Agenda: Board of Education Meeting, February 24, 2022

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF EDUCATION PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Call to Order - Joyce S. Wilkerson, President Roll Call - Lynn Rauch, Esq., General Counsel Approval of Minutes - January 27, 2022 Committee Reports Superintendent Remarks - William R. Hite, Jr., Ed.D., Superintendent Written Testimony • Written Testimony Board of Education - Other Registered Student Speakers • Registered Student Speakers Board of Education - Other Elected Officials • Elected Officials Speakers List Board of Education - Other Registered Speakers on General Topics • Registered Speakers List Goals and Guardrails • Goal 1: Reading Board of Education - Other • Reading Goal 1 - Presentation Board of Education - Other Responses to Questions on Action Items • Responses to Questions on Action Items Board of Education - Other Action Item 1. Approval of Retirements and Resignations (Updated 2.24.2022) Talent - Other 2. Approval of Personnel Hires - Updated 02.14.2022

Talent - Other 3. Approval of Personnel Terminations (Updated 2.24.2022) Talent - Other 4. Administration's Recommendation for Termination of Professional Employees (Updated 2.24.2022) Talent - Other 5. Contract with LinkedIn Corporation ($45,000) Talent - Contracts 6. Contract with Drexel University, School of Education - Paraprofessional Teacher Residency ($260,415) Talent - Contracts 7. Contract with Cheney University, College Unbound and LaSalle University - Paraprofessional Pathway to BA/Teacher Certification ($1,681,550) Talent - Contracts 8. Contract with WEX Health Inc. COBRA and Direct Bill Benefits Services ($30,000) Talent - Contracts 9. Amendment to Contract with Magnum Integrated Marketing - School District Recruiting Marketing Campaign ($164,500) Talent - Amended Contracts 10. Ratification of Acceptance for two Grants from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP), Alternative Fuels Incentive Grant (AFIG) Program ($600,000)

Operations - Transportation - Other 11. Contract with Wayne Moving and Storage Company, Inc., T & N Van Service and Affiliates, All Seasons Global Solutions (ASGS) - Moving Services at various locations ($1,500,000) Operations - Capital Programs - Contracts 12. Capital Award For Vare-Washington School ($4,772,053) Operations - Capital Programs - Capital Awards 13. Change Orders With Various Vendors ($405,045) Operations - Capital Programs - Other 14. Contract with Various Firms for Supplemental Professional Architectural Services ($10,000,000) Operations - Capital Programs - Contracts 15. Contract Award with Weatherproofing Technologies, Inc for HVAC Replacement, Roofing and Masonry Project- Austin Meehan Middle School ($12,948,988 ) Operations - Capital Programs - Contracts 16. Stormwater Management Incentives Program (SMIP) Grant Acceptance and Subgrant Agreement for Grover Washington Middle School and Thomas Edison High School

Operations - Capital Programs - Other 17. Ratification to Amend Contract with DLR for Technical Specifications - Additional Time Operations - Capital Programs - Other 18. Ratification and Authorization of Contract with Vacant Property Security, LLC for Property Security Services - $50,000 Operations - Procurement - Other 19. Ratification and Authorization of Purchase Order Contracting Authority - Calendar Year 2022 Operations - Procurement - Other 20. Ratification and Authorization of Contracts with Fluidics and Devine Brothers for Boiler Burner Services - $2,000,000 Operations - Procurement - Other 21. Amendment of Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Philadelphia Student Support Services - Memorandum of Understanding 22. Contracts with Various Qualified Vendors - Preschool Programs ($72,369,000) Academic Support - Contracts 23. AMY Northwest Middle School Schoolyard Improvement Project, Lowell Elementary School Schoolyard Improvement Project, and Add B. Anderson

Elementary School Schoolyard Improvement Project - limited Joinders to Subgrant Agreement (Added 2.3.2022) Operations - Capital Programs - Other 24. Ratification and Authorization of Acceptance of a Donation from Wawa, Inc., for COVID-19 Testing Supplies ($2,000,000) - Added 02.07.2022 (Updated 02.10.2022) Talent - Other 25. The Student Voter Education and Registration Resolution - Added 02.10.2022 Board of Education - Other 26. Settlement of Civil Action-D.P. by and through the parents of D.P. - Added 02.17.2022 General Counsel - Other 27. Settlement of Civil Action-James Russell - Added 2.17.2022 General Counsel - Other 28. Acceptance of Donation from The Fund for The School District of Philadelphia and Authorization of Contract for Facilities Planning and Community Engagement ($1,300,000) - Added 2.22.2022 - Updated 2.24.2022 Superintendent - Other 29. Contract with Various Temporary Staffing Vendors (Robert Half International,

Inc. and Solomon Page Group, LLC) - No Additional Cost - Added 2.22.2022 Talent - Contracts

Adjourn Email: schoolboard@philasd.org Twitter: @PHLschoolboard | Facebook: @PHLschoolboard

Written Testimony - • Title: Written Testimony Board of Education Meeting Date: 2/24/2022 Office Originating Request: Board of Education ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 2_24_22 Written Testimony Supporting Document

Testimony to the Philadelphia School Board Submitted in writing on February 24, 2022 Amber Whitaker - Parent who wants to attend a Mastery Renaissance School – denied as out of catchment I am a parent of a kindergartener and first grader. I am writing to you because the policy you have in place is denying my children the choice to a better school. I was born and raised in Philadelphia and attended John Bartram High School. Overall it wasn’t bad at the time but I would definitely want something better for my children. Schools just aren’t the same as they used to be. Overall I do not dislike the school they are currently in, but I need something different for them. I have been trying to enroll my children into Mastery Harrity Elementary School for a couple years now, but I live outside the catchment zone so have been told I am ineligible. I have heard many wonderful things about the Mastery schools so that is where I want my children to go.

Why is it, that such a great school is being held back from accepting children like mine when that is the school I WANT to send them to? This is unacceptable and wrong. Once a school has enrolled all the students from the catchment who want to attend and there is still space available, why would you as a School Board stop a family like mine from enrolling?

Isn’t the job of the School Board to make sure every child in Philadelphia has access to quality public school regardless of where we live? Your policy is doing just the opposite. It is denying me as a parent the right to enroll in a Mastery Renaissance charter school. My question is: Will you change the school selection policy to allow parents like me to choose the best school for my children, including public Renaissance Charters like Mastery? Please do right by our children.

Testimony to the Philadelphia School Board Feb. 22, 2022 Submitted by Linda Thurman Philadelphia Parent Out of Catchment Parent Applicant – Ineligible at Gratz Hello everyone. My name is Linda Thurman. I am a parent of a 9thth grader and a 2nd grader. My children have attended Charter schools their whole lives. I have never had an issue applying to any charter schools prior to now. I applied for my daughter to attend Mastery Gratz High School and was told I live outside of the schools catchment zone. How is this possible when my daughter attends a Charter school further away from my house? Gratz is a fifteen minute walk and a five minute drive away. My child can walk to and from school if she could attend there. Now I have to drive her further away than necessary to get her to and from school. Turns out I live in the Martin Luther King School zone. But I don’t want my child to go there. I want my daughter to go to Gratz. In fact Gratz is closer to my house than M.L.K.

As a parent, I should have a say in where my child goes to school. Why can’t I send my child to Gratz? It is a public neighborhood school. Gratz has always enrolled students from outside its catchment as long as seats were available. And now all of a sudden you denying me the option of sending my child to Gratz. It makes no sense. No other public high school in the city is restricted in this way.

Will you please remove this policy you have put in place that is denying me the choice to send my child to a school I choose?

Kathy Geary – Parent, Renaissance Schools Testimony to the Philadelphia School Board January 27, 2022 Dr. Hite, President Wilkerson and members of the School Board, My name is Kathy Geary, I am the proud grandparent of three Mastery students. My grandson, Aaron is a senior at Gratz and I’ve been loving the school ever since he started in 9th grade. I love it, I love it, I love it. He loves it too! Aaron is on the football team and college bound and the experience at Gratz Mastery has been great! Which is why it was so upsetting to hear about the unfair practices you are trying to impose on families like mine. We live in the Northeast area. Gratz is not our neighborhood school, but my grandson was given an opportunity to attend and for that I am grateful. You are preventing the very students you have sworn to help from getting a quality education when you stop Mastery from enrolling students that do not live in the catchment. Why would you do that?

Mastery provides a good education, which is why I chose to put my children in Mastery because of the opportunity. It is improper, immoral and discriminatory to even suggest stopping anyone from attending any school, but especially Gratz. The school is warm and inviting. They’ve been nothing but supportive of me and my family. For health reasons, my grandson is doing virtual learning and they have been very accommodating. They offer mentoring and when the Gratz community lost students to gun violence they provided counseling. Gratz cares about the African American community. Gratz is a big school with lots of space. Why would you even think to close the enrollment and prohibit students from attending if there are seats available. It’s just not fair. Will you please reconsider and change your policy that will hurt children like my grandson Aaron.

Testimony to the Philadelphia School Board 2-24-22 Donna Holliday, Parent William D.Kelley Public School Hello everyone. My name is Donna Holliday, I am the grandparent of a 6th grader at William D.Kelley Public School. He currently attends William D.Kelley Public School in North Philadelphia since that is where he attended previously to being placed in my care. My grandchild will be moving up to middle school next year. I have applied for my grandson to attend Mastery Pastorius-Richardson Elementary School since it’s close to home. However, I was informed that due to my address he did not qualify to attend that school. I am very confused. Why can’t a school that is a three minute drive from my house accept my grandson? Why are you imposing policies on the Mastery Renaissance schools – that are PUBLIC schools – that don’t permit them to serve my grandbaby? Shouldn’t that be my choice? I find this policy unfair and discriminatory. Please change this policy and

let parents and guardians like me select any public school, including Renaissance charter schools for our children.

February 18, 2022 Board of Education The School District of Philadelphia 440 N. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19130 Dear Board of Education Members: I write today to extend my support for the Philadelphia School Board’s adoption of a Voter Registration Policy or Resolution. I applaud the actions of the many students and teachers who have given testimony during school board hearings on this important issue. I also appreciate the school board’s willingness to create such a policy. Voting is one of the pillars of democracy. It is the easiest and most accessible way to participate in the democratic process. However, youth are the least likely of all age groups to vote. Encouraging and assisting high school students to register to vote can help boost voter participation. Studies show that voting in one election increases the chances of voting in a future election. This is especially important in diverse communities like Philadelphia. In the November

2020 election, 65 percent of white voters nationwide aged 18-24 were registered to vote as compared to 55 percent for Black individuals of the same age. The disparities were even greater for those coming from low-income households. Individuals aged 18-24 coming from households making less than $30,000 per year were registered to vote at percentages ranging from 39 percent to 53 percent. Those of the same age range coming from households making $50,000 or more had voter registration percentages ranging from 60 percent to 79 percent.1 Unfortunately, many states across the country have been enacting laws to make registration and voting more difficult, such as limiting early voting and absentee voting, requiring IDs, purging voter rolls, and decreasing the number of polling places. These laws go against the fundamental basis of democracy and everything that we have fought for during our decades-long fight against voter suppression.

1 https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-585.html.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 required states with a history of discrimination to get pre- clearance from the Department of Justice before implementing voting laws. A 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision removed this requirement. Therefore, I voted for the House-passed John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore the full protections of the original, bipartisan Voting Rights Act of 1965. The bill has been sitting in the Senate since September of last year. Therefore, this January, I wrote a letter to President Biden and Senate leadership urging the Senate to take immediate action on the bill and pass it. I also support the Automatic Voter Registration Act, which would automatically register individuals to vote at their states’ departments of motor vehicles; and the Voter Empowerment Act, which would permit same-day voter registration and online voter registration. However, until Congress is able to pass these bills, we need to make sure we are doing everything we can

to encourage young people to register to vote. Schools providing education and resources to students on voter registration is the first step in getting youth from all backgrounds to participate in democracy. I appreciate your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Dwight Evans Member of Congress

2/22/22, 12:58 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244585&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/2 From : Miriam Hill Subject : Overcrowding at Carver E&S as a result of poorly planned lottery To : schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Overcrowding at Carver E&S as a result of poorly planned lottery Mon, Feb 21, 2022 07:22 PM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. Hello, I'm writing to ask how Carver E&S is supposed to accommodate the 300 students accepted through the lottery when there are about 200 spots in the high school. Carver's principal shared these numbers at our last HSA meeting. My fellow Carver parents and I do not understand how the school can accept that many students. This appears to be yet another error in the district's poorly planned

execution of the new lottery. It also means that the district held out hope to students with the promise of a wait list that does not actually exist at Carver. Students were given numbers on a wait list, then told by Karen Lynch that some schools, including Carver, would not take any children off the wait list because they were over-enrolled. This may sound like a small thing, but it's not because it adds to the immense stress that the district's new admissions process placed on children and families who, as we already know, are immensely stressed by the pandemic. Carver middle schoolers always had a reasonable expectation that they could attend Carver high school. The district stole that commitment from them with minimal public discussion (I"m not convinced there was any public discussion), then failed to explain why it could not continue the tradition of giving Carver middle-schoolers preference for admission to the high school. There was no

good reason not to continue this policy, especially at a school like Carver that in Joyce Wilkerson's own words, achieved diversity in a way that is unmatched in the city. But at least there was the hope of a wait list - or so we thought. Now we know there is no wait list and the possibility of 100 extra kids in the high school. As Chalkbeat reported, most of the 24 Carver middle-schoolers who were wait- listed are Black. How can you claim this policy is anti-racist?

