterly and annual reports

• These reports contain the decisions made about services and programs in the previous quarter and provide a preview of upcoming service or program changes if known – Decisions based on relevant factors (8) considered – Quarterly reports are presented to the C&I Policy

Committee in April, June and October – The annual report is presented to the C&I Policy

Committee and the School Board in January

The Quarterly and Annual Reports

17

Opened FareStart Culinary and Customer Service Youth Training Program at Interagency Columbia Building • Program and not mandated by law • Partnership between SPS and FareStart • Required coordination between the following departments within SPS:

– Community Partnerships – Nutrition Services – Human Resources – Teaching and Learning

• Students have to opt in to this program

Example of Program Decisions Reported

18

Opened King County Recovery Program at Interagency Old Queen Anne Gym • Program and not mandated by law • Developed in consultation with stakeholders/representatives from King

County Juvenile court, Puget Sound Educational Service District (ESD) 121, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), King County Substance Abuse and Mental Health Division, multiple recovery service providers, students and parents/guardians.

• Partnership between SPS, King County Mental Health, Chemical Abuse and Dependency Services Division and NAVOS Mental Health Solutions

• Required coordination between the following SPS departments: – Facilities – Human Resources – Legal – Teaching and Learning

• Students have to opt in to this program

Example of Program Decisions Reported

19

Open/Close Special Education (SPED) classrooms in schools Examples:

– Open Access classroom at Jane Addams MS – Close Focus classroom at Maple ES

• SPED classrooms provide services required by law • Per negotiated agreement, SPED Task Force gives input to this process • Stakeholders are informed by Schools, Enrollment Planning, Capital

Planning, Budget and Transportation • See handout for an outline of the process and timeline for making special

education service changes

Example of Service Decisions Reported

20

• Some SPED services are only located at 1 school – For example, in 2016-17 SY, DHH for grades K-8 at TOPS

• Some SPED service placements exceed the number of students in negotiated agreement – For example, in 2015-16 SY, Daniel Bagley Access services

• Some SPED services cannot be located at schools due to lack of personnel and / or physical capacity – SPED pre-school services can be placed where there is appropriate

classroom space

Possible Impacts to Families

21

Close/Open classrooms in schools • Student enrollment, partnership agreements, staffing… drives these

decisions • Examples:

– High Point location of Middle College High (closed classrooms for 2015-16 school year (SY))

– Hamilton Middle (added classrooms for 2015-16 SY) – Roxhill Elementary (closed classrooms for 2015-16 school year SY)

• Classrooms are not individual programs or services • Building Leadership Teams and principals make these decisions

Example of Decisions Not Reported

22

• Class is closed – Woodshop at Chief Sealth High

• Classes are over the collective bargaining targets and/or have splits – Latin 1 and Latin 2 taught at same time – Elementary 5th grade classroom with 30 students

Possible Impact to Families

23

Changed the University of Washington’s (UW) Experimental Educational Unit (EEU) contractual agreement • A contractual service and run by the UW • Not a SPS service or program

Example of Decisions Not Reported

24

• *Number of Special Education Service Changes: – 2014-15 - 38 – 2015-16 - 36

• Number of Program Changes: – 2014-15 - 2 – 2015-16 - 2

• **Number of Curricular Changes: (e.g. site, classroom) – Each building has a leadership team (BLT) – 1 decision per BLT=98 decisions – 2 decisions per BLT=196 decisions

* SPS is in a multi-year transition from service models to a continuum of services **Estimate depending upon how site or classroom is defined.

Possible Impacts of Proposed Policy Change

25

Linkages

26

CBA

Attendance Boundaries

2200SP Community Engagement Levels Inform? Consult?

Involve?

