• DE&I | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Levies and Bonds
• School Board
• School Funding
• School Security
• Special Education
• Tahoma Joy

Tahoma School Board Work Study, Dec 12, 2022

by TV3

December 13, 2022 0

TSD School Board Work Study, Dec 12, 2022, 5pm

Agenda:
Tahoma 100
Facilities Use and Next Steps

This work study started with a presentation from school district directors, employees, and the superintendent, Mike Hanson. The presentation was a celebration of the upcoming 100 year anniversary of the Tahoma name for our school district, and a look at the district’s potential and anticipated needs for the future. Following the 60 minute presentation, the board was given time to meet in small groups, using the NEWS rubric (Need to know, Excite, Wants, Stance/Suggestions) and present their thoughts back to the district, in written and verbal format.

I’ve pulled out some of the more salient points from the presentation, as I see them.

• The main point of the presentation was “Creating the Future” of Tahoma, with reference to the plaque saying exactly that at the high school. Several slides were shared that contrasted the current Tahoma high school with the original, built in 1926, with a few more looking at the changes at other schools over the years.
• Focus was on three themes: Facilities, Safety and Security, and “How are we preparing kids for the world?”
• The fund balance has continued its planned decline, from a high of $37.3 million in 2019 to a current $20 million, and an anticipated $7.5 million in 2025. (Note from author: This was a result of the board decision in 2020 to ask for a smaller levy from voters by spending down what was considered to be a very high fund balance.) All decisions about future planning need to keep this in consideration.
• The most recent bond in 2013 predated some large changes to “housing” (i.e. school building/classroom) requirements. First, in 2016, the state raised graduation credit requirements to 24 from 20, requiring more high school classes. In 2017, all-day kindergarten became law, vs Tahoma’s former half day program. In 2019, K-3 class sizes were reduced statewide from 23 to 19, requiring many more classrooms in TSD. In 2021, TSD added a half-year transitional kindergarten program. We have also seen a shift in our district with more families moving in.

• Enrollment is well above anticipated levels, even with the dip due to the pandemic. Homes here have 58 students/100 houses, which is higher than any other district in King County. There are 1700 new houses anticipated to be in the next City of Maple Valley Comprehensive Plan, which will add an estimated 960 students to the district.
• We are already approaching or have reached maximum capacity at the high school, especially when considering that some of the teachers are currently “on carts” and don’t have a dedicated classroom. They teach in various classrooms based on other teachers’ planning periods. This presents many problems including staff loss, problems for students when seeking help from their teacher, and lack of collaboration between teachers. When a planning period is factored in, every education level in the district will be at or over capacity by the 2024-25 school year.

• Safety and Security: A safety and security committee was formed this year, and a new risk audit was recently performed. This follows the risk audit in 2015. A presentation on these findings will be made during the board meeting on January 24th, 2023.
• Future experiences for students: On the subject of future planning, presentations were made by several Tahoma administrative directors. Director of Equity and Family Partnerships, Tony Davis, pointed out that “We are a small portion of this big world” and we need to provide a “welcoming, safe, supportive, and inclusive” environment for all students. We don’t know what the future is going to look like, and therefore we need to “provide the most encompassing experience” possible for all students. He also said that as a district we need to be “Raising people, not students.”
• Director of Teaching and Learning, Dawn Wakeley, discussed issues surrounding Program Pathways. One example was within the Computer Science and Information Technology pathway, where there is one class available in 6th grade then nothing until high school where there are a variety of courses. There will be a presentation next year for two new courses at the middle level: Robotics and Minecraft Coding. This is just one example of the gaps in the current curriculum that need focus moving forward.
• Director of Special Services, Annette Whittlesey, presented on Tahoma Heart and the need to continue to ensure connections between students, teachers, and their schools going forward. We’re “coming back to life” post-pandemic closures. She also discussed Student Opportunity and the many future needs anticipated. These include ADA playground equipment at all schools, increased access to extracurriculars for all students including rides home, and support for student mental health needs, including physical spaces for therapy and small groups.
• Director of Communications, AJ Garcia, presented on levy successes: We are halfway through the levy cycle (the current levies were passed in 2020). The technology levy provided 1:1 device support, which proved crucial during the shutdown. The district did not have to go out and “chase more funds” during a crisis. The tech levy has also provided increased cybersecurity for our district, personnel to support both district security as well as teachers and students in their tech needs, and increased availability of classroom technology. Technology is not seen as a replacement for engagement, but rather as a way to bring that engagement to the next level. The EP&O levy continues to provide for critical staffing needs, extracurricular activities for students, mental health resources, ELL support (the use of this program has “skyrocketed” in the past 7-8 years, especially the last couple years), and supports students’ increased needs post-pandemic.

• The next presentation from the Housing Committee (not heard from tonight) will be on December 20th.
• There are anticipated needs for a few new committees soon on: Bond Exploration, Levy Exploration, and Student Experience.
• Board reactions to the presentation: Several emphasized the importance of engaging the broader community in all future decisions, as well as families and students. Many felt that this was a solid framework going forward, with several committees tasked with providing input and advice.

Facility Use and Future Plans

The next section of this work study centered around facility use by outside entities, and plans moving forward. This was a discussion primarily between board members, at the behest of the superintendent, with additional clarification and engagement by district directors and superintendent Hanson. There were no slides. As this was a work study, and not a regular board meeting, no votes were made and none of the advice provided by school board members is considered actionable.