2/22/22, 12:58 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244585&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 2/2 Here is the Chalkbeat story: https://philadelphia.chalkbeat.org/2022/2/17/22939435/lottery-special- admissions-process-opportunity-hurting-black-students-science-high-school. Sincerely, Miriam Hill, mom of a Carver middle-schooler

Ms. Carlin Williamson, Parent Mastery Wister Elementary School Testimony submitted to the Philadelphia School Board Thursday, February 24, 2022 Hello, my name is Carlin Williamson and my son Tylore is a 4th grader at Mastery Wister Elementary School. I am also an active member of the Mastery Parent Action Team that helps to advocate for quality education for our children. I have enjoyed sending Tylore to Wister for the past three years and have seen tremendous growth in him as a person and academically. This is why I am sending this written testimony to share my disagreement with the proposed new charter agreements that the School Board is trying to push through. These agreements are unfair to Renaissance Charter Schools and they increase inequity by denying parents the choice to select the public school they want for their child. As I understand it the School District is trying to create a policy that would restrict the

enrollment to Renaissance Charter Schools to only allow students in the area where they live to enroll and no student outside that area will be allow to enroll, even when there is space available. This is not fair because this rule does NOT apply to District neighborhood schools. Anyone can see how this is a direct attack at Renaissance Charter Schools and an attempt to deny families the right to enroll their children at a quality school even if they don’t live in the area. This restriction is wrong and hurts the academic opportunities mainly for many Black and Brown children. It also appears to be a targeted attempt to decrease enrollment at charter schools in order to increase enrollment at District schools. Please do not play this political game with the future of our children’s education. So as a concerned parent I am asking for the School Board to allow Renaissance Schools to follow that same enrollment rules at District schools. Please resend and amend the

current charter agreements so that they are equitable for all parents and schools. If this agreement is not amended it will cause nothing but problems for several families throughout the city, problems that would be devastating to their child’s future. Please don’t let this happen. Thank you, Ms. Carlin Williamson Mastery Wister Elementary Mastery Parent Action Team

2/23/22, 9:51 AM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244964&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/2 From : Mono, Jessica M Subject : Board Comments To : schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Board Comments Wed, Feb 23, 2022 09:38 AM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. Our daughter is an 8th grade student at Masterman. She has had all As for her entire school career, consistently scored in the 95-99th percentiles in PSSAs and scored a 25.2 on the recent writing admissions exam. She applied to 4 special admit high schools. On the first day of the high school selection process our daughter learned she was waitlisted at all 4 schools with the following waitlist spots: Central: 674 Masterman: 189 Bodine: 198 Palumbo: 148 At the conclusion of the 2 week waitlist period our daughter was not offered a spot at any of the

schools she applied to and was eligible for. Her current waitlist numbers are: Central : 605 Masterman: 151 Bodine: 195 Palumbo: 140 When the new high school selection process was announced parents were told by staff at Masterman and the Philadelphia School District Administration, that although every student might not get their first choice for high school, there would be a spot for every child in the 8th grade in Philadelphia who wanted to attend a special admit high school. When our daughter was waitlisted at all of the schools she applied to, we reached out for guidance and advocacy about next steps from our school principal. She did not offer to advocate on behalf of our daughter and replied: "If you continue to advocate for your child and engage other district stakeholders please remember that it is not accurate to say that your child doesn't have a high school, but rather she doesn't have a high school that she/ you want.” This by implication means my daughter should

now attend her neighborhood school- Furness HS. Requests were made for my daughter and other students in her situation who were not offered admission in the first round of the process to be given priority during the waitlist selection period and these requests were denied. I am a life long resident of Philadelphia who graduated from Central High School. My husband and I are typical middle class parents who cannot afford private school and are at the mercy of the Philadelphia School District. We believe that it is the mission of the PSD to help all children reach their maximum academic potential. Please help us understand how attending Furness HS will meet our daughter’s academic potential? Is this equity?

2/23/22, 9:51 AM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244964&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 2/2 Sincerely, Jessica and Brian Mono

2/23/22, 8:48 AM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244877&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/1 From : Deborah Grill Subject : Comments on February Action Item #25 To : schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Comments on February Action Item #25 Tue, Feb 22, 2022 04:40 PM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. February 22, 2022 Dear Board Members: I am writing in support of Action Item #25, The Student Voter Education and Registration Resolution. I firmly believe that public schools are the foundation of a democratic society, and it is only fitting that they should not only teach about participatory democracy and civic responsibility, but also provide eligible students with the means to take part in the most fundamental step in the democratic process by assisting them to register to vote.

While this resolution is a step in the right direction, I urge you to take it one step further and make Student Voter Education and Registration a District policy, and make civics instruction part of every school curriculum, not just high school. Students at all levels need to be made aware of the importance of making their voices heard and the available means to do so. It is especially important now as our democracy is being threatened by attempts to suppress the vote and undermine civic institutions. Thank you for considering this resolution. I look forward to seeing it incorporated into policy in the near future. Respectfully, Deborah Grill Alliance for Philadelphia Public Schools

2/23/22, 8:47 AM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244895&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/2 From : Meagan Murray Subject : Board Comments, To : covid19info@philasd.org, jwilkerson@philasd.org, jdanzy@philasd.org, lehinton@philasd.org, mfixlopez@philasd.org, mmccolgan@philasd.org, rstreater@philasd.org, lsalley@philasd.org, cethompson@philasd.org, schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Board Comments, Tue, Feb 22, 2022 06:14 PM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. Good afternoon, My name is Meagan Murray and I reside at . As a student in Philadelphia, I am upset and disappointed at the stark disparity between public and private school treatment and resources as it pertains to the COVID-19 epidemic. This disparity is overtly racist and classist. Below, please find further complaints and demands.

In the absence of a plan, families and school staff members deal with confusion and chaos on a daily basis. We receive mixed messages about when our students need to go home and isolate and when they can return. We get texts and emails about school closures late the night before the school closes, leaving us with little time to plan. We don’t know if our students are getting tested for COVID-19 because schools are running out of tests or don’t have people able to administer tests. It is clear: with 100 schools closed and counting, the current plan for dealing with COVID-19 in our schools is not working. But despite that, we see no updated plans from the leaders entrusted to navigate a path forward. We are told to wait and see what happens. As leaders sit on their hands and watch the cases in schools rise, our students, families, teachers and staff members hear the message loud and clear that our health and safety does not matter.

We demand the following from the District and the city to keep everyone in Philadelphia’s public schools safe: 1. Updated plans and quarantining protocols 2. Transparency and communication around what is happening in schools 3. Modern, functioning, and well-maintained HVAC systems in every school 4. Increased testing and high-quality masks, provided for free to all students & school staff members It’s time for the School District of Philadelphia, the Board of Education, the Mayor, and City Council to step up and ensure that Philadelphia’s public schools are safe for students in the midst of the continuing and worsening COVID-19 pandemic. Cases are at an all-time high in the city, and yet the district’s current health and safety plan was last revised in August, months before the emergence of the Omicron variant of COVID- 19.

2/23/22, 8:47 AM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244895&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 2/2 -- Meagan Murray She/Her/Hers

Testimony to the Philadelphia School Board Feb. 24, 2022 Equines Brown, Parent Hello everyone. My name is Equines Brown, I have a 5th grader that attends General George Meade School in North Philadelphia. I was born in Philadelphia. As a teenager, I attended Mastery Thomas High School and have to say I am really happy I did. Thomas is an amazing school. As all Mastery Schools are. Their teachers are different. They really care. I thrived at Mastery and I would love my child to attend a Mastery school too. I have been applying for my son to attend Mastery Charter Schools for 5 years. As a single mother I want the best for my child. I have been informed that due to my address he did not qualify to attend the school because we are out of the catchment area. I believe as a Philadelphia public school parent that I should be able to apply to all public schools, including Renaissance schools like Mastery. I can apply to any district school but your policy doesn’t

allow me to select a Renaissance school, like Mastery. Why not treat all parents equally and let Mastery’s Renaissance schools play by the same enrollment rules as all the district schools. Please, please, please, will you change this policy that’s taking away my right to choose a good education for my child?

2/23/22, 8:45 AM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244930&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/1 From : Graig Saloom Subject : Written Testimony for Feb 24th Meeting/Grades are Important To : schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Written Testimony for Feb 24th Meeting/Grades are Important Wed, Feb 23, 2022 08:20 AM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. The board has heard considerable testimony and public comment concerning the changes to this year's special admissions school selection process, much of which has focused on the expectations of current 8th grade students and implicit or explicit promises made by various magnet schools regarding 9th grade admissions. I will not comment on those issues here as they have been thoroughly covered. Having now gone through the process

with my 4th grader I think it is critically important that the board acknowledge and appreciate another, and perhaps more insidious, issue brought on by the changes to the selection process, one that is central to the core mission of motivating and evaluating students. There is no other way to say it other than that there is no longer any incentive whatsoever for students in Philadelphia public schools to strive to produce A-quality work in 1st through 8th grades. To be clear, as long as a student earns at least all B minuses in 4th and 8th grades, further achievement will not benefit them one bit in the special admissions selection process, provide them access to honors track courses at their existing schools, or provide any other performance-based benefit. Under a lottery system a student with all B minuses is on exactly equal footing - or better footing if they live in certain zip codes - than a student with all A pluses. Whatever goals the district hoped to achieve by

changing the selection process, this intended or unintended result is surely at odds with the ideals of hard work, quantitative evaluation, and striving for excellence that parents, students, and school systems have applied to public school for a hundred years. What message of mediocrity is the district sending to current students as they prepare themselves for the competition they will face in high school, college, and their job search? What message is the district sending to prospective parents about what it values? As my daughter asked me recently, "why do I need to do all this work to get As"......and I didn't have a good answer.

2/23/22, 1:22 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244975&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/1 From : Amy Green Subject : Board comments To : schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Board comments Wed, Feb 23, 2022 10:11 AM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. Dear School Board Members, I'm writing as a citizen of Philadelphia, with children in the public schools, to express my large disappointment with how the new admissions process to certain high schools has been handled. From the beginning, information provided to parents was unclear and with much important data missing. For example, I never received a response to my question about what zip codes were given preference, and exactly how this was handled in the admissions process. The new system seems to have been together in a haste and without

any thought of parents, families and children in our school system. 8th graders were left in a very stressful situation during the process, and many still are. I have many questions I would have liked to have answered, but no one seemed to know the answers. This is quite shocking. My 7h grader was just advised by the school counselor that they could choose one correct sentence and write it over and over again to get a top score on the written entrance test. This sure does not seem like a good test to use for picking children for high school. These are just some quick thoughts. Thank you for listening. Best regards, Amy Green ~~~ SUND by Amy Amy von Sydow Green MD, MS, RD

2/23/22, 1:22 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244986&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/1 From : Jerry Li Subject : Board Comments To : schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Board Comments Wed, Feb 23, 2022 10:58 AM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. Equity and Fairness for All ( Board Comments). All students deserved equity and Fairness. Stop depriving the civil rights of the qualified students. Offer increased enrollment, but keep qualified students in their school. Jason Li

2/23/22, 1:19 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244996&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/2 From : karel kilimnik Subject : Written Testimony for 2/24 Action Meeting/please confirm receipt. Thank you. To : Board of Education <SchoolBoard@philasd.org> Zimbra @philasd.org Written Testimony for 2/24 Action Meeting/please confirm receipt. Thank you. Wed, Feb 23, 2022 11:29 AM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. I have followed the Board’s Superintendent Search closely since it was announced last October.. Let us not forget that this Board was selected and appointed by Mayor Kenney behind closed doors. This secrecy has continued during this entire process. The Board’s latest update raises many questions. How many finalists will there be? In Board member

Egea-Hinton’s email she stated that they will come to Philadelphia “for a series of meetings with stakeholders". How will these “stakeholders” be selected? Will they be posted on the website? Then she mentions “in addition to the town hall,each finalist’s itinerary will include in-person and live-streamed meetings with students, teachers and principals, and parents/guardians “ Is this different from meetings with stakeholders or is it the same? Then her letter goes on to state that only 32 people will be chosen for in person or virtual meetings with the candidates. The Auditorium at 440 has a capacity of 240 people so why are only 32 people being selected? There is no space on the form for community members or advocates so are we all excluded? Is this another tactic by the Board to squash objections to their process by excluding people from the In Person meeting who might object or bring signs raising questions?. What criteria are being used to select the chosen

32? Which Board members are selecting participants? According to the website “ all sessions will be live streamed and the viewing public will be invited to ask questions.” Will there be a time limit imposed on virtual speakers? What happens if virtual speakers are not able to speak-will there be a way for their questions to be answered and displayed publicly? People who care deeply about public education need time to research these finalists so what is your timeline for announcing the candidates and holding the public meetings? Let’s return to the beginning of the Board’s Superintendent Search. First the Board carefully selected which groups to partner with as they held Listening Sessions often dictating the script to follow during these meetings. I attended 6 Virtual ones as well as one In Person session. During the In Person Session the six participants were told not to take notes. Someone from the public relations firm facilitated the session while another of

their staff members wrote what participants said on chart paper. I suggested linking those notes to the session so that the public could see what was said. I suggested doing that for each Listening Session. Instead the Board used the public relations firm to create a slick report filled with what the Board wanted recorded. Many issues including not hiring anyone affiliated with the Broad Foundation did not make it into the glossy corporate-like report. We need an elected school board that is accountable and transparent and sees parents,advocates,teachers and school staff along with members of the public as partners

2/23/22, 1:19 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244996&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 2/2 not adversaries.