Assignment Plan

Building Leadership

Teams Partnerships

Community Engagement

District Policies

Capacity Legislation

Contracts

Staffing Adjustments

CBA’s

Early Hiring

Grants

Space

Revised March 21, 2016

The Process and Timeline for making Special Education (SPED) service changes:

SPS is currently serving approximately 7500 students in SPED. The process to create/close a SPED service is listed below. The changes are driven primarily by the Collective Bargaining Agreement and student enrollment. End of October • Early Childhood reviews Birth to 3 trends to determine preK placements November • Run list of student rising from preK to k and from lists Early Childhood

starts to determine next year projected services needed • Regional SPED program specialists take rising student information and

start working on regional enrollment and capacity configurations for the next year school year

December • SPED Director, Admin Assistant and Enrollment Planning (EP) team meet biweekly to start making decisions for next year enrollment projections based on current year region and SPED services

• This groups continues to meet until the end of Open Enrollment, longer if needed

January • Determine SPED services needs based on current assignments and kindergarten trends

• Each region is reviewed individually with the supervisor; then each SPED services placement is reviewed; and team reviews percentage of overall seat capacity

• Capital Planning (CP) team joins weekly meetings to review proposals • CP vets available space to determine construction needed and/or

portable need • Coordinate with DoTS for newly created and/or converted service

placements so that they are in the student information system and also the student assignment system

• Regional Supervisors communicate with building principals of potential service placement changes to get input and potential impact

February • Approval of proposed service placement changes for each school is by Exec Director and Director of SPED

• Submits proposed service placements to the Associate Superintendent of Teaching and Learning and Associate Superintendent of Operations for approval

• EP finalize SPED projections • SPED reviews “final” Feb. projections from EP • EP releases projections to Budget • Director and Regional Supervisor review and communicate to building

leaders regarding the project scopes and hiring (expected) • HR and SPED start recruiting and hiring to fill positions based on EP

projections March • Budget generates staffing allocation based on ratios outlined in the

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and EP projections • SPED and EP continue work on projections • Receipt and processing of submitted waivers • HR and SPED continue recruiting staff

April • SPED continues to work with budget and EP to adjust projections and

Revised March 21, 2016

staff allocations • Phase 1 hiring

May • Make initial staffing adjustment based on actual next year assignments August • Make final staffing adjustments based on actual next year assignments

Others factors reviewed: Need for primary and intermediate classes for intensive services at elementary schools Percentage of special ed students at each building Balance of regional intensive services Middle school feeder patterns Consideration of the CBA adherence Potential overages for teachers vs cost of additional services Total number of services provided for each region and for the district Continuum services implementation

This process takes hours of work and is a coordinated effort by the following teams: SPED-Executive Director, Directors, Regional and Programs Supervisors, support staff EP-multiple different members of this team participate in this process Capital Planning and Facilitates- multiple different members of this team participate in this process

1

The primary function of the BLT is to promote and facilitate the collaborative decision-making process which affects academic achievement and to identify how to support the needs of students and staff in their buildings. Specific responsibilities include: • Continuous School Improvement Plan (CSIPS), including the configuration

and structure of school’s classes and/or program offerings • Professional development plan • The school’s budget • Creation/review of Decision-making Matrix Site based decisions are determined through a 2/3 majority vote of SEA represented employees

Building Leadership Team SEA Collective Bargaining Agreement

2

*Program Changes – Process, Communication and Decision Making Examples are for illustrative purposes only

Scenario A Process Applicable or Related Policies

Seattle Rain Elementary School has been working with their school community to determine if they should change their Spanish* Program to a Music *Program. They have surveyed the staff and parent community and the majority of those surveyed are in support of the change. *While families and school communities consider these “programs”, they do not meet the District’s definition of Program under SP2200.

• Per the Collective Bargaining Agreement with SEA, the Building Leadership Team (BLT) would collaboratively facilitate a discussion with staff and the parent community

• 2/3 of SEA staff must

vote to approve • This decision would be

submitted during the staffing process 2/24-3/21

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

3

Program Changes – Process, Communication and Decision Making Examples are for illustrative purposes only

Scenario B Process Applicable or Related Policies

Seattle Rain Elementary School has been working with their school community to the best way to serve advanced learners in their building. They are a designated Spectrum site, but over 30% of the overall student population score in the 80th – plus percentile in reading and or mathematics. The Building Leadership Team is recommending they move from a self-contained model to one where students are grouped in heterogeneous classrooms and “walk-to” various teachers for reading, mathematics and science.

