1. Photos by Susie Fitzhugh Bell Times Analysis Task Force Update, Preliminary Community Feedback and Recommendation Subgroup 6/2/2015

2. Review Operating Norms Summary of Bell Time Analysis Process Transportation Analysis Update Community Engagement Update – Bell Time Online Survey PRELIMINARY – N2N Update – Email Feedback Review of Draft 2 from Recommendation Subgroup Consensus Voting Agenda 2

3. 3 Be present and punctual (sessions, breaks, small group work) Let others finish what they are saying without being interrupted Show respect for each other’s opinions Be brief and to the point when speaking Agree to disagree Give everyone a chance to speak Build on each other’s ideas Sit next to different people Additional Norms from First Meeting Small Groups or Advisory committees take notes for the public record Make sure we talk about positives as well as negatives Be concise to ensure all people have enough air time and understand issues Have a group process to structure indication of desire to speak (i.e. raising hands, putting cards out) Group Norms

4. Summary of Bell Time Analysis Process 4 June 2 Meeting Review PRELIMINARY data from Bell Time Online Survey Review Draft 2 of Recommendation Subgroup Subgroup collects remaining feedback June 2 – June 11 Subgroup produces final draft of Recommendation report

5. Summary of Bell Time Analysis Process 5 June 11 Meeting Task Force reviews and votes on recommendation criteria (Consensus Voting Model) Task Force reviews and votes on three options presented to community (Consensus Voting Model) Post-June 11 Chair collects minority report(s), if any, from Task Force members; works with subgroup to incorporate into final document

6. Summary of Bell Time Analysis Process 6

7. Summary of Bell Time Analysis Process 7 Due to update, Bell Time website currently unavailable. Should be available in 1-2 weeks

8. Summary of Bell Time Analysis Process 8 Consensus Survey Summary of Questions and Weighted Averages Nine consensus surveys (November 13 – May 14) 64 total consensus survey questions Scale: 1-4; 1=Strongly Disagree, 4=Strongly Agree Weighted Values: <2.5 majority disagree 2.5 split between disagree and agree >2.5 majority agree

9. 9 Student Transportation Kathy Katterhagen Director of Logistics

10. Riders Transport students to: 97 schools and 25 other destinations such as special needs services and interagency program locations

11. Transportation Eligibility and Use Daily Use – Some transportation eligible students ride the bus intermittently or choose not to ride the bus at all. For planning purposes, the District “over books” the seats. Annual Eligibility – Approximately 23,700 or 46% of students are eligible for District-funded transportation. Approximately half of the eligible riders use District-funded transportation on any given day.

12. 3-Tier Efficiency Goal Where possible the District uses one bus to deliver students to three different schools. Variations in length of school days and educational program needs require that some buses serve fewer than three schools.

13. Why is 3 Tiers the Goal? This goal is used because: It saves the District money by using less buses It efficiently uses contracted drivers – The longer routes provide better income to drivers and helps retain qualified drivers. Nearly all school districts have trouble keeping qualified drivers. Washington’s Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and the Council of Great City Schools (national) considers 3 Tiers a best practice.

14. Maximizing Resources A combination of: School (yellow) buses, Metro bus routes, Vans, and cabs are used to minimize the cost of meeting District Transportation Standards and State & Federally mandated services.

15. Competitive Contract & Software Competitive Contract Every 3 to 5 years the District solicits competitive bids from school bus contractors. Software The District uses Versatrans software to plan and update the approximately 1865 routes.

16. Using a 3-Tier Goal / 2.28 Tiers Actual

17. 15% to 30% Flexibility Factor What is it? A flexibility factor is used in calculating transportation bus cost. Why do we use it? A Flexibility factor accommodates the inevitable changes and additions in transportation due to changes in student programs and services throughout the school year.

18. Grade Level Analysis - 2 Tiers

19. Balanced Analysis - 2 Tiers

20. State Funding Currently the State of Washington reimburses the District for over 90% of our transportation expenditures. Funding is a function of the: Number of bus and Metro riders Types of riders (special needs or “basic”) Miles transported Number of destinations Moving to two tiers does not change any of these funding factors so there would not be any increase in state funding.

21. Not State Funded The State does not reimburse the District for The number of buses used The amount of fuel used Planning & staffing Cabs & vans – even when it is more cost effective Mid-day trips to special programs (including federally mandated therapy for special needs students). Local levy (“school tax”) funds from our voter- approved Operating Levy are used to make up the difference.

22. Potential Loss of State Funding Districts currently using a 2-Tier system have been advised by the State they are at risk of having their transportation funding reduced if they do not move towards a 3-Tier system. Therefore, should the District elect to move from the goal of three tiers to a goal of two tiers, there may be potential for the loss of state funds. The loss of state funds is established by the State at the time of the efficiency rating. One local 2 tier school district recently went from 100% to 88% efficiency at a loss of over $1 Million in funding. For SPS, every 3% loss is nearly a $1 Million.