2/23/22, 1:18 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244997&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/2 From : Priscilla Lo Subject : Written Testimony Submission: Please Revisit Quarantine Policies To : schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Written Testimony Submission: Please Revisit Quarantine Policies Wed, Feb 23, 2022 11:47 AM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. To Dr. Hite and Boardmembers, We are approaching two years after the “2 weeks to flatten the curve.” COVID cases are dropping rapidly; people are eager to resume living as normal a life as they can. Restaurants and bars are packed after the vax mandate was lifted, gyms came back to life, and Wells Fargo has been filled with enthusiastic fans shouting and screaming for their teams, their masks on their chin. Change is everywhere.

Except for public schools in Philadelphia. Public schools in Philadelphia continue to follow an outdated quarantine policy: 10 days if students don’t have access to rapid tests; 20 days if their family members test positive. That is over 10% of their entire academic year. Many districts have already moved away from this outdated policy, which was set to mitigate a virus strain that is no longer dominant. Even CHOP PolicyLab and CHOP leadership advocated for a revision to COVID mitigation for the sake of returning children to normalcy, suggesting the elimination of weekly testing as they are no longer meaningful given current trends, in addition to a modified quarantine schedule. We are so fortunate to have a leading pediatric hospital in this city, but the SDP chose not to consider this to the detriment of public school students. Public school students are yet again being put in a disadvantaged and inequitable position.

Why is the burden of public health being put squarely on the shoulders of our public school students? Why does the SDP agree to follow a completely separate set of guidelines that are more restrictive than others? Are public school students somehow less worthy of normalcy than parochial and private school students? Than students in other cities? Why punish our students for something that they are not responsible for? When will SDP consider off-ramps for mitigation? Children are not as resilient as you may think. Why are we so worried about lunchtime at school, but are excited to take our kids to dine inside a packed restaurant? Why are we implying to our children that “schools are more dangerous” given the restrictions not seen anywhere else? Don’t we already know that schools do not drive community transmission? So much of this just does not make sense, when you compare city life to public school life.

I hope you would consider these questions when you are out and about, perhaps hanging out with friends at their homes, or in restaurants, enjoying some type of normalcy that is denied to public school students. Priscilla Lo Parent of a 6th grader

2/23/22, 1:18 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244997&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 2/2

2/23/22, 1:23 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244974&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/2 From : Linda Schatz Subject : Board Comments - from Linda Schatz, To : schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Board Comments - from Linda Schatz, Wed, Feb 23, 2022 10:08 AM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. Dear Members of the Board of Education of the School District of Philadelphia, I am deeply concerned by the inhuman process the School District of Philadelphia (SDP) used to reassign middle school students who attend magnet schools for their high school placement. The process included an abundant lack of integrity. It has been extremely hurtful to children, parents, and other members of the community throughout Philadelphia. Students who entered middle school at magnet schools were promised by the SDP that if

they did well at their magnet school, they were guaranteed a placement at the same magnet high school. This makes sense. If only the SDP kept its word. If only the SDP modeled what it means to be an upstanding citizen and institution of the world. Children learn by example. The example the SDP has set for students city-wide in this inhuman and flawed process of reassigning students for their high school placement is that a person and an institution does not need to keep its word. How superbly the SDP is modeling that a person or institution can say one thing, then do another. "Do not count on us," is the clear message. The daughter of a friend of mine is an 8th grader at George Washington Carver High School of Engineering and Science (Carver High School). She is a straight A student this year, as she has been her whole life. Her score on the written assessment was a 26. Though she was recently given a placement to continue at Carver High School for her high

school education, the selection process overenrolled the entering ninth grade class at Carver High School by 132 students.

2/23/22, 1:23 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244974&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 2/2 That means that about 132 students who have been "accepted" to enter ninth grade at Carver High School this fall, and promised a placement there, will not be able to attend that school. My friend, her daughter, other family members, and myself as a very concerned citizen, find this outrageously inconsiderate, dishonest, and hurtful. Will my friend's daughter be one of the unfortunate 8th graders who will soon be reassigned to a different high school? If so, what school will that be? What will the quality of the education at the newly assigned school be? When will a notice of reassignment be given? Will there be any way the student and her family can contest the reassignment - after being promised a placement at Carver High School? I am a former Teacher with the School District of Philadelphia. I am deeply concerned about the lack of humanity the District is showing students,

parents, and other members of the City of Philadelphia. I ask you, as members of the Board of Education of the School District of Philadelphia, to immediately change course on the selection process for high school placement at magnet schools: 1. Honor the commitments that were initially given to middle school students - that if they did well at a magnet school, they were guaranteed a placement in that same magnet school's high school program. 2. Apologize for not having acted in a thoughtful and honest way. 3. Acknowledge that people and institutions grow, recognize their mistakes, and work hard to make amends to right wrongs that have occurred. 4. Set up real and tangible ways for parents and other stakeholders to be listened to and really heard in the unfolding processes that the SDP undertakes. Thank you, Linda Schatz, M.ED.

2/23/22, 1:17 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=245006&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/1 From : Susu Nhar Subject : Board comment To : schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Board comment Wed, Feb 23, 2022 12:40 PM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. Saida Nhari Dear Philadelphia School District Board, The new school selection system has caused a lot of stress and anxiety to many of our students and children. My daughter attends Masterman middle school and was waitlisted to 4 out of her 5 choices. She is a straight A student, and never missed a day of school. She wakes up every day early in the morning just to get to school on time since it is quite far. She has maintained good grades, and worked hard since she started attending Masterman middle school in the 5th grade. I expected that if she maintained

her grades, and kept up the good work, she would be accepted into Masterman High School as well as all high schools in Philadelphia since her grades reflect that. I believe it is not fair that I had expectations on how the process worked, that were taken away without warning. The expectation was that qualified students would continue into the high school, whether it be Carver high school or Masterman high school, and get into any other criteria based high school in Philadelphia. This new method of selection may have had the intention of doing good, but it seems to be doing more harm. When a child works hard with the expectation and promise of getting into a high school, and is not accepted into most if not any of his/her choices, it can cause a strain on the child. I am an Arab immigrant with the intention of giving my children a better life and better educational opportunities than I had. To see hard working children and students stripped

of their opportunities to become exceptional, is very upsetting. Qualified students should get into all and any of their choices. Sincerely, Saida Nhari

2/23/22, 1:15 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=245009&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/1 From : Isabel Yannatos Subject : Board Comments To : schoolboard@philasd.org, covid19info@philasd.org, hite@philasd.org Cc : jwilkerson@philasd.org, jdanzy@philasd.org, lehinton@philasd.org, mfixlopez@philasd.org, mmccolgan@philasd.org, rstreater@philasd.org, lsalley@philasd.org, cethompson@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Board Comments Wed, Feb 23, 2022 12:54 PM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. Isabel Yannatos As a Philadelphia resident, community member, and tax payer I am very concerned about our public schools’ preparedness and ability to keep the community safe. It’s past time for the School District of Philadelphia, the Board of Education, the Mayor, and City Council to

step up and make sure that Philadelphia’s public schools are safe and remain so in the midst of the continuing COVID-19 endemic. When cases were at an all-time high, the District’s health and safety plan was woefully inadequate but was not updated. Families and school staff dealt with confusion and chaos on a daily basis, received mixed messages about student isolation and last-minute notice of school closures. The District did nothing to address these problems. Although the current omicron is surge is falling, it is not gone. We know that there will be continued resurgences and waves in the future. The District needs to be better prepared and have a plan to protect its community from COVID-19. I support the demands from Our City Our Schools: 1. Updated plans and quarantining protocols 2. Transparency and communication around what is happening in schools 3. Modern, functioning, and well-maintained HVAC systems in every school 4.

Increased testing and high-quality masks, provided for free to all students & school staff members The acceptable amount of illness or death in a school community due to COVID-19 is zero. It is past time for decisive action. Sincerely, Isabel Yannatos

2/23/22, 1:27 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=245021&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/2 From : una mcquaile Subject : Board Comments To : Schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Board Comments Wed, Feb 23, 2022 01:20 PM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. I have many comments that I would like to make about the High school lottery but I am going to stick to the mental health impact this has had on our children and the manner in which the district employees have dismissed student and parent concerns. As a mental health professional, I was initially horrified that 8th grade students were informed of these high school admission changes without parental input and without advanced notice AFTER 18 months of pandemic learning. The students, 12, 13 and 14

years olds, then had to take an essay with their classmates and be told the results in front of peers. Let's remember that developmentally our students are most impacted by peer opinion in 8th grade. For many, this public experience was horrifying. After the debacle of having to take an essay to determine their school placement and knowing that the essay was in no way indicative of their ability, they had to wait for the results of a "lottery" to determine placement. The concept of a lottery and not hard work determining placement is a whole other story. The children then tried to log into a system that was unable to manage the traffic and many had to wait to hear their "results''. Many students received no magnet choice despite being A students. How can educators be comfortable with this message? Finally the wait list. I am not even sure where to start with the waitlist debacle and the shameful email that Ms. Lynch sent stating that students were "eager " but would have to

wait. Why? Because they ran a system that was not tested and used the children as guinea pigs. Ms Lynch is supposed to protect our children and support our counselors and she was beyond callous on how this was managed. I attended the farcical "information" meeting that was held by the district and she refused to answer any questions that actually spoke to the issues. I have screenshots. I have heard that she had co- workers screen the questions before she would address them. As someone who works with higher education admissions, I can honestly say that we do not treat our adult students so poorly. Colleges try to allow students to have choice, fit and control over their destiny which allows them to care for themselves. The school district has done none of this and our children have and are suffering. Not providing a ranking of choice was a poor and detrimental decision. I am the parents of 2 current district students and 1 alumnus and I am a very proud

immigrant to this city. However, I am beyond grateful that this is the last child that I have in the district because I am horrified. I am also ashamed that Ms. Lynch to continue to hold a position in which she is supposed to care and support. She has done neither. Please consider this and other comments as you move forward with this process. This process has not provided equity. - Una Mc Quaile

2/23/22, 1:27 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=245021&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 2/2

2/23/22, 1:18 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=245004&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/2 From : Parents United Phila Subject : Board comments To : schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Board comments Wed, Feb 23, 2022 12:37 PM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. The below comments are from Philadelphia Home and School Council, Parents United, West Philly Coalition for Neighborhood Schools, Reclaim Philadelphia, Philadelphia Participatory Research Collective: Hello Philadelphia Board of Education and Dr. Hite: On Tuesday, February 22, 2022, students across our great city will be stood up for their rights and demanding that the School District of Philadelphia prioritize their health, safety, and overall mental and emotional wellness. This action comes after many attempts to request real

changes from the SDP at Board of Education meetings, emails, letters, social media pushes, and attempted conversations with leaders. As the undersigned parent organizations, we wholeheartedly support this student led action and request that our parents and caregivers do the same. It has been 2 long that our students have had to put up with 2 many health crises and 2 many safety issues and the Board and the Superintendent have done 2 little and 2 much time has passed, we demand action now! The question that many parents and caregivers ask is why? Why are your children taking a stand today? Students have said it before and we are echoing the same: the acceptable amount of illness or death in a school community due to COVID-19 is ZERO. The lack of a clear and effective plan has made chaos and confusion a daily reality facing students, families, and educators. Many students do not feel safe at school!