• Per the Collective Bargaining Agreement with SEA, the Building Leadership Team (BLT) would collaboratively facilitate a discussion with staff and the parent community

• 2/3 of SEA staff must

vote to approve • This decision would be

submitted during the staffing process 2/24-3/21

• Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

• Policy 2200 • Policy 2190; 2190 SP • New Student

Assignment Plan

2016 Interagency FareStart Program Decision Schedule

Draft for Instructional Purposes Only

Gather the Information Establish Decision Criteria Develop Alternatives

Evaluate Alternatives Make Decision

Implement Decision

2014 Fall 2014 - Winter 2015 Early Spring 2015 Summer 2015 Fall 2015

Interagency Supporting each student's unique qualities to achieve educatonal, career and social goals through personalized learning plans.Identifying unmet student needs

Participate in FareStart Visioning

Gather Student Input

Gather the Information Establish Decision Criteria Develop Alternatives

Evaluate Alternatives Make Decision

Implement Decision

FareStartHelping Transform Lives… One Person. One Job. One Community at a Time.Struggling to find stable employment, because you are in poverty, in recovery or formerly incarcerated? We can help you.

Determine available sites, funding, philanthropic support

Identify type of youth to be served, supports needed,

infrastructure needed, develop draft business plan,

Begin opening second location at Pacific Tower an

innovation Center

Interview potential partners, determine readiness to benefit,

organizational structures and supports, executive

sponsorship,

Potential Partnerships considered

Create a Youth Culinary Program and Partner with Interagency Academy. Determine space and support needs. Develop MOU, review legal issues and compliance requirements.

Implement pilot program. FareStart Board Vote and Announcement

Define the Issue

Define the Issue

Program gap for students

Students unable to find jobs/$$ to support themselves while

completing schoolingAsst. Supt/Assoc. Supt.

meeting

Assistant Principal finalizes

scheduling and programmatic

issues, pilot begins in Sept.

Develop criteria to separate youth program from adult program. Establish district criteria for youth program.

Review Youth Data, program

successes, mision and vision

2013

Review graduation and success criteria for students

Option #1: Barista Program Option #2: Youth Culinary

Program Option #3 Don't partner

Worked with EDS, legal, HR, Safety and

Security, building staff

Program/Site Placement & Closures

Adding Board oversight & transparency to important decisions

March 23, 2016

Director S. Peters

Recent Examples

Example Action Board informed before decision?

Board oversight authority?

Middle College at High Point

Site closed No No

Interagency in Queen Anne

Site opened No, or not explicitly

No

Indian Heritage at Wilson Pacific

Program/School moved & closed

? No

Experimental Education Unit at UW

Planned for closure No No

APP/Highly Capable Cohort

Program/School moved/ split/expanded

Not always Not always

Spectrum Program/Service dissolved or redefined at various schools

No No

Special Education Program/Service Moved to Old Van Asselt building

No No

In which the Board did not have oversight authority:

Case Studies

Closure of Middle College site at High Point in 2015

• Board learned of decision primarily from the public, blogs, media.

• Board was contacted, appealed via public testimony, petitions, email, personal meetings, by students, parents, teachers, school founders, public officials connected to the school. Contact and appeals are ongoing.

District accused of poor public engagement and lack of transparency

Opening of Interagency site on Queen Anne in 2014-15

• Board learned of decision primarily from the public, blogs, media.

• Local community (including elementary school across the street from site) learned of plan via online local paper.

• Board was contacted, appealed via public testimony, petitions, email, personal meetings, by students, parents, public officials.

• SPS conducted community meeting (requested by public and district Bd Director) at John Hay Elementary in Dec 2014. Attracted 200 community members. Senior staff, Board Director in attendance.

District accused of poor public engagement and lack of transparency

Why Add Board Oversight? Lack of communication and lack of Board oversight undermines public trust and is detrimental to the District

Situation Benefits of Proposed Policy Change

1. Under current policy, the Board has no authority to weigh in on these decisions.

2. Consequently the Board has been viewed as not adequately responsive to its constituents.

3. Past School Board has been cited by State Auditor for failure to exercise necessary oversight.

4. The effects of these decisions come to the Board anyway (usually in the form of public response), but after the fact, when it is too late to review or adjust a proposed action.