23. Estimated Annual Costs Routing Strategy16-1718-19 Modified Flip+60 buses = $3.9M Lengthened School Day+89 buses = $5.9M No Change-0- Grade Level 2 Tier+230 buses = $15M Balanced 2 Tier+180 buses = $11.9M Budgeting Projection Assumptions 341 current buses Additional buses are not funded 30% flexibility factor Contract pricing remains consistent

24. Community Engagement Overview - handout – Focus on three Community Engagement efforts for Bell Time Analysis: Neighbor-to-Neighbor (N2N) Bell Time Online Survey Bell Time Analysis Task Force – Highlighting: Development Execution Issues Course Correction Community Engagement Update 24

25. Bell Time Online Survey – PRELIMINARY DATA: data as of May 10; subject to update from paper survey entries – Three Target Audiences: Parents Community Members Staff – Survey in 10 languages, offered online and in paper version – Available April 28, 2015 to May 10, 2015 Community Engagement Update 25

26. Bell Time Online Survey (continued) – Focus: Three Options (Modified Flip, Extended Day, No Change) Identify select factors that could be affected by each option Level of support for each option – Questions on race/ethnicity, education region, and grade level of child(ren) – Preliminary data is not disaggregated Community Engagement Update 26

27. Total Response: Parents – 10,415 Community Members – 553 Staff – 998 Total: 11,966 Languages: 99% of surveys taken online in English (11,873 responses) Surveys taken in eight of ten languages available (no surveys taken in Arabic and Tigrigna) Community Engagement Update 27

28. Region: All five regions represented in survey responses Most represented regions were Northeast and Northwest Community Engagement Update 28

29. Race/Ethnicity: All seven race/ethnicity groups represented in survey responses Most represented race/ethnicity were those who self- identified as ‘White’ Community Engagement Update 29

30. Q: Please indicate your level of support for the following start and end time schedules: Parent Survey – PRELIMINARY *Respondents for Parent Survey answering question: 6845 *Non-responses: 3680 Community Engagement Update 30 PRELIMINARY Strongly FavorFavorNeutralOppose Strongly Oppose I Don’t Know Option: Modified flip 2952 (43.38%) 1122 (16.49%) 424 (6.23%) 681 (10.01%) 1540 (22.63%) 86 (1.26%) Option: Extending the high school day 943 (14.00%) 1765 (26.21%) 1684 (25.00%) 915 (13.59%) 1018 (15.12%) 410 (6.09%) Option: No change 1313 (19.18%) 934 (13.64%) 1442 (21.07%) 1284 (18.76%) 1767 (25.81%) 105 (1.53%)

31. Q: Please indicate your level of support for the following start and end time schedules: Community Survey – PRELIMINARY *Respondents for Community Survey answering question: 327 *Non-responses: 231 Community Engagement Update 31 PRELIMINARY Strongly FavorFavorNeutralOppose Strongly Oppose I Don’t Know Option: Modified flip 184 (56.27%) 56 (17.13%) 22 (6.73%) 18 (5.50%) 45 (13.76%) 2 (0.61%) Option: Extending the high school day 55 (16.98%) 93 (28.70%) 68 (20.99%) 57 (17.59%) 47 (14.51%) 4 (1.23%) Option: No change 39 (12.11%) 18 (5.59%) 51 (15.84%) 86 (26.71%) 124 (38.51%) 4 (1.24%)

32. Q: Please indicate your level of support for the following start and end time schedules: Staff Survey – PRELIMINARY *Respondents for Parent Survey answering question: 665 *Non-responses: 350 Community Engagement Update 32 PRELIMINARYStrongly FavorFavorNeutralOppose Strongly Oppose I Don’t Know Option: Modified flip 295 (44.43%) 111 (16.72%) 39 (5.87%) 51 (7.68%) 159 (23.95%) 9 (1.36%) Option: Extending the high school day 79 (12.19%) 148 (22.84%) 161 (24.85%) 109 (16.82%) 116 (17.90%) 35 (5.40%) Option: No change 153 (23.01%) 90 (13.53%) 132 (19.85%) 115 (17.29%) 165 (24.81%) 10 (1.50%)

33. Neighbor-to-Neighbor (N2N) Update No preliminary data available at this time Questionnaires entered: 277 Questionnaires remaining to be entered: 110+ – More will be completed before June 10 end date for N2N: Bell Time Community Engagement Update 33

34. Email Feedback: From: Arrivaltimes@seattleschools.orgArrivaltimes@seattleschools.org Total Emails: 176 – Includes emails sent to School Board, Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent on the topic of bell times – 89 emails from Bell Time Online Survey (April 28 – May 10, 2015) Common Feedback: – Change bell times (18 emails) – Don’t Change bell times (11 emails) – Don’t ignore K-8 (23 emails) – Two Tier (61 emails) – Support for options (9-modified flip, 3-extended day) – Didn’t like survey (19 emails) Community Engagement Update 34 Note: Individual emails could have multiple comments

35. Review of Draft 2 35 Recommendation Subgroup Presentation

36. Review of Draft 2 36 Small Group Work – 5-6 people in each group – Designate a reporter and recorder – Spend 15 minutes reviewing and discussing Recommendation Criteria draft Review Small Group Work – Each group will provide input on the criteria to the subgroup Large Group Work – Any additional feedback for subgroup for final draft

37. Closing 37 Consensus Voting