The lack of investment by the district in student health and well-being during this moment of heightened crisis has led students to question what it will actually take to get the district to invest in students. Paying for police in schools while allowing the buildings to crumble, poison, and not

2/23/22, 1:18 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=245004&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 2/2 provide fresh clean air or clean water for our students does not prioritize what students have been demanding to feel safe. We echo the students demand for updated protocols, a clear plan to upgrade school buildings with ventilation, putting a end to SDP leadership changing guidelines and procedures in the middle of the night to keep unsafe buildings open, restoring the full cleaning process that was promised in the beginning of the pandemic, and uphold full transparency about the crisis and issues regardless of the backlash. They demand change NOW and we the Parent Organizations in Philadelphia support their efforts! Sincerely, Philadelphia Home and School Council, Parents United, West Philly Coalition for Neighborhood Schools, Reclaim Philadelphia, Philadelphia Participatory Research Collective -- Parents United for Public Education parentsunitedphila@gmail.com

Check out our website: www.parentsunitedphila.com We tweet too! @ParentsUnitePHL Founded in spring 2006, Parents United for Public Education is a parent-led citywide organization focused on providing an independent voice for parents fighting for public education that supports stable, equitable, and appropriate resources, staffing and programs for every school.

2/23/22, 1:21 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244990&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/2 From : Kristen Subject : Board Comments To : schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Board Comments Wed, Feb 23, 2022 11:25 AM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. Name: Kristen Ruell / I am a parent of a student enrolled at Carver Engineering & Science (Carver). I am strongly against a lottery system for enrollment at Carver for the following reasons: 1. The alleged overhauled process would utilize a computerized lottery system with a weighted preference for students from select zip codes. This is not educational criteria for acceptanceat a school that is recognized for academic excellence. The same criteria should be used in all zip codes to ensure the stellar reputation of Carver remains. If there is low enrollment

from certain zip codes, it may be due to lack of outreach resources to those zip codes, distance from the school, or other factors that result in lower application rates from certain zip codes. My family had no idea Carver existed until we were brought there with Temple University on a tour. If students are not represented in my zip code, it could relate to the fact that they are not aware of the school or are aware but the distance from their zip code is an issue. I took a new position at work to drive my son to Carver, a commitment that may not be possible for all families who do not want their children to ride SEPTA. 2. Admission essays will be evaluated by a computer program which is not free from glitches. Removing the human component from evaluation is not in the best interest of the students. When my son was applying for high school, Carver helped students with their applications (he was a Carver Middle School student as well) and they submitted them at school. My son applied to

5 schools and due to a computer glitch (that allegedly affected students who were previously at a school outside the Philadelphia School District who did not have an account with past transcripts), his applications were not accepted and ruled incomplete. I contacted the principal at Carver, who offered to contact other principals to explain why Tyler’s application was not timely. Because Tyler’s first choice was Carver and he was a straight A student, he was accepted in the second round of applicants. Had he not

2/23/22, 1:21 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=244990&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 2/2 been accepted, this glitch would have cost my son his enrollment. Removing the human component from the school selection process is a serious concern when the result of a glitch can be detrimental for even one student. 3. Carver administration has stated on more than one occasion to the middle school students and parents that “excelling and/or meeting the criteria for acceptance at Carver would permit you to stay at Carver for high school.” Students have relied on this when choosing Carver and to unilaterally change that process would be a breach of the agreement to the students currently in attendance at Carver for middle school. Carver is one school, and one community. There is one budget for the entire school, and the middle school students are integrated into the Carver community from day one. They have

developed relationships with teachers, staff, and other students, with the expectation that they will stay in this community throughout high school should they meet the selection criteria. A lottery was never mentioned in the high school selection criteria when the current middle school students made the decision to attend Carver for middle school and eventually high school. To change this process after students chose Carver is a breach of the implied agreement made to the current middle school students. Changes should not affect current students and if enacted should only apply to the students entering Carver Middle School for the subsequent year after the changes were effective. Many students relied on Carver’s promise to their detriment and did not get accepted to any other high schools. What is the plan for these students? Is there a plan? Thank you for your time and prompt consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Kristen Ruell (Carver parent) Sent from my iPhone

2/23/22, 1:26 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=245024&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/2 From : manoj shirodkar > Subject : Board comments To : schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Board comments Wed, Feb 23, 2022 01:25 PM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. I am appalled and angry at the callous actions of the school district and the Board as it pertains to the implementation and execution of the high school “lottery” process. Hundreds of students and families have been casually placed under tremendous stress during this time. Hundreds of students have been displaced from ANY merit-based school while other students have admissions to MULTIPLE such schools. Almost the entirety of some schools’ 8th graders have been utterly displaced from continuing at that school, including CARVER!

Scores of siblings have been separated and are being forced into different schools. Schools have not had ample time to provide future additional resources to those who may need it The list can go on… Unfortunately this entire process has lacked transparency and honesty. There has been limited to no access in data that legally should be shared. We the people will NOT idly stand by and let the actions of a few board members contribute to further deteriorating the educational system in the city of Philadelphia. Respectfully. Manoj Shirodkar, MD

2/23/22, 1:26 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=245024&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 2/2 Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

2/23/22, 4:50 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=245085&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/2 From : Eric Santoro Subject : Board Comments To : schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Board Comments Wed, Feb 23, 2022 03:39 PM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. Dear Members of the Board, I am the father of an 8th grader who just went through the new high school selection process. After speaking to many other 8th grade parents, including my child’s friends’ parents, I am very concerned that the use of random choice lotteries for criteria based school selection will inadvertently place a lot of children into learning environments that are not right for them, which will undermine those students’ ability to succeed. First, the District’s “criteria based” high schools have largely been designed to accommodate

students with very particular academic or creative abilities. For example, and to use the school’s own words, Carver “seeks students who have interests in the fields of science, mathematics, engineering, technology, and medicine”; GAMP strives for “musical excellence”; CAPA promises an “arts based curriculum”; Science Leadership Academy offers a “project-based environment” with a “commitment to inquiry-based science”; Saul emphasizes “modern environmental and agricultural challenges”; Parkway Center City collaborates with CCP for students interested in “graduat[ing] in 4 years with both a High School Diploma and a College Associate’s Degree”; Hill-Freedman’s promotes “international mindedness”; and Masterman is designed for “advanced intellectual study” for “academically talented students.” Randomly assigning students to these schools by lottery risks undermining those students’ success by misplacing their unique skill sets into the wrong

specialized curricula. I personally know several families who are considering leaving the District because, although their child was placed in a well-regarded high school, the school's focus area was personally a poor fit for the child.Second, the new process undermines families’ abilities to make practical decisions specific to their own children. For example, parents living in South Philadelphia might prefer Palumbo and parents living in North Philadelphia might prefer Central, because the alternative would place their child on SEPTA for an additional 90 mins each day. Similarly, families may want to try to keep siblings together in the same school. And many students already attending citywide, criteria-based middle schools have already invested in those schools’ communities and specialized curriculum and will want to stay where they are and complete the multi-year program that they already started. There

are numerous, legitimate reasons why children might have individualized needs, but lotteries deny families the opportunity to make sensible decisions. Instead of focusing on what is best for individual students in the Philadelphia School System, the District seems to be only focused on the macro-level data and how to portray the District as “equitable” from a purely statistical (as opposed to personal) perspective. But children are more than just statistics, and it seems inevitable that the new lotteries will place a lot of students into schools that are poor fits for them or their family, and many students will find it difficult to succeed. Going forward, I strongly believe that the District needs to reevaluate the use of random

2/23/22, 4:50 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=245085&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 2/2 choice lotteries based on what is best for the actual students of Philadelphia, not based on what makes the District administrators look good from a purely superficial, statistical perspective. Moreover, for these same reasons, the District should anticipate an unprecedented number of transfer applications next year for the 10th grade (many students seem to be unhappy with their placement), and I highly recommend the District start engaging with parent groups now about how best to manage it. The hurried and non-transparent way that this process had been rolled out, and the problems that this has caused, has been the subject of much testimony before this Board over the last several months. Please don’t make that mistake again! Eric Santoro

2/23/22, 4:53 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=245037&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/1 From : Julieta Barroeta Subject : Board Comments To : schoolboard@philasd.org, @philasd.org Zimbra @philasd.org Board Comments Wed, Feb 23, 2022 01:45 PM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. Members of the School Board: My daughter Ana Mora has been at Masterman since 5th grade, with straight A's and no unexcused absences. She got well over the cut-off on the writing sample (25.6). Ana was waitlisted at Masterman (#208), Central (#507), Palumbo (#269), and Carver (#378). At the end of the waitlist process she was left out. Attending our designated catchment high school (Benjamin Franklin High School) is just not an option as it is an extremely underperforming school.

I do believe it is a travesty of justice to have a straight A student from the #1 Magnet School in the state left to attend a D-rated high school. It is demoralizing, unfair, and plain wrong. I believe it is also detrimental not only to the individual student, but to the school environment as a whole. In addition, I find it very difficult to understand -if the goal of the whole process was to increase diversity at the magnet schools - that one of the few (or maybe the only one) latina/hispanic, Spanish-speaking student in her class was left out because of a system that gave more weight to a zip code than ethnicity. Sincerely, Julieta Barroeta

2/23/22, 4:54 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=245036&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 1/3 From : Jennifer Aiello Subject : Board Comments - Jenny Aiello (pronounced I-ELLO) To : schoolboard@philasd.org Zimbra tahorger@philasd.org Board Comments - Jenny Aiello (pronounced I-ELLO) 6915 Sherman Street, Philadelphia, 19119 Wed, Feb 23, 2022 01:43 PM WARNING: This message originated from outside the School District of Philadelphia. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. Dear Board Members, Dr. Hite ambushed families on October 6, 2021 with a new school selection process that has been implemented in such a careless and cruel way, it shows a clear lack of regard for the families of Philadelphia and the social-emotional well-being of our children. As other large cities have taken on the challenges of enrollment to their special admission schools

in more considered, public, and transparent ways, why were the children of Philadelphia not worthy of a well thought out, fully vetted plan prior to its implementation? The two most egregious errors (of many) in the administration of the new process were: 1) forcing students to make uninformed decisions when selecting their top five schools PRIOR to taking the written assessment that could automatically eliminate them from a school's lottery, thereby potentially reducing their options to 3 schools or less. 2) not allowing students to rank their 5 selected schools so that they determine which school is the best fit for themselves, instead of the lottery version of musical chairs. If the District had cared to implement just these two steps in the new process, perhaps there wouldn't be over-enrollment at Carver, where as of last week, 332 students believe they've been accepted to a school where around 200 spaces are usually available. In a

recent Chalkbeat Article (https://philadelphia.chalkbeat.org/2022/2/17/22939435/lottery- special-admissions-process-opportunity-hurting-black-students-science-high-school), Karyn Lynch claims that "We have more students across the city and other schools who that are extremely interested in Carver. Applications increased greatly." It is ironic that there is now incredible interest in a school that in previous years, following attrition from offered placements, might not have fully enrolled 200 students in its 9th grade. More likely, we should consider that the arbitrary creation of higher writing assessment cut scores for Masterman and Central coupled with the need to choose but not rank 5 schools before taking the assessment, has had a direct impact on the number of students "extremely interested in Carver". Subsequent performance on the writing assessment that disqualified students from the Masterman and Central lotteries, as well as the set-up specifying 5

schools with qualifying criteria (implying "better"), quite possibly led to increased applications, regardless of an actual interest in the school's rigorous STEM curriculum. What will happen to the 332 students at Carver? Will there be overcrowded classrooms? Will students now be pulled from the school after believing they had secured their space?

2/23/22, 4:54 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=245036&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 2/3 Karyn Lynch and Dr. Hite have said families who aren't accepted to their schools of choice should attend their neighborhood school. Based on the District's own data, here is how Carver, where my daughter has been since 7th grade and is one of the 332 students accepted, compares with Roxborough, our neighborhood high school. Please note, I show this not to disparage the students and staff at Roxborough, it is only to show the outcome disparities due to resources and investments - or lack there of - this administration has perpetuated over the last 10 years. SDP Data Carver HSES Roxborough High 2020-21 4-year Graduation Rate 96% 73% 2020-21 High Attendance 98% 37% 2019-20 Positive Behavior 99% 82% 2018-19 PSSA/Keystone ELA proficient or advanced 91% 19% 2018-19 PSSA/Keystone Math proficient or advanced 70% 2% 2020-21 College matriculation 74% 18%

The process to bring real equity in the District should have started with investing in our under-resourced schools around the city, where the majority of Philadelphia's children attend. This new selection process, that Karyn Lynch and Dr. Hite have stated will be continually evaluated and updated as needed, was a disaster from the beginning. Students, parents, City Council and community members made that abundantly clear to the Board of Education at each step over the last 5 months. Real-time suggestions on how to improve the process and lessen the negative impacts on our children were ignored at every turn and here we are, with over-enrolled schools, children still sitting on wait-lists, and some families quitting the District for parochial and private schools. Why are these acceptable outcomes? Why are Philadelphia School District families continually subjected to slipshod decisions and processes?