Simplicity Process will remain largely the same, with Staff/Superintendent making recommendations, but adding Board oversight. Transparency Will provide staff and Superintendent opportunity to present rationale for decisions to Board and public. Due Diligence Recommendations brought to the Board will demonstrate appropriate oversight and community engagement.

Policy Changes Three (3) policies require modifications

Policy Number Description

H01.00 School Closures

F21.01 F21.00 Specific Areas of Involvement reserved to the district (superintendent/board or their designee)

2090 2200 Equitable access to programs and services (makes a reference to F21.00)

Note: Legal Dept. has reviewed the proposed policy changes.

ADDENDUM: Nomenclature

These terms are not all clearly defined or understood by staff, Board Directors or the community.

Schools Programs Sites Services Curricular foci Classrooms

What’s in a name?

Food for thought: Service or program or school?

• Is this a school? • Or “service” to 700

students -- with a principal, teachers, staff, located in the same building for 5 years?

• Or a large district “program”?

Cascadia Elem. at Lincoln HS (formerly APP@Lincoln)

How do we define a “stakeholder”?

• If your child’s school is located across the street from a proposed new (school/program/service) site, are you a stakeholder?

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6325262,-122.3528579,18z

Informational (no action required by Board) Action Report (Board will be required to take action)

DATE: February __, 2016

FROM: Director Peters, Vice President, and Director Patu, President, Seattle

School Board

I. TITLE

Amending Policy Nos. H01.00, F21.00, and 2200 to

authorize Board oversight of program and site

placement and closure decisions.

For Introduction: March 16, 2016

For Action: April 6, 2016

II. WHY BOARD ACTION IS NECESSARY

The School Board is the governing body with the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal policies

for the District. Board action is therefore required.

III. FISCAL IMPACT/REVENUE SOURCE

The fiscal impact is _____________________.

The revenue source for this motion is _____________.

Expenditure: One-time Annual Other Source

IV. POLICY IMPLICATION

If approved, this motion would amend Policy Nos. F21.00, Specific Areas of Involvement

Reserved to the District, and H01.00, School Closures, and 2200, Equitable Access to Programs

& Services.

V. RECOMMENDED MOTION

I move that the School Board amend Policy Nos. F21.00, H01.00, and 2200, as attached to the

Board Action Report.

VI. BOARD COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

This motion to amend H01.00, F21.00 and 2200 was discussed at the February 4, 2016 and the

March 3, 2016 Executive Committee meetings. The Committee reviewed the motion and

recommended _________________________.

VII. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Under current policy, site and program placement and closure decisions do not come before the

Board for approval, therefore the Board has no oversight of these decisions. Yet, the public

expects the Board to weigh in on them and comes to the Board requesting oversight.

School Board Briefing/Proposed Action Report

These revisions will add the requirement of Board approval for program and site placement and

closure recommendations from staff or the Superintendent.

This will allow the Board to further fulfill its legally mandated oversight responsibilities

VIII. STATEMENT OF ISSUE

Whether to amend Policy Nos. H01.00, F21.00 and 2200.

The motion addresses the following realities and concerns:

Under current policy, the Board has no oversight of program or site closure and placement

decisions.

Two of these policies have not been reviewed in many years and fall into the category of lettered

policies that are overdue for updating. Policy review and initiation is a key Board duty, prescribed

by policy and law:

(http://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/Migration/Departments/HR/10

05.pdf?sessionid=d249654e54f9ae0807a5cf8a160886eb)

In 2010, the State auditor found that the Board failed to exercise its necessary oversight duties. It

is the Board’s duty to ensure that it engages with the community and is empowered to exercise its

legally mandated oversight duties.

The public rightfully expects the Board to weigh in and exercise oversight on important issues,

and holds the Board accountable for them. Therefore, the Board should be granted this oversight

authority.

The reality is, these issues still come to the Board in one form or another, through protests, public

commentary, lobbying, petitions, etc. But the Board is not currently empowered to influence

them, and so the District is perceived as acting without transparency and the Board failing in its

duties.

This change will formalize this process, and allow greater transparency and oversight by

affording staff and the Superintendent the opportunity to present the rationale for such

recommendations to the Board and community during public sessions.