Hanson started with a few statements of fact: The original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was written in 2014 and several iterations of the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) followed. In 2014, a decision was made by the district to drop its Tahoma Learning Center (TLC) program because the city was ramping up their services and programs. At present, there is adequate gym space available to meet the needs of all of our kids. The district meets with the city quarterly regarding scheduling. The city “got everything they were asking for” at the most recent meeting, prior to basketball season. The district cannot control what other entities choose to do, but it can look for partnerships with other programs who are willing to provide this access. The main question now is if there is a group interested in providing access to all kids in the district, and there are options. He explained that if this proves unfeasible, or if other changes do not happen with their current city partnership, along with considerations of growth in our area, it may be up to the district to provide that access.

Equity Director Davis and Finance Director Cloud were asked to provide their input, since they were both around when the original MOU was written. Davis said that the city program was originally designed to include every kid. These programs weren’t meant to be like Select sports clubs, or competitive in nature. That has shifted. He can’t remember, in any prior conversation, the word “community” (as it appears in the current, 2019 ILA) not including everyone in this community. He doesn’t remember it ever meaning city-only. He concluded by saying it was, “Surprising that we’re having this conversation.”

Cloud explained that there were a lot of things happening at the time they came to this agreement with the city. This was right after the bond for the HS was passed, and construction was ongoing for it as well as Lake Wilderness Elementary School. This MOU was signed following exchanges of property between the city and district. (Author note: The city had planned to use some of that land for a park, but that was voted down in the next election. To my knowledge, that land in front of LWES is still city-owned and vacant.) The district at that time made the decision to “get out of things” that didn’t represent “our core values”. That included the TLC program, because the city was then providing much the same service through their Parks and Rec department.

The discussion between board members went on for close to an hour, with much back and forth as well as clarifying questions, so I’ve attempted to summarize it below. To see the full discussion, I believe the district will be posting the video from this meeting to their website. This section started about two hours into the meeting, at 7pm.

1. Director Michael Wiggins provided much input from his background as a lawyer (not as legal advice). He maintained that the ILA appears to have been written as best as could be expected at the time, and that the city is acting legally since such agreements are “at will” anyway. (That means that the district could nix the ILA at any time, as could the city.) He also agreed with other board members in their assertion that any future ILA should include language enforcing equity, and access to facilities for all Tahoma students. He pushed for a forward thinking plan, and stated that focusing on the current ILA won’t accomplish that as it is legal while also being at-will. He lamented the lack of collaboration from the city that led to this situation, and spoke of the need to understand “community” in a much broader sense. He also stated that the city might see any ILA requiring equal access for all TSD students as inequitable, since it may hinder the city’s ability to provide access to all city children. He summarized the board discussion by saying that TSD students need equal access to TSD facilities, and anything less than that is not something that the board will accept. 
2. Director Haley Pendergraft focused first on whether the city was operating against the current ILA (the conclusion from the group was they were not), and the need for the district to take ownership over their part in the current predicament by not clearly delineating expectations in the current ILA. She stipulated that going forward the district needs to make sure that any group it partners with respects the district’s intentions and needs. She emphasized that with the passage of the new equity policy, any future ILAs need to include language surrounding that. She does want to make sure that there won’t be unintended consequences to any decisions that the district makes on this subject. She also emphasized that it is of “utmost importance to me that we are an example for our community.” She further asked if every ILA should be looked at with an eye toward equitable access, which prompted superintendent Hanson to explain that such a course would actually require looking at board policies surrounding facility use. That is something that they are not yet prepared to present around, but could be a subject of a future discussion.
3. Director Matt Carreon worried about the potential growth in our region, and whether the city was planning to accommodate that by expanding their programs. He stated several times that he would like to maintain a positive working relationship with the city, but also spoke about the potential need to find other partnerships within our community. He also agreed that the original ILA seemed fine, and “two months ago” there were no problems, but that moving forward there should be a new ILA with the city. He emphasized that TSD needs to “look out for every child”. He also worried that the city has already “shown their stance” with their actions, and wanted to know what other options are available.
4. Director Pete Miller pointed out that ILAs should require both parties to give up something in return for something. TSD is providing lower rent and “first dibs” for facility use to the city. That is, first choice after the district has determined their facility needs. (At this time, superintendent Hanson explained that it is indeed the case that both sides benefit from the same agreements on rent and access, but that the city has far fewer facilities than TSD.) Miller felt that the spirit of the MOU and ILA were to provide equal opportunity for every student in the district to sign up. He emphasized that there may be waiting lists, but as long as every child is provided the opportunity to sign up equally then he feels the spirit of the ILA would have been abided by. He also stated that the word “community” within the ILA was now being interpreted differently by the city. He liked the idea of approaching the city, explaining that the district is considering stepping away from the current ILA, while knowing that as a district we have other options. Meeting with the city is a good “intermediate step.”
5. Board President Malia Hollowell expressed that this was an opportunity to “go back to the drawing board” with all district ILAs, and seek like-minded partnerships. She pointed out that the original MOU with the city of Maple Valley specifically references both residents and non-residents, and felt that the city is not acting within the spirit of that MOU. She agreed that the board should not waver when it comes to equity.

In the end there was broad agreement from the board that a new ILA should be drawn up and presented to the city, rather than a meeting with the city to ask the city to draw up a new ILA. This is not a binding vote by the board, as this was not a regular board meeting and was not put to a vote. Hanson provided closing comments, saying that he “hates that this one decision is souring” everything that the district does with the city. He mentioned collaboration on events like Iron Man. He concluded, however, by saying that as a district, “We need to take care of all of our kids.

This meeting summary was written by Jennifer Askew and provided to the Tahoma Values website. Do you have an article you would like to publish on our site? Please contact Tahoma Values at TahomaValues@gmail.com