Board members, you need to fulfill your role to hold the District accountable and insist on the resignation of Karyn Lynch for her administration of this incredibly, unneccessarily flawed process and for her violation of Equity Commitment #5, as presented at the January 27, 2022 Action Meeting. Ms. Lynch has disparaged parents and students asking the District to honor past practices of giving preference to qualified students in special admission middle schools wishing to remain at their attached high schools by calling them "privileged" and "entitled" on multiple occasions. Her use of such coded words, then repeated by District Spokesperson Monica Lewis to the media is in direct conflict to Equity Commitment #5: Ensuring all individuals embody practices of equity by holding ourselves accountable to a shared culture of growth and continuous learning with a deep focus on eradicating disparaging beliefs about students and their families. Not once has Ms. Lynch

aknowledged the hard work and commitment the special admission middle school students acheived to meet the requirements of their affiliated high schools. Instead, as a whole, she chose to belittle their accomplishments and insinuate that the initial acceptance to their schools was through under-handed means and detrimental to others. Her continued role as an administrator in the District is unacceptable, she must resign now. Sincerely,

2/23/22, 4:54 PM Zimbra https://zimbra.philasd.org/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=245036&tz=America/New_York&xim=1 3/3 Jenny Aiello Parent of 8th & 10th graders at Carver HSES

Dear Board Members, Over the past few months, I’ve seen a widening disparity in COVID restrictions between public schools in Philadelphia, private schools in Philadelphia and public schools in surrounding areas. We are now at a time where much more data is available which can be compared between districts to understand impacts of decisions. The totality of the data suggests most of the current requirements from PDPH are performative and serve no meaningful infection control benefit. They do, however, impact how much a public school student can attend school. For example, most other districts moved to a 5 day quarantine following change in CDC guidance. PDPH, which states they follow science, did not make this change. We have data from other districts publicly available – to my read, and accounting for the background COVID prevalence, the length of quarantine does not seem to result in more school based infections. What data, or what science, is used to support

maintaining a 10 day quarantine (with the potential of 20 days in quarantine for exposure to a COVID positive household member) in SDP? There has been a lack of transparency with respect to data guiding PDPH decision making. Virtually no one in local government, the district or the media is asking real questions. Upon querying my own city council rep, he replied to say the district is not under any obligation to follow PDPH guidance. Most other schools are following CHOP PolicyLab, why is the district not doing the same to maximize in person education? As other COVID mandates disappear in the surrounding environs, and ultimately the city, the idea that schools must be held to different standards is illogical. Infections will simply happen outside of school. This statement does assume we are all realistic that kids do not spend their entire lives either masked either in school or at home only with household members (who themselves are never unmasked and /

or spending time with other people). As more school districts locally have moved to a mask optional paradigm, and all states except CA, NY, HI have removed state level in-school mask mandates, there will be ample relevant data to guide future decisions. The burden of proof is on an intervention resulting in a quantifiable and persistent difference in the desired outcome. To date, both the district and PDPH have failed to provide meaningful transparency regarding data used to facilitate decision making. That must change moving forward. Sincerely, Jessica Ackert MD

Registered Student Speakers - • Title: Registered Student Speakers Board of Education Meeting Date: 2/24/2022 Office Originating Request: Board of Education ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Registered Student Speakers Supporting Document

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF EDUCATION ACTION MEETING STUDENT SPEAKERS LIST FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Registered Student Speakers 1. Brandon Head, Student - W.B. Saul High School Topic: Student Athlete Vaccine Mandate 2. Zae’Onah Howell, Student - W.B. Saul High School Topic: Student Athlete Vaccine Mandate 3. Ibtihal Gassem, Student - Central High School/Youth United for Change Topic: Action Item 25, The Student Voter Education and Registration Resolution 4. Jamion Washington, Student - Parkway Northwest Topic: Voter Education

Elected Officials - • Title: Elected Officials Speakers List Board of Education Meeting Date: 2/24/2022 Office Originating Request: Board of Education ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Elected Officials Speakers List Supporting Document

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF EDUCATION ACTION MEETING ELECTED OFFICIALS FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Registered Elected Officials 1. State Senator Anthony H. Williams, Topic: Sayre Pool 2. Commissioner Omar Sabir Topic: Action Item 25, The Student Voter Education and Registration Resolution

Registered Speakers on General Topics - • Title: Registered Speakers List Board of Education Meeting Date: 2/24/2022 Office Originating Request: Board of Education ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Registered Speakers List Supporting Document

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF EDUCATION ACTION MEETING SPEAKERS LIST FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Registered Speakers 1. Lisa Haver, Community Member Topic: Action Item 1, Approval of Retirements and Resignations 2. Michell Tlapaya-Flores, Community Member Topic: School Infrastructure 3. Ilene Poses, Community Member Topic: Action Item 25, The Student Voter Education and Registration Resolution 4. Diane Payne, Topic: Action Item 22, Contracts with Various Qualified Vendors - Preschool Programs 5. Kristin Luebbert, District Staff Member Topic: Student Voter Registration Policy 6. Ashley Harris, Parent/Guardian Topic: Great Neighborhood Schools 7. Amara Rockar, Parent/Guardian Topic: Penn-Lea Partnership 8. Timothy Brown, Community Member Topic: Student Voter Registration 9. Laura Brill, The Civics Center Topic: Action Item 25, The Student Voter Education and Registration Resolution 10. Angelique Hinton, PA Youth Vote Topic: Action Item 25, The Student

Voter Education and Registration Resolution 11. Tiffany Roberts, Parent/Guardian Topic: Violence in School 12. Carlin Williamson, Parent/Guardian Topic: School Choice 13. Rayon Williams, Parent/Guardian Topic: Violence in Roxborough High School/Transferring Students due to Violence 14. Aruni Jayatilleke, Parent/Guardian Topic: Lead Contamination 15. Cari Akula, Parent/Guardian Topic: Environmental Conditions 16. Theresa Kehler, Parent/Guardian Topic: Masking and Special Needs 17. Tanya Walker, Parent/Guardian Topic: Funding for Building Repairs/Allowing Principal to Decide Admissions Criteria at Robeson High School 18. Atticus Lim, Community Member Topic: Traumatic Brain Injuries

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF EDUCATION ACTION MEETING SPEAKERS LIST FEBRUARY 24, 2022 19. Desiree McGroarty, Parent/Guardian Topic: Masks and CRT 20. Jeff Pearsall, Community Member Topic: Remediation of Lead in Drinking Water 21. Mary Creighton, District Staff Member Topic: Athletic Vaccine Mandate 22. Dana Carter, Policy Advisor for State Senator Anthony H. Williams Topic: Sayre Pool 23. Tanya Folk, Parent/Guardian Topic: School Selection Process 24. Michelle Sheridan, Parent/Guardian Topic: School Selection Process 25. Jennifer Rando, Parent/Guardian Topic: De-escalating COVID Precautions

Goals and Guardrails - • Title: Goal 1: Reading Board of Education Meeting Date: 2/24/2022 Office Originating Request: Board of Education ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Goal 1: Reading Supporting Document

2/24/2022 Prepared by Evaluation, Research, & Accountability 1 School District of Philadelphia - Board of Education | Reading Goal 1 | Winter 2022 | Progress Monitoring Review Cycle 3 of 18 | Page 1 Reading Goal 1: Leading Indicator 1.1: The percentage of students in grades 3-8 who score at or above grade-level on the District's within-year reading assessment in Fall, Winter, and Spring each year. The percentage of students in grades 3-8 who are proficient on the state ELA assessment will grow from 35.7% in August 2019 to 65.0% by August 2026 Leading Indicator 1.2: Closing the Gap: The percentage of students, by student group, in grades 3-8 who score at or above grade-level on the District's within-year reading assessment in Fall, Winter, and Spring each year. Contents Page 2 Leading Indicator Performance: Overview Page 3 Leading Indicator Performance: Participation and Performance by Student Group Page 4 Leading Indicator Performance: Participation and Performance by Grade

Page 5 Endnotes Performance Color Legend Lower Performance; Further Below Target Higher Performance; Meeting the Target

2/24/2022 Prepared by Evaluation, Research, & Accountability 2 School District of Philadelphia - Board of Education | Reading Goal 1 | Winter 2022 | Progress Monitoring Review Cycle 3 of 18 | Page 2 Reading Goal 1: Leading Indicator 1.1 Leading Indicator: Overall Progress Off-Track The percentage of students in grades 3-8 who are proficient on the state ELA assessment will grow from 35.7% in August 2019 to 65.0% by August 2026 The percentage of students in grades 3- 8 who score at or above grade-level on the District's within-year reading assessment in Fall, Winter, and Spring each year. Leading Indicator: District-Wide % At/Above Grade Level Grades 3-8, Star Reading Assessment Window 2018-19¹ 2019-20² 2020-21³ 2021-22⁴ 2021-22 Annual Leading Indicator Target⁵ Distance to 2021-22 Annual Leading Indicator Target Distance to 2022-23 Annual Leading Indicator Target 2025-26 Final Leading Indicator Target Fall 30.4% 28.2% 34.6% 25.6% 50.0% -24.4 -30.1 76.0%

Winter 33.7% 30.1% 34.1% 27.4% 50.0% -22.6 -28.3 76.0% Spring 42.1% N/A 37.9% Forthcoming 50.0% - - 76.0% Leading Indicator Performance⁵ (Annual Targets were adjusted for 2021-22 through 2025-26) Student Group 2021-22 Fall 2021-22 Winter 2021-22 Annual Leading Indicator Target⁵ Distance to 2021-22 Annual Leading Indicator Target Distance to 2022-23 Annual Leading Indicator Target 2025-26 Final Leading Indicator Target % Participating⁷ % At/Above Grade Level⁴ % Participating⁷ % At/Above Grade Level⁴ Black / African American 90.4% 17.9% 88.4% 19.0% 50.0% -31.0 -36.7 76.0% Hispanic / Latinx 89.0% 17.2% 90.4% 19.0% 50.0% -31.0 -36.7 76.0% White 94.5% 45.7% 93.0% 48.7% 50.0% -1.3 -7.0 76.0% Asian 95.6% 46.1% 95.8% 49.3% 50.0% -0.7 -6.4 76.0% Multi Racial / Other 89.6% 34.9% 87.4% 36.3% 50.0% -13.7 -19.4 76.0% American Indian / Alaskan Native 91.8% 22.8% 88.3% 23.1% 50.0% -26.9 -32.6 76.0% Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 91.5% 26.6% 94.3% 31.8% 50.0% -18.2 -23.9 76.0%

English Learners 88.3% 9.7% 91.9% 12.3% 50.0% -37.7 -43.4 76.0% Special Education⁶ 78.8% 6.1% 76.3% 6.6% 50.0% -43.4 -49.1 76.0% Economically Disadvantaged 91.6% 19.6% 89.6% 21.3% 50.0% -28.7 -34.4 76.0%

2/24/2022 Prepared by Evaluation, Research, & Accountability 3 School District of Philadelphia - Board of Education | Reading Goal 1 | Winter 2022 | Progress Monitoring Review Cycle 3 of 18 | Page 3 Reading Goal 1: Participation & Performance Grades 3-8, aimswebPlus & Star Reading Winter 2020-21³ (Students took aimswebPlus or Star Reading) Winter 2021-22⁴ (All Students took Star Reading) % Students Participating: Change From Winter 2020-21 to Winter 2021-22⁹ % At/Above Grade Level: Change From Winter 2020-21 to Winter 2021-22⁹ # Students Eligible⁸ # Students Participating⁷ % Students Participating⁷ # At/Above Grade Level³ % At/Above Grade Level³ # Students Eligible⁸ # Students Participating⁷ % Students Participating⁷ # At/Above Grade Level⁴ % At/Above Grade Level⁴ Overall 55,258 47,469 85.9% 16,165 34.1% 51,723 46,649 90.2% 12,761 27.4% +4.3 -6.7 Black / African American 26,868 22,564 84.0% 5,988 26.5% 24,388 21,547 88.4% 4,100 19.0% +4.4 -7.5

Hispanic / Latinx 12,264 10,393 84.7% 2,636 25.4% 12,318 11,131 90.4% 2,111 19.0% +5.6 -6.4 White 8,171 7,370 90.2% 3,957 53.7% 7,683 7,147 93.0% 3,483 48.7% +2.8 -5.0 Asian 4,825 4,537 94.0% 2,508 55.3% 4,854 4,650 95.8% 2,293 49.3% +1.8 -6.0 Multi Racial/Other 2,922 2,412 82.5% 1,003 41.6% 2,307 2,017 87.4% 732 36.3% +4.9 -5.3 American Indian / Alaskan Native 126 116 92.1% 40 34.5% 103 91 88.3% 21 23.1% -3.7 -11.4 Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 82 77 93.9% 33 42.9% 70 66 94.3% 21 31.8% +0.4 -11.0 English Learners 7,323 6,303 86.1% 1,083 17.2% 7,502 6,891 91.9% 851 12.3% +5.8 -4.8 Non-English Learners 47,935 41,166 85.9% 15,082 36.6% 44,221 39,758 89.9% 11,910 30.0% +4.0 -6.7 Special Education⁶ 10,869 7,690 70.8% 891 11.6% 9,647 7,356 76.3% 487 6.6% +5.5 -5.0 Non-Special Education 44,389 39,779 89.6% 15,274 38.4% 42,076 39,293 93.4% 12,274 31.2% +3.8 -7.2 Economically Disadvantaged 40,847 34,783 85.2% 10,018 28.8% 38,332 34,356 89.6% 7,327 21.3% +4.5 -7.5 Non-Economically