This change will also partially address the current ambiguity surrounding the definition of school

versus program verses site versus service by establishing Board oversight for more of these

various offerings. (Also, the nomenclature distinctions made by the district do not necessarily

correspond to how these schools are defined or function for families.)

The proposed change will maintain the current process in which staff makes recommendations to the

superintendent, or the Superintendent makes determinations directly, but it adds the requirement that

these come to the Board for final approval (via committee – Executive, Curriculum & Instruction Policy,

or Operations) and then to the full Board for introduction and ultimately action.

IX. ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not amend Policy Nos. H01.00, F21.00, and 2200. This is not recommended because this

leaves Board oversight out of significant school program and site placement decisions.

X. RESEARCH AND DATA SOURCES / BENCHMARKS

In the last few years alone, various school, program and site placement or closures decisions

have been made resulting in significant consternation, controversy and lack of community

engagement.

XI. TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION / COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Upon approval of this motion, the amended policies would go immediately into effect and would

be posted on the School Board’s website.

XII. ATTACHMENTS

Policy No. F21.00 (clean – for approval)

Policy No. F21.00 (redline – for reference)

Policy No. H01.00 (clean – for approval)

Policy No. H01.00 (redline – for reference)

SCHOOL CLOSURES

H01.00 Revised

AUG 1997 NOV 12, 2008

Page 1 of 2

Adopted: Page 1 of 2

Former Code(s): E61.00

Revision(s): JAN 1996 / AUG 1997

Repealed:

SCHOOL OR PROGRAM CLOSURES

POLICY

It is the policy of the Seattle School Board that prior to the decision to close any school

buildings(s) for instructional purposes, the following steps will occur:

1. Development and presentation of the Superintendent’s preliminary

recommendation for school closure(s) and publication of analysis of possible

effects of proposed school closure(s) to include:

A. Criteria for school closure(s)

B. Demographic and integration effects

C. Relationship of the proposed closure(s) to any on-going, established long-

range program for facility use, and

D. Proposed site classification

2. Public review of the Superintendent’s preliminary recommendation for school

closure(s) (minimum of thirty (30) days). A copy of the recommendation and

summary shall be made available in each school proposed for closure(s) and

distributed to each school parent organization and community council in the

affected area.

3. Public hearing(s) for each proposed site on the Superintendent’s preliminary

recommendation for school closure(s) will be held in the general geographic

area of the affected building. The public hearing will be held in the affected

school, where feasible.

4. Presentation of the Superintendent’s final recommendation for school

closure(s).

5. Public review of the Superintendent’s final recommendation for school

closure(s) (minimum of fourteen (14) days).

SCHOOL CLOSURES

H01.00 Revised

AUG 1997 NOV 12, 2008

Page 2 of 2

Adopted: Page 2 of 2

Former Code(s): E61.00

Revision(s): JAN 1996 / AUG 1997

Repealed:

6. Public hearing on Superintendent’s final recommendation for school

closure(s).

7. School Board discussion of Superintendent’s final recommendation for school

closure(s).

8. School Board Action on school closure(s). (The Board’s final decision shall be

made within ninety (90) days of the time hearings are held for each proposed

site for closure(s) (#3 above) and no less than seven (7) days after the public

hearing on the Superintendent’s final recommendation for school closure(s).)

Notices of the hearings in steps 3 and 6 above containing the date, time, place, and

purpose of the hearings shall be published in the Seattle daily newspapers. and in the

local newspapers in the affected areas of the City.

These notices shall be published once each week for two consecutive weeks, with the

last notice to be published not less than seven (7) days before the hearings.

In addition to the notices in the daily newspapers, outreach to potentially impacted

communities shall be achieved via a combination of some or all of the following

methods:

Notices in local newspapers

Notices on the Seattle Public Schools website & television station

Notices on local television and radio stations

Notices sent to community centers, libraries, and city neighborhood centers

Notices sent to families via automated telephone service

Notices sent home to families in the impacted schools

In the event exigent circumstances make adherence to the above policy infeasible,

the Board of Directors may so declare and make a school closure(s) decision following

a process consistent only with the minimum requirements of RCW 28A.335.020.