Disadvantaged 14,411 12,686 88.0% 6,147 48.5% 13,391 12,293 91.8% 5,434 44.2% +3.8 -4.3 Off Track¹⁰ (75 Schools) 24,556 20,211 82.3% 4,024 19.9% 22,228 19,252 86.6% 2,854 14.8% +4.3 -5.1 Near Track¹⁰ (75 Schools) 24,908 21,826 87.6% 8,284 38.0% 23,048 21,314 92.5% 6,256 29.4% +4.9 -8.6 On Track¹⁰ (17 Schools) 5,670 5,432 95.8% 3,857 71.0% 5,516 5,227 94.8% 3,406 65.2% -1.0 -5.8

2/24/2022 Prepared by Evaluation, Research, & Accountability 4 School District of Philadelphia - Board of Education | Reading Goal 1 | Winter 2022 | Progress Monitoring Review Cycle 3 of 18 | Page 4 Reading Goal 1: Participation & Performance by Grade Level Grades 3-8, aimswebPlus & Star Reading Winter 2020-21³ (Students took aimswebPlus or Star Reading) Winter 2021-22⁴ (All Students took Star Reading) % Students Participating: Change From Winter 2020-21 to Winter 2021-22⁹ % At/Above Grade Level: Change From Winter 2020-21 to Winter 2021-22⁹ # Students Eligible⁸ # Students Participating⁷ % Students Participating⁷ # At/Above Grade Level³ % At/Above Grade Level³ # Students Eligible⁸ # Students Participating⁷ % Students Participating⁷ # At/Above Grade Level⁴ % At/Above Grade Level⁴ Reading Goal 1 (Grades 3-8) 55,258 47,469 85.9% 16,165 34.1% 51,723 46,649 90.2% 12,761 27.4% +4.3 -6.7 Students took aimswebPlus in 2020-21 and Star Reading in 2021-22

Grade 3 9,484 8,309 87.6% 3,278 39.5% 8,848 8,043 90.9% 2,400 29.8% +3.3 -9.6 Grade 4 9,122 7,907 86.7% 3,424 43.3% 8,917 8,207 92.0% 2,403 29.3% +5.4 -14.0 Grade 5 9,056 7,865 86.8% 3,593 45.7% 8,749 7,988 91.3% 2,156 27.0% +4.5 -18.7 All Students took Star Reading Grade 6 9,097 7,875 86.6% 1,943 24.7% 8,330 7,445 89.4% 1,843 24.8% +2.8 +0.1 Grade 7 9,219 7,783 84.4% 2,014 25.9% 8,306 7,382 88.9% 1,999 27.1% +4.5 +1.2 Grade 8 9,280 7,730 83.3% 1,913 24.7% 8,573 7,584 88.5% 1,960 25.8% +5.2 +1.1

2/24/2022 Prepared by Evaluation, Research, & Accountability 5 School District of Philadelphia - Board of Education | Reading Goal 1 | Winter 2022 | Progress Monitoring Review Cycle 3 of 18 | Page 5 ¹ In 2018-19, aimswebPlus Reading replaced aimsweb Reading, and was only required for students in grades K-5. For 2018-19, At/Above Grade Level is the percentage of students who took the assigned core subtests for each grade and scored at Tier 1 on aimsweb/aimswebPlus Reading. ² Starting in 2019-20, Star Reading was administered to students in grades 6-8, and students in grades 3-5 took AimswebPlus Reading. In Spring 2019-20, assessments were not administered to students in grades K-8 due to COVID-19 school closures. For 2019-20, At/Above Grade Level also includes students who were At/Above Benchmark on Star Reading. ³ Starting in 2020-21, At/Above Grade Level is the percentage of grade 3-5 students who received a composite score and scored at Tier 1 on

aimswebPlus Reading, and of grade 6-8 students who are At/Above Benchmark on Star Reading. To receive a composite score, a student must have completed all required subtests. ⁴ Starting in 2021-22, Star Reading was administered to all students in grades K-12. For 2021-22, At/Above Grade Level is the percentage of students who are At/Above Benchmark on Star Reading. ⁵ In 2021-22, Annual Targets for Leading Indicator 1.1 were adjusted. Annual Targets for Leading Indicator 1.1 are set based on the likelihood of a student scoring Proficient/Advanced on the PSSA ELA exam when scoring At/Above Grade Level on the within-year assessments. Between 2019-20 and 2020-21, this relationship was based on both AimswebPlus Reading and Star Reading's correlations to the PSSA ELA exam. Starting in 2021-22 and onward, this relationship is based only on Star Reading's correlations to the PSSA ELA exam. For more

information on the relationship between a student's performance on Star Reading and the PSSA ELA exam, please see http://doc.renlearn. com/kmnet/r005379488c3817f.pdf. ⁶ All students are required to participate except for students who are exempted based on their Individualized Education Program (IEP). For the Special Education student group, '% of Students Participating' includes all students, including those who are exempted, in the denominator. ⁷ Students are counted as participating if they received an aimswebPlus composite score or completed a Star Reading assessment. Only results from assessments taken within the official testing window are counted. ⁸ Students are considered eligible if they were enrolled at their school on the last day of the testing window. In 2020-21, both the aimswebPlus and Star Winter assessment windows ran from December 14, 2020 through January 29, 2021. In 2021-22, the Star Fall assessment window ran

from September 8, 2021 through October 8, 2021 and the Star Winter 1 assessment window ran from December 1, 2021 through December 23, 2021. The Star Winter 2 window is not used in the progress monitoring of Reading Goal 1. ⁹ The metrics '% Students Participating: Change From Winter 2020-21' and '% At/Above Grade Level: Change From Winter 2020-21' represent the percentage point difference between the percentage of students participating in or scoring At/Above Grade Level on aimswebPlus Reading (Tier 1) and/or Star Reading (At/Above Benchmark) from the Winter 2020-21 assessment window to the Winter 2021-22 assessment window. ¹⁰ School groups are based on Winter 2020-21 performance data. One school did not administer aimswebPlus Reading or Star Reading to any students in the Winter 2020-21 assessment window and is excluded from the school performance group performance metrics for Reading Goal 1.

Goals and Guardrails - • Title: Reading Goal 1 - Presentation Board of Education Meeting Date: 2/24/2022 Office Originating Request: Board of Education ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Reading Goal 1 Supporting Document

Progress Monitoring: Reading Goal 1 June 2022 Reading Goals 1 & 2 Cycle 4 March, 2021: Reading Goal 1 Cycle 1 July, 2021: Reading Goals 1 & 2 Cycle 2 February, 2022: Reading Goal 1 Cycle 3 November, 2022: Reading Goals 1 & 2 Cycle 5 1 ● Goals: Each Board Goal and its leading indicators is monitored three times per year ● Cycle: The full process of monitoring a single Board Goal or Guardrail, culminating in the development of a Progress Monitoring Report for the Board’s review

Year 2: Changes to Within-Year Assessments Beginning Fall 2021-22, all students in K-12 were required to take the Star assessment. Computer Adaptive Tests (CATs) adjust the difficulty of items depending on how a student performed on previous items. In 2020-21, aimswebPlus Reading was required in grades K-5 and Star Reading was required in grades 6-12.

What do we consider At or Above Grade Level? Based on Composite Score ● Tier 1: Students are testing “At Target” and are on track to read proficiently ● Tier 2: Students need strategic intervention to ensure progress towards proficiency ● Tier 3: Students require intensive intervention to make progress towards proficiency. Based on National Percentile Rank ● At/Above Benchmark (40-100 percentile): Students testing “At Target” and are on track to read proficiently. ● On Watch (25-39 percentile): Students are slightly below benchmark but do not require Strategic Intervention. ● Strategic Intervention (10-24 percentile): Students need strategic intervention to ensure progress towards proficiency. ● Intensive Intervention (<10 percentile): Students require intensive intervention to make progress towards proficiency.

How do these levels compare? Tier 1: Students are testing “At Target” and are on track to read proficiently ~68% of students at Tier 1 score Proficient or Advanced on the PSSA-ELA At/Above Benchmark (40-100 percentile): Students testing “At Target” and are on track to read proficiently. ~85% of students At/Above Benchmark score Proficient or Advanced on the PSSA-ELA

Change in Annual Within-Year Targets Percent of students scoring at highest assessment grouping who are predicted to score proficient or advanced on PSSA-ELA: ● aimswebPlus Reading: ~68% of Tier 1 students ● Star Reading: ~85% of At/above benchmark students Leading Indicator (LI) Annual Targets: How many students need to score At or Above Grade Level on within-year assessments to meet our annual PSSA-ELA Goal? PSSA Reading Target 2021-2022 Previous LI Target 2021-2022 (75% Correlation) Current LI Target 2021-2022 (85% Correlation) Goal 1 (3-8 ELA) 42.5% 56.6% 50.0%

Star Family Resources 6

Star Student Reports for Families 7 Student

Star Student Reports for Families 8

9 ● Overall, the District continues to be Off-Track towards meeting its 2021-22 Reading Goal 1 Leading Indicator Annual Target. ● A higher percentage of students scored At/ Above Grade Level in Winter, but we’re still short of our 2020-21 Annual Target (50.0%). ● All student groups, across all school performance groups, saw a decrease in performance from Winter 2020-21. Reading Goal 1: 3-8 Reading At/Above Grade Level

10

11 Goal 1: Reading Performance by Grade Level

Strategy Update SY21-22

Meeting Goals and Guardrails The Continuous Improvement Cycle 13

Implement an academic framework that includes standards-aligned curriculum. Implement the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) Framework. Develop leaders and teachers through implementation of evidence-based professional learning and common planning time. Current Strategies and Actions 14

Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 1 Our working approach is: IF all students engage in grade-level standards-based instruction with appropriate differentiation and scaffolds in safe and welcoming spaces (MTSS Tier 1) THEN we will reduce the number of students requiring strategic and intensive interventions (MTSS Tiers 2 and 3). How do we implement MTSS with a strong Tier 1 foundation? 15 Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 1

● Universal Screeners and Progress Monitoring Systems ● Grade-level (Tier 1) instructional expectations and curricula as described in the OAS Framework and Curriculum ● Evidence-based school-wide (Tier 1) climate programs ● Academic instructional guidance for Tier 2 and 3 students ● Evidence-based climate, behavioral, and wellness Tier 2 & 3 interventions Sustained Professional Development Individualized Feedback, Coaching, and Support 1. Ensure all schools and teachers have access to evidence-based Universal Screeners; the Academic Framework; grade-level (Tier 1) curriculum and related instructional guides; and school-wide climate programs (Tier 1). ● Assess implementation of Tier 1 instruction and climate programs and identify gaps ● Match student academic, social-emotional, behavioral, attendance, and wellness needs with interventions ● Assess implementation of interventions and student response to intervention Common Planning Time 2. Build the capacity of teachers and leaders to

implement grade-level standards-based (Tier 1) instruction through eight week District-wide professional learning cycles and weekly school-level Common Planning Time. 3. Use monthly school-based MTSS meetings to review progress on implementing Tier 1 strategies, analyze student data, and adjust approaches accordingly. Professional Learning Cycle 16 Year 1 Approach to District-Wide Improvement

Action 1.1 ➔ Implement new, culturally and linguistically inclusive curriculum and instructional guidance for K-12 literacy and support grade-level instruction for English Learners (ELs) and students with IEPs. Action 1.2 ➔ Implement new, culturally and linguistically inclusive curriculum and instructional guidance for K-12 math and support grade-level instruction for ELs and students with IEPs. Strategy 1 Implement an academic framework that includes standards-aligned curriculum. 17

● Universal Screeners and Progress Monitoring Systems ● Grade-level (Tier 1) instructional expectations and curricula as described in the OAS Framework and Curriculum ● Evidence-based school-wide (Tier 1) climate programs ● Academic instructional guidance for Tier 2 and 3 students ● Evidence-based climate, behavioral, and wellness Tier 2 & 3 interventions Sustained Professional Development Individualized Feedback, Coaching, and Support 1. Ensure all schools and teachers have access to evidence-based Universal Screeners; the Academic Framework; grade-level (Tier 1) curriculum and related instructional guides; and school-wide climate programs (Tier 1). ● Assess implementation of Tier 1 instruction and climate programs and identify gaps ● Match student academic, social-emotional, behavioral, attendance, and wellness needs with interventions ● Assess implementation of interventions and student response to intervention Common Planning Time 2. Build the capacity of teachers and leaders to

implement grade-level standards-based (Tier 1) instruction through eight week District-wide professional learning cycles and weekly school-level Common Planning Time. 3. Use monthly school-based MTSS meetings to review progress on implementing Tier 1 strategies, analyze student data, and adjust approaches accordingly. Professional Learning Cycle 18 Year 1 Approach to District-Wide Improvement