Temporary relocation of students and staff during periods of school building

reconstruction or renovation is not considered a school closure and this policy does not

apply.

It is also the policy of the Seattle School Board that prior to the decision to close any program or site, the following steps will occur:

SCHOOL CLOSURES

H01.00 Revised

AUG 1997 NOV 12, 2008

Page 3 of 2

Adopted: Page 3 of 2

Former Code(s): E61.00

Revision(s): JAN 1996 / AUG 1997

Repealed:

1. Development and presentation of the Superintendent’s preliminary

recommendation for site or program closure(s) and publication of analysis of

possible effects of proposed closure(s) to include:

A. Criteria for site or program closure(s)

B. Demographic and integration effects

C. Relationship of the proposed closure(s) to any on-going, established long-

range program for facility use, and

D. Proposed site classification

2. Presentation of the Superintendent’s final recommendation for site or

program closure(s).

3. Public review of the Superintendent’s final recommendation for site or

program closure(s) (minimum of fourteen (14) days).

4. School Board discussion of Superintendent’s final recommendation for site or

program closure(s).

Reference: RCW 28A.335.020

Revisied: AUG 1997

NOV 2008

FEB 2016 - S. Peters

SPECIFIC AREAS OF

INVOLVEMENT RESERVED TO

THE DISTRICT

(SUPERINTENDENT/BOARD

OR THEIR DESIGNEE)

F21.00

Revised

________April 1996

Page 1 of 3

Former Code: C17.03

BOARD ADOPTED

PROCEDURE

Within the laws of the United States and the State of Washington and the policies of

the Board, and District guidelines, the following areas (listed alphabetically) are

reserved to the School Board and/or Superintendent or their designee:

Curriculum

A. Development and adoption of District-wide curriculum frameworks

(what is taught at what levels).

B. Development and adoption of policies to insure the quality of

educational content.

C. District-wide adoption of educational materials (textbooks, materials,

software).

D. Selection of technology systems and hardware (equipment) from

which schools may make appropriate selections as their individual

needs dictate.

Fiscal Management

A. Application for District-wide grants.

B. Administration of payroll.

C. Setting of salaries and compensation.

D. Adoption of annual School District budget and control audits.

E. Purchase of goods and services.

F. Control of real and/or personal property.

Program Placement

The Superintendent makes the final decision on aAll program placements ,

closure, and school building closure decisions require prior Board approval.

Program Evaluation

SPECIFIC AREAS OF

INVOLVEMENT RESERVED TO

THE DISTRICT

(SUPERINTENDENT/BOARD

OR THEIR DESIGNEE)

F21.00

Revised

________April 1996

Page 2 of 3

Former Code: C17.03

Safety

A. Development and adoption of District-wide student behavior rules

and regulations.

B. Annual adoption of Student Rights and Responsibilities as required by

state law.

C. Development and adoption of a District-wide School Safety Plan.

School Operations

A. Food service planning, purchasing and administration.

B. Conducting data processing services.

C. Legal Services.

D. Planning of transportation routes, schedules, and bell times.

E. Selection and approval of transportation provider(s).

F. Building and grounds maintenance of District non-school facilities.

G. Use of all school space.

H. Determination of building and instructional capacities.

Staffing

A. Hiring, evaluation, discipline, and termination (firing, retirement,

resignation) of all employees.

B. Negotiation and enforcement of labor contracts.

C. Selection and/or transfer of principals and assistant principals.

D. Selection and/or transfer of employees other than principals and

assistant principals.

E. Development and adoption of staffing standards.

F. Assignment of staff to buildings.

G. Evaluation of principal.

H. Other personnel issues.

Strategic Planning

Development and oversight of District-wide strategic plan

SPECIFIC AREAS OF

INVOLVEMENT RESERVED TO

THE DISTRICT

(SUPERINTENDENT/BOARD

OR THEIR DESIGNEE)

F21.00

Revised

________April 1996

Page 3 of 3

Former Code: C17.03

Students

A. Development, adoption, and implementation of desegregation

policies.

B. Development, adoption, and implementation of student placement

policies.