Academic Framework & Curriculum Major Activities September-January 1. Completion of the targeted components of the Culturally & Linguistically Inclusive Academic Framework: a. Instructional Guides for ELA, Mathematics, Special Education, and English Language Development b. Curriculum and Quarters at a Glance for K-3 ELA and 4-12 Math c. Instructional Practice Look Fors for K-3 ELA, 4-12 Math d. Instructional Principles and Practices for Social Studies, Science, World Languages, Academic MTSS Tiers 2. Collected feedback and continued to refine the curriculum + curriculum website

Action 2.1 ➔ Improve the implementation of Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) by providing professional learning and supports for school leaders and staff to better understand and utilize the framework. MTSS is a standards-aligned, comprehensive school improvement framework for enhancing academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes for all students. Strategy 2 Implement the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) Framework. 20

● Universal Screeners and Progress Monitoring Systems ● Grade-level (Tier 1) instructional expectations and curricula as described in the OAS Framework and Curriculum ● Evidence-based school-wide (Tier 1) climate programs ● Academic instructional guidance for Tier 2 and 3 students ● Evidence-based climate, behavioral, and wellness Tier 2 & 3 interventions Sustained Professional Development Individualized Feedback, Coaching, and Support 1. Ensure all schools and teachers have access to evidence-based Universal Screeners; the Academic Framework; grade-level (Tier 1) curriculum and related instructional guides; and school-wide climate programs (Tier 1). ● Assess implementation of Tier 1 instruction and climate programs and identify gaps ● Match student academic, social-emotional, behavioral, attendance, and wellness needs with interventions ● Assess implementation of interventions and student response to intervention Common Planning Time 2. Build the capacity of teachers and leaders to

implement grade-level standards-based (Tier 1) instruction through eight week District-wide professional learning cycles and weekly school-level Common Planning Time. 3. Use monthly school-based MTSS meetings to review progress on implementing Tier 1 strategies, analyze student data, and adjust approaches accordingly. Professional Learning Cycle 21 Year 1 Approach to District-Wide Improvement

MTSS Major Activities September-January 1. Administered the STAR assessment and student well-being survey in grades K-12 2. Rolled out critical Tier 1 resources including MTSS Tier 1 guidelines and the Data Snapshot 3. Initiated the Foundations of MTSS Leadership Professional Development Series 4. Began training central office staff to support implementation of Tier 1 meetings 5. All schools received access to Academic Framework and Math and/or ELA curriculum units and Academic Online Adaptive Programs 6. All schools selected Tier 1 climate programs and began receiving coaching to support implementation in alignment with their PDE school plans 7. Provided training on Tier 2 mental and behavioral evidence-based group interventions

Action 3.1 ➔ Redesign professional learning. Professional learning provides school leaders and teachers time to learn new skills in order to improve instruction. Professional learning cycles are ongoing, "nested" cycles of professional development, practice, feedback, and reflection. Strategy 3 Develop leaders and teachers through implementation of evidence-based professional learning and common planning time. 23

● Universal Screeners and Progress Monitoring Systems ● Grade-level (Tier 1) instructional expectations and curricula as described in the OAS Framework and Curriculum ● Evidence-based school-wide (Tier 1) climate programs ● Academic instructional guidance for Tier 2 and 3 students ● Evidence-based climate, behavioral, and wellness Tier 2 & 3 interventions Sustained Professional Development Individualized Feedback, Coaching, and Support 1. Ensure all schools and teachers have access to evidence-based Universal Screeners; the Academic Framework; grade-level (Tier 1) curriculum and related instructional guides; and school-wide climate programs (Tier 1). ● Assess implementation of Tier 1 instruction and climate programs and identify gaps ● Match student academic, social-emotional, behavioral, attendance, and wellness needs with interventions ● Assess implementation of interventions and student response to intervention Common Planning Time 2. Build the capacity of teachers and leaders to

implement grade-level standards-based (Tier 1) instruction through eight week District-wide professional learning cycles and weekly school-level Common Planning Time. 3. Use monthly school-based MTSS meetings to review progress on implementing Tier 1 strategies, analyze student data, and adjust approaches accordingly. Professional Learning Cycle 24 Year 1 Approach to District-Wide Improvement

Professional Learning Cycles Major Activities September-January 1. Implemented consistent system of nested professional development for leaders, teacher leaders & teachers with revisions to the proposed plan 2. Provided professional learning and support on the curriculum: a. Introductory professional development on Foundational Skills for ELA K-3 teachers and Opening Routines for Math 4-12 teachers b. Optional Digging Deeper after-school development series c. Site-based coaching; site-based instructional supports for leaders & teachers 3. Gathered stakeholder feedback to inform planning of 22-23 Professional Learning

Action 3.2 ➔ Implement Common Planning Time in all schools. Common Planning Time is a regularly scheduled, structured time where school leaders and teachers collaborate. Common Planning Time allows school leaders and teachers to work together to improve their own teaching and improve learning for all students. Strategy 3 Develop leaders and teachers through implementation of evidence-based professional learning and common planning time. 26

● Universal Screeners and Progress Monitoring Systems ● Grade-level (Tier 1) instructional expectations and curricula as described in the OAS Framework and Curriculum ● Evidence-based school-wide (Tier 1) climate programs ● Academic instructional guidance for Tier 2 and 3 students ● Evidence-based climate, behavioral, and wellness Tier 2 & 3 interventions Sustained Professional Development Individualized Feedback, Coaching, and Support 1. Ensure all schools and teachers have access to evidence-based Universal Screeners; the Academic Framework; grade-level (Tier 1) curriculum and related instructional guides; and school-wide climate programs (Tier 1). ● Assess implementation of Tier 1 instruction and climate programs and identify gaps ● Match student academic, social-emotional, behavioral, attendance, and wellness needs with interventions ● Assess implementation of interventions and student response to intervention Common Planning Time 2. Build the capacity of teachers and leaders to

implement grade-level standards-based (Tier 1) instruction through eight week District-wide professional learning cycles and weekly school-level Common Planning Time. 3. Use monthly school-based MTSS meetings to review progress on implementing Tier 1 strategies, analyze student data, and adjust approaches accordingly. Professional Learning Cycle 27 Year 1 Approach to District-Wide Improvement

Common Planning Time Major Activities September-January 1. Supported schools in maximizing and protecting CPT with 71% of schools meeting the scheduling threshold of 60 minutes and 64% of school leaders reporting that meetings are occurring as scheduled. 2. Rolled out critical resources including CPT Guide and CPT Toolkit 3. Collaboratively developed a variety of CPT protocols to support schools in ensuring all students have access to Tier 1 instruction 4. Integrated Equity Framework and SEL work into CPT protocols 5. Collaboratively developed CPT Look Fors with AS and PLS to provide common approaches to feedback 6. Incorporated visiting CPT into Instructional Rounds (IRs) process and protocols 7. Held monthly collaborative sessions to develop Academic and Chief of Schools PLS

Persistent Barriers to Implementation SY21-22

Could not implement professional learning cycles 30

Lack of Professional Development Time in the School Calendar The extent of the problem ● A study by the Institute of Educational Sciences (IES) found that substantial professional learning time, an average of 49 hours is needed to show impact on student learning (21 percentile points). Additionally, 5-14 hours produced no statistically significant impact on student achievement (Yoon, et al., 2007). ● The professional learning cycle was designed to move use closer to the 49 hours by ensuring that leaders and teachers had 3-4 cyclical opportunities for deep, extensive learning, including: ○ full days that offer larger blocks of time for district-wide development ○ half days that offer consistent touch points to reinforce and extend learning in response to data trends ○ individualized feedback, coaching, and support between professional development offerings ○ continued collaborative learning in weekly common planning time

Lack of Professional Development Time in the School Calendar The extent of the problem ● This year’s calendar did not allow for implementation of the cycle, and instead, by the end of the year, the average teacher will receive approximately: ○ 10 hours on implementation of the Tier 1 K-3 ELA or 4-12 math curriculum ○ 2.5 hours on Tier 1 climate programming, including social emotional learning strategies ○ 4 hours on administering and using the STAR assessment ● There was a large gap between initial Teacher PD in August and the next Teacher PD in November, which meant that the “nested” cycle of development (in which leaders are developed prior to teachers) was not able to be implemented as designed.

Lack of Professional Development Time in the School Calendar Impact on implementation 1. Inability to implement PL Cycles as they were designed, resulting in limited progress in implementing ELA & Math instruction as designed by the ELA & Math guides. 2. Inability to provide district-wide PL responsive to immediate needs identified in the data. 3. Without adequate time for PL and instructional support, the continuous improvement in Tier I instruction is limited by teacher capacity. 4. Common Planning Time has become the primary vehicle for professional learning. 5. Implementation of Common Planning Time started strong in the beginning of the year however, as the staffing challenges increased, some schools were challenged to implement common planning time with fidelity.

Lack of Professional Development Time in the School Calendar Mitigating the barrier Completed In Progress Need ● Offered additional, paid professional learning sessions, after school ● Held office hours and provided school/LN support ● Provided nested PL within the allotted PL time in the calendar. ● Strategic plan to allocate professional learning based on priorities and need ● Differentiated PD plans that allow for school-level differentiation ● A calendar that supports the professional learning cycle for SY 22-23 (along with Common Planning time, and time to plan based on student data)

School-Based Staff Vacancies and Absences

Staffing Gaps from Absences and Vacancies Staffing Gaps from Absences and Vacancies Impact on Implementation ● While we started the year 98% staffed, increased leaves and departures have increased our vacancies throughout the year leaving us at 96.5% staffed. ● Daily teacher attendance has declined for legitimate and obvious reasons, with absences up 22% from previous years. Substitute teachers are also less likely to pick up jobs, leaving daily substitute fill rates to an average of 42%. ● This combination of factors has created gaps in coverage in many schools on a daily basis. ● With this gap in coverage, teachers pick up coverage of other classrooms. Coverage was the most frequently cited reason for not having weekly common planning time, or teachers needing to miss common planning time to cover other classrooms ● Central office and support staff needing to cover at schools reduced implementation support (ex. Climate coaches supporting MTSS)

● Vacancies and coverage needs reduced ability to implement Tier 1 meeting ● At times, have needed to “pause” planned implementation activities, including canceling professional development for the month of January during the surge

Teacher vacancies and COVID-related absences Mitigating the barriers Completed In Progress Need ● Increased Substitute Pay ● Successfully advocated for changes in requirements for teacher substitutes at the state level ● Hired additional supplemental teachers mid-year ● Began early hiring for 17 schools ● Designated 42 schools for $5000 retention bonus ● Deployed central office staff ● Increasing recruitment efforts and additional pipelines ● Advocating for changes to out-of-state certification reciprocity ● Hosting more targeted student teacher hiring fairs ● Incentivizing earlier notification of retirement/resignation ● Developing transition plan to new substitute provider ● Board approval of staffing-related action items ● Time at the school-level focus on adult wellness and collaborative time ● Increased short-term support to hire more staff from spring through fall

What’s Next?