C. Discipline of individual students.

Testing

A. State required testing programs.

B. Oversight and adoption of testing measures.

C. Selection and implementation of testing programs.

Other

A. Development, coordination, implementation and evaluation of local,

state, and federal legislative agendas.

B. Public relations, representation, and conveyance of District

views/opinions.

C. Daily operations of the school (responsibility of the principal).

EQUITABLE ACCESS TO PROGRAMS &

SERVICES

Policy No. 2200

_______August 15, 2012

Page 1 of 2

It is the policy of the Seattle School Board that programs be developed, replicated, and placed in support of district-wide academic goals that address systemic needs and support quality education for all students within the context of the current student assignment plan. School Board Policy F21.00 delegates to the Superintendent the authority to make requires School Board approval of all program placement and closure decisions. This policy addresses such program placement actions actions includingto make changes to existing programs or services, the development of new programs or services, the replication of existing programs or services, as well as the closing and/or relocation of existing programs or services throughout the district, to the extent that those programs or services have an impact on budgets, hiring or placement of staff, or on space within a building. This policy does not apply to changes in programs or services which are reserved by law or other Board policies to the School Board or Superintendent. Prior to making programmatic or service changes recommendations to the School Board, the Superintendent will take the objectives listed below into account, balancing competing needs to achieve the result that is in the best interests of students, all factors considered:

1. Place programs or services in support of district-wide academic goals;

2. Place programs or services equitably across the district;

3. Place programs or services where students reside;

4. Place programs or services in accordance with the rules of the current student assignment plan, and as appropriate, equitably across each middle school feeder region;

5. Engage stakeholders in a timely and publicly visible manner by informing, involving, and/or consulting with them as appropriate, and consider their input in the decision-making process when feasible;

6. Utilize physical space resources effectively to assure that instructional and program space needs are equitably met across the district;

7. Ensure that fiscal resources are taken into consideration, including analyzing current and future fiscal impacts; and

8. Analyze the impact of any decision before it is made, by using data, research and best practice

EQUITABLE ACCESS TO PROGRAMS &

SERVICES

Policy No. 2200

_______August 15, 2012

Page 2 of 2

The relevant factors considered and the basis for each change shall be documented in writing and presented to the School Board for consideration in its review of the proposed program placement action. kept on file. [On a quarterly basis the Superintendent or designee shall provide an update to the School Board on decisions made during the previous quarter and a preview of upcoming decisions, if known. These quarterly updates should be provided to the School Board in April, July and October. The fourth quarterly update shall be an annual report that provides detail about all the decisions that were made in the prior year and how those decisions relate to the eight decision making criteria outlined in this policy. The annual report should be provided to the School Board in January.

The Superintendent is authorized to establish Superintendent Procedures or administrative guidelines to implement this policy. Such Procedures are subject to review by the Board.

Adopted: August 2012

Revised: Feb 2016 Cross Reference: Policy Nos. A01.00, 1005, 1620, 1640, F21.00 Related Superintendent Procedure: Previous Policies: C56.00 Legal References: N/A Management Resources: N/A

Photos by Susie Fitzhugh

Progress Update on the Special Education Memorandum of Understanding with OSPI

March 23, 2016

Agenda

2

Review of SMART Goal 3 MOU background MOU verification activities and preparation Progress update Successes and challenges Principal feedback Example of process improvement – Indicator 12 Working towards sustained impact Data systems and reporting Central Office operations Questions

SMART Goal 3

3

By October 31, 2016, implement successfully 100% of the Special Education Memorandum of Understanding with OSPI requirements, including the recovery of IDEA Part B funding withheld.

History of noncompliance and failure to correct identified areas of need resulted in OSPI withholding $3 million in IDEA Part B funds (2013-2014) and issuance of a Comprehensive Corrective Action Plan

Successful completion of the Revised Comprehensive

Corrective Action Plan (RC-CAP) during 2014-2015 led to MOU with OSPI to establish terms for release of funds

State Determination Level improved from Level 4 -Needs

Substantial Intervention (2012-2013) to Level 2 -Needs Assistance (2014-2015)

How did we get here?