Overview of upcoming implementation presentations 1. Assessment of current implementation using the implementation monitoring report 2. Review of major implementation activities for remainder of SY21-22 3. Preview of Year 2 implementation goals Goal Date Implementation Monitoring Topic Goal 2 March Academic Framework + District-Wide Professional Learning Goal 3 April Common Planning Time Goal 4/5 May MTSS Focus on Climate Programming + Tier 1 Meetings

Responses to Questions on Action Items - • Title: Responses to Questions on Action Items Board of Education Meeting Date: 2/24/2022 Office Originating Request: Board of Education ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Responses to Questions on Action Items Supporting Document

The School District of Philadelphia Board of Education Action Item Questions and Responses February 24, 2022 Action Item Questions Submitted By: Response 6) Contract with Drexel University, School of Education - Paraprofessional Teacher Residency ($260,415) 1. What is the plan to support paraprofessionals who take advantage of this opportunity? 2. How will paraprofessionals be supported in completing coursework such as their required practicum while also maintaining employment with the District? Board Member Thompson 1. This residency program is intentionally designed in collaboration with the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers solely for our current paraprofessionals to support those paraprofessionals who have a Bachelors’ degree with over a 3.0 GPA who would like to attain an instructional certification. This partner was selected specifically because of how their program can support our paraprofessionals and includes: working alongside a current

experienced School District of Philadelphia teacher for an entire year before assuming the teacher of record for a classroom; supports from the cohort model of peers who are going through the courses at the same time; and mentoring and support from Drexel University staff in their residency year as well as their first year of teaching. The online/hybrid class format is | 1

The School District of Philadelphia Board of Education Action Item Questions and Responses February 24, 2022 designed to support working professionals. Additionally, paraprofessionals will also receive tutoring and support with the Praxis/PECT exams required for certification. 2. The design of the residency program is that their practicum is completed as part of their residency year, where they are working in a classroom alongside a full-time teacher. At the end of the year-long residency program, contingent on successfully passing the Praxis exam and the necessary application with the Pennsylvania Department of Education, they will have fulfilled the requirements necessary to obtain a Level I certification. 7) Contract with Cheney University, College Unbound and LaSalle University - Paraprofessional Pathway to BA/Teacher Certification ($1,681,550) 1. What is the plan to support paraprofessionals who take advantage of this opportunity? 2. How will paraprofessionals be

supported in completing coursework Board Member Thompson 1. These programs are intentionally designed in collaboration with the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers solely for our current paraprofessionals to support those paraprofessionals who either 1) have a high school diploma or GED only; 2) have some college credits; or 3) have attained a Bachelors with a GPA below 3.0. These partners were selected specifically because of how their program can support our paraprofessionals and include aspects such as peer support, mentoring and individualized scheduling, wrap-around | 2

The School District of Philadelphia Board of Education Action Item Questions and Responses February 24, 2022 such as their required practicum while also maintaining employment with the District? support services, and credit for prior learning and experience. 2. For the programs that result in the attainment of a teaching certification (specifically Cheyney University and LaSalle University), the District will release the paraprofessionals for student teaching time when it is required. 11) Contract with Wayne Moving and Storage Company, Inc., T & N Van Service and Affiliates, All Seasons Global Solutions (ASGS) - Moving Services at various locations ($1,500,000) 1. What efforts have been made to support minority participation? 2. Why are we hiring external contractors to move things? Do we have the capacity to do this in house? If so, why are we contracting out this work? Board President Wilkerson Board Member Thompson 1. The Office of Capital Programs solicited proposals

via an RFP on both the Capital Programs Request for Proposals web page as well as the Office of Procurements web page for one (1) month. In previous solicitations we only received one (1) proposal due to the lack of moving contractors signatory to the union. For this RFP, we received three (3) proposals, evaluated each proposal based on MWBE Participation (10-15% required), three (3) years of audited financial statements, and fee proposals. After evaluating these items our conclusion was to award all three (3) contractors for this contract, on an as-needed basis. The goal for this contract was M/WBE range of 10-15% for this work. ASGS has a committed M/WBE of 10%, Wayne and T&N submitted M/WBE of 15%. | 3

The School District of Philadelphia Board of Education Action Item Questions and Responses February 24, 2022 2. The District has a very limited capacity to complete moves internally. Currently, the District is utilizing five (5) in-house employees in addition to temp workers to address the entire District’s requests for internal moves. This contract will assist the Office of Capital Programs where there are existing contents, such as desks, furniture, equipment, and learning material that must be moved prior to the contractor beginning construction work. Many of the Capital projects must be completed within compressed schedules, which often include holidays and summer recess. This on call contract will provide the capacity to complete the moves without delaying the construction projects. 13) Change Orders With Various Vendors ($405,045) 1. Are we making strides in our efforts to reduce the number of change orders? 2. What strategies is the District employing to ensure that contractors

Board President Wilkerson Vice President Egea-Hinton Board Member Danzy Board Member Streater 1. The Office of Capital Programs (OCP) is implementing a 3-step review process through our capital program management software called eBuilder. All change order requests will be reviewed by a) construction and design project managers, b) architect/engineer of record, and c) contract compliance team. After the 3-step review is complete, the OCP management team will jointly review the validity of every change order | 4

The School District of Philadelphia Board of Education Action Item Questions and Responses February 24, 2022 are not underbidding in order to receive the contract? 3. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that the District is properly reimbursed when there is a design error on the contractors part? 4. Request for change order analysis over the last 12 months Board Member Salley request for a final decision. Outside counsel is currently engaged to assist OCP with the rejected change orders. We are gathering the necessary information from all repeating change orders to issue to the professional consultants as a part of the “lessons learned” process, on a quarterly basis, to prevent repeated mistakes. The design and construction unit teams in OCP will receive training to better understand the terms of our contracts that are designed to protect the District. Enforcing the Phase Submission Checklist will also assist the design team in assessing the completeness and accuracy of every design

submission. 2. OCP implemented an enhanced review (de-scope) process to better evaluate the lowest bidder’s understanding of the scope of work specific to every project, and review their schedule of values after bid opening all within the contract’s terms and PA bidding laws. 3. The mechanism in place is a part of the professional services contract. The District will engage the services of outside counsel to file suit against professional’s Errors and Omission’s Insurance. | 5

The School District of Philadelphia Board of Education Action Item Questions and Responses February 24, 2022 4. In the past 12 months, we issued $205,018,250.27 in contract value for approximately 60 projects. The rate of change orders this year is 3.74% of which 1.12% are design and errors related, 1.28% are unforeseen conditions and 1.33% District requests. Many independent studies over decades show that the range for change orders varies between 8% and 11%, depending on the complexity of the project (source: Construction Business Owner). 14) Contract with Various Firms for Supplemental Professional Architectural Services ($10,000,000) 1. Request for additional information. Please specify the scope of work Board Member Salley 1. The supplemental professional firms will be retained to design major renovations and system replacements for all the capital projects approved by the Board of Education for FY 22. 15) Contract Award with Weatherproofing Technologies, Inc for HVAC Replacement,

Roofing and Masonry Project- Austin Meehan Middle School ($12,948,988) 1. Request for more information on the larger, more comprehensive plan, Board Member Danzy Board President Wilkerson Board Member Salley 1. The plan for Austin Meehan MS is to repair and recoat the roof, replace the gymnasium’s roof, replace the boilers and chiller, replace 2 air handling units, and replace all unit ventilators to improve the ventilation and the indoor air quality. This will allow the school to be used as a swing space for major school renovations, expansions, | 6

The School District of Philadelphia Board of Education Action Item Questions and Responses February 24, 2022 regarding the Austin Meehan Middle School. 2. Are students currently in the building now? If so, what is the plan for ensuring that education is not disrupted while construction is ongoing? 3. What are the lessons learned from the Northeast Community Propel Academy project and how are we applying what we learned to this project? and rebuilds to limit disruption in students’ educational experience during construction. 2. Students are currently in the building. The building is less than 50% occupied. To ensure education is not disrupted, the construction will occur after school hours. 3. It is important for all principals occupying the parcel at 3001 Ryan Ave (Lincoln HS, Northeast Community Propel Academy, Pollock, and Forrest) to coordinate admission and dismissal times to alleviate traffic congestion. Blackney Hayes Architects was retained to assist OCP and the

principals in planning for drop off areas and routes, access doors to schools, and staff and visitors parking areas. 16) Stormwater Management Incentives Program (SMIP) Grant Acceptance and Subgrant Agreement for Grover Washington Middle School and Thomas Edison High School 1. Why is PAID involved with this project? Board President Wilkerson Student Board Representative Allen 1. PAID is the mechanism the Philadelphia Water Department uses to disburse grants from the Stormwater Management Incentives Program (SMIP) to its grantees. 2. The stormwater work will occur in both paved and lawn areas. The construction will be phased with the principals prior to start of construction to ensure the interruption to daily admission and dismissal is minimal, and that the students are | 7

The School District of Philadelphia Board of Education Action Item Questions and Responses February 24, 2022 2. How will the construction project impact student life? protected by construction fencing during the construction phase. 17) Ratification to Amend Contract with DLR for Technical Specifications - Additional Time 1. Request for additional information on the services being provided Board President Wilkerson 1. The extension of time will allow the consultant to complete the technical specifications, conduct thorough reviews with Facilities and Maintenance to collect their feedback on equipment and warranties, and issue the final documents. This extension is the result of a change in leadership in DLR’s firm. 18) Ratification and Authorization of Contract with Vacant Property Security, LLC for Property Security Services - $50,000 1. Request for a full list of all currently vacant properties. 2. Why is this item a ratification? 3. What type of security services are

being provided? Foot patrol? Live? Remote? 4. How will Vacant Property LLC monitor and respond to incidents? Vice President Egea-Hinton Board Member Salley Board President Wilkerson Board Member Danzy 1. Full list of vacant SDP properties listed below: ● Old Fels School Lot, 1001 Devereaux Ave. 19111 ● Carino Bonaventure, 2834 Hutchinson St.19132 ● Thomas FitzSimons, 2601-31 West Cumberland St. 19132 ● Fairhill School, 601 West Somerset St. 19133 ● Old Hunter School, 126-136 West Dauphin St. 19133 ● Welsh School Parking Lot, 2301-15 North 3rd St. 19133 | 8

The School District of Philadelphia Board of Education Action Item Questions and Responses February 24, 2022 5. Request to provide the full scope of work. ● Lot vic 25th Street Garage, 1600-1698 Bambrey St.19133 ● Ada Lewis School, 6199 Ardleigh St. 19138 ● Morton School Annex, 6200 Grays Ave. 19142 ● Harrington School Annex, 800 South 53rd St. 19143 ● Alcorn School Annex, 1321 South 26th St. 19146 ● William Peirce School, 2400 Christian St. 19146 ● Old Wolf School-Comp Tech., 8100 Lyons Ave. 19153 ● George Pepper School, 2901 South 84th St. 19153 2. A sharp increase in incidents at vacant District properties led to an unexpected and quick increase in the Facilities Department's utilization of this contractor. This caused a cost increase beyond previous authorization before it could be presented to the Board. 3. Rental of fencing equipment. 4. Vacant Property only provides fencing equipment. 5. To provide property security (i.e., fencing equipment) at vacant SDP properties. They are

| 9

The School District of Philadelphia Board of Education Action Item Questions and Responses February 24, 2022 currently being used at the following three locations: 1) Fairhill School, 607 W. Somerset St. 19133; 2) George W. Pepper School 2901 S. 84th St. 19143; 3) Bartram High School Garage at 2401 S. 67th St.19142. 20) Ratification and Authorization of Contracts with Fluidics and Devine Brothers for Boiler Burner Services - $2,000,000 1. How many contractors do we currently have? Are these contractors in addition to others? Are we replacing contractors? 2. Will two contractors be enough? Board Member Salley Vice President Egea-Hinton 1. Currently we have 4 contractors on this service contract. One contractor is currently unavailable for use (General Asphalt) and another cannot provide adequate support. 2. These two new companies will bring our total back to 4 contractors which is enough to support operations. 22) Contracts with Various Qualified Vendors

- Preschool Programs ($72,369,000) 1. Does the District get reimbursed from the state for preschool programming? Board Member Thompson The District pays for its preK programming with six main federal, state, and local funding sources: (1) Federal Head Start funding (approximately $45M annually); (2) Federal Title I funding (approximately $7M annually) (3) State Head Start Supplemental funding (approximately $20M annually); | 10

The School District of Philadelphia Board of Education Action Item Questions and Responses February 24, 2022 (4) State PreK Counts funding (approximately $35M annually); (5) City PHL-PreK funding (approximately $3M annually). (6) District operating budget (approximately $2.5M annually). 23) AMY Northwest Middle School Schoolyard Improvement Project, Lowell Elementary School Schoolyard Improvement Project, and Add B. Anderson Elementary School Schoolyard Improvement Project - limited Joinders to Subgrant Agreement (Added 2.3.2022) 1. How will the construction project impact student life? Student Board Representative Allen The construction will be phased with the principals prior to the start of construction to ensure the interruption to daily admission and dismissal is minimal, and that the students are protected by construction fencing during the construction phase. The project will improve the outdoor space for students to have access to a more safe and welcoming activity space

to support mental and physical health. 24) Ratification and Authorization of Acceptance of a Donation from Wawa, Inc., for COVID-19 Testing Supplies ($2,000,000) - Added 02.07.2022 (Updated 02.10.2022) 1. Request for information on why we need the additional supplies. Board Member McColgan 1. For both the student and employee testing programs, the District wants to ensure continuity of the testing programs with tests on site to be deployed, if and when needed. This donation was offered during the recent surge due to Omicron when test supplies were limited. The initial delivery of a portion of the overall amount of tests | 11

The School District of Philadelphia Board of Education Action Item Questions and Responses February 24, 2022 has already been utilized for employee testing at a time when the District was awaiting additional tests from the federal government. | 12

Action Item - 1. Title: Approval of Retirements and Resignations (Updated 2.24.2022) Board of Education Meeting Date: 2/24/2022 Action under consideration RESOLVED, by the Board of Education that the resignations and retirements of the *following individuals* are accepted effective February 24, 2022. Attached Office Originating Request: Talent ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Approval of Retirements and Resignations Supporting Document