Every Student. Every Classroom. Every Day. 4

Regional – Compliance file reviews of at least 5% of SpEd

enrollment – Visits in 5-8 schools per region, including leadership

and staff interviews and observations to verify consistency between IEPs, programming and the implementation of SpEd procedures

– Parent focus group

Central Office – Documentation review and interviews to verify key

activities and implementation of procedures

MOU Verification Activities

15 separate orientation sessions held for Department staff, school staff, and school leadership, with over 300 participants

Ongoing internal file reviews to proactively identify and

address areas of noncompliance

Onsite coaching and support for verification process and identified areas of needed improvement

Support and Preparation

6

7

Progress Update Northwest Region

Verified $500,000 received

Southwest Region

Verified $500,000 received

Central Region

Visit complete OSPI review in process

Northeast Region

Visit complete OSPI review in process

Southeast Region

Visit scheduled 4/25-4/26

Central Office

Initial visit completed, feedback being integrated for 3 key areas needing reverification: Proportionate Share, Indicator 11, Indicator 12

Notable Successes and Ongoing Challenges Successes

Overwhelmingly positive feedback from principals that the preparation process improved SpEd practice for staff and leadership Strong collaboration between District leadership, central office staff, school leadership and staff, and Board of Directors Shift in school culture, with SpEd becoming a top priority Development of tools and resources for ongoing professional development

Challenges IEP and evaluation timeliness Writing compliant IEPs Aligning IEP service matrices to student schedules and minutes Recruiting and hiring qualified SpEd teachers

8

“This provided me with an important opportunity to reflect upon my leadership of special education. It was beneficial to take some time to examine my practice in this area.” “I felt the support helped my team tremendously. We learned a lot during this process. We went into it with a mindset that this is a great learning opportunity and came out with a lot more knowledge and a better understanding of how to best support our students who have IEPs.” “Thank you. We felt incredibly supported throughout the process.” “Let's not let the momentum dim.”

Principal Feedback

9

Indicator 12 refers to IDEA Part C to B transitions (when a student transitions from Birth to 3 services to preschool)

Students referred for SpEd require an evaluation, and if

eligible, an IEP prior to their third birthday

Example of Complex System Improvement: Indicator 12

10

List of students reviewed monthly • Monthly verification of

student data • Decision to assess

made by Transition Coordinator

Contact Attempts • If no contact, send

letter closing referral • If contact made,

evaluation is scheduled

• Attempts documented in IEPO

Evaluation • Assessment Team

meets to evaluate • Completes report and

sends to family • Program Specialists

notified of eligibility to schedule IEP team

Indicator 12: Continued

11

Indicator 12: Challenges

12

Identified challenges and need for process improvement - Need for strengthened documentation of allowable

exceptions when an IEP is not completed by a student’s third birthday

- Complexities in scheduling large evaluation and IEP teams, often requiring related service providers, translators, transportation etc.

- Need for strengthened scheduling procedures and monitoring of upcoming deadlines

- Staffing and capacity - Data visibility and usability

Training on timelines and expectations provided to entire early childhood team

Additional capacity – increase in Transition Coordinator

FTE and psychologists

Process for documenting allowable exceptions and contact attempts was streamlined

Improved data monitoring and verification

Indicator 12: Process Improvements Implemented

13

Working Towards Sustained Impact

14

Ongoing support for timely and high quality IEPs and evaluations, integrating lessons learned through MOU process (e.g. IEP labs)

Improved data systems and reporting abilities

Continued community and family engagement (e.g. regional meetings, parent portal)

Ongoing professional development and employee retention initiatives

Strengthened central office operations

Data Systems and Reporting

15

Implementation of flexible and consolidated data systems to allow special education to report a number of data points to stakeholders

Exploring software options to increase data usability and visibility

Consolidating existing data (IEPO, ADW and discipline data, SharePoint, eSIT, and CCTS) to increase functionality

Central Office Operations

16

Budget development and review process

System improvements of federally required annual reports (Indicator 11 and 12)

Policy and Procedure ongoing updates Improvement of monitoring system for proportionate

share

Creating a sustainable, proactive approach to gathering data on students with special education services who left district

Questions?

17