1314-246 Emails Redacted

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Heath, Shauna L; Barbello, J ulie A; English, Ron; Tolley, Michael F

Cc: Box, Anna M; Dysart, Adam W
Subject: RE: May 15 C&I handouts.
Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:16:27 PM
Attachments: MAC BAR Math Adoption DRAFT (7) with C and I Policy attachments only.doc
Julie,
This is the Draft version of the BAR that was handed out at the meeting. The version that was
emailed to the Board members earlier had more attachments and may be what Director Peters
referred to as the 70 page document. There are more attachments in the Board Office, which
total over 250 pages.

The total for all three final programs are included in the BAR. Any information about how they
were estimated should come from Susan Johnston in Purchasing.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
Instructional Materials Specialist
Professional Library/Instructional Materials Office
John Stanford Center for Educational Excellence
Seattle Public Schools
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636
slsipe@seattleschools.org

From: Heath, Shauna L
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 3:52 PM
To: Barbello, J ulie A; English, Ron; Tolley, Michael F
Cc: Box, Anna M; Sipe, Shawn L

Shawn,

Please send the electronic copy.

Shauna

From: Barbello, J ulie A
To: English, Ron; Heath, Shauna L; Tolley, Michael F

Can I please have a copy of the draft BAR, as well as any documents presented or referenced at the
5/12 committee meeting? Specifically, any records referencing the cost of Math In Focus and
Envision Math, how these costs were estimated, etc.

Thanks!

From: English, Ron
To: Heath, Shauna L; Tolley, Michael F; Barbello, J ulie A

Julie,

A public records request for you to handle.

Ron

To: English, Ron; Tolley, Michael F
Subject: FW: May 15 C&I handouts.

I received this request. Not sure how to respond. Can you add?

Shauna
From: js [joan@mathascent.org]
To: Heath, Shauna L
Subject: May 15 C&I handouts.
Hello Ms. Heath,
Would you please send me electronic copies of these documents:
1. draft BAR for K-5 math adoption present last night.
2. 70 p. staff report referenced by Dir. Peters at last night's C&I meeting.
Please also share with me the contact information for the publishers representative who
prepared the MIF cost estimate for Seattle Public Schools.

Thank you kindly,
J oan Sias

To: Tolley, Michael F
Subject: FW: PD offerings from Math in Focus and EnVision -- Apples to apples?
Attachments: ENV2012_ImplementationEssentials.pdf
enVision supplemental info about Professional Development.docx
MIF-PD PP -Seattle Public Schools FINAL 3-3-13.docx
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Heath, Shauna L; Dysart, Adam W
Cc: Caldwell, Eric
Shauna,
My corrections and responses are below in green.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Hale, Theresa L
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:50 AM
To: Blanford, Stephan; Carr, Sherry L; Martin-Morris, Harium; McLaren, Martha; Patu, Betty; Peaslee,
Sharon D; Peters, Susan M
Cc: Banda, J ose L; Wright, Charles E; Tolley, Michael F; Sipe, Shawn L; Heath, Shauna L

Good morning Directors,

Director Peters has asked that the email below and the attached documents be forwarded for your
information. Please do not "reply all" to this message.

Thank you,

Theresa Hale
Board Office Manager
206-252-0041
tlhale@seattleschools.org

From: Peters, Susan M
To: McLaren, Martha; Peaslee, Sharon D
Subject: PD offerings from Math in Focus and EnVision -- Apples to apples?

Hi Marty and Sharon,
Pursuant to last night's C&I meeting, here is the professional development (PD) Houghton Mifflin (Math in
Focus) and Pearson (EnVision) are apparently offering SPS as part of their respective math adoption
RFP packages (attached).
Of note:
MATH IN FOCUS
MIF PD seems quite comprehensive, and includes PD for parents and administrators as well. (This was
not mentioned at C&I meeting.)
It sounds like learning the Singapore approach is a significant part of the PD.
Note, vendor states MIF is "based on the authentic Singapore math curriculum." (Staff stated that
MIF is not the same as Singapore, so I'm unclear how much of a variation there is between the two.)
Although MIF is based on the Singapore teaching approach, MIF is much more materials heavy.
MIF bid implies there is in fact some flexibility in how much PD they offer. eg. **Fewer sessions may
be an option if grade level numbers are lower All of the pricing we are looking at is based in
the estimate of 30,000 with equal amounts of students in each grade level K-5. This is just a
starting point for cost estimates. The grade level numbers WILL go down and UP within the
grades.
(I was under the impression from staff that MIF did not budge from a required amount of PD. So this is
good news.) This fewer sessions comment is about sessions within each grade level. The overall
required number of course offerings remains the same.
If so, then in the case of a dual adoption, this would allow SPS to budget fewer sessions, as needed.
That would also mean fewer teacher costs at the district's end.
(Btw, doesn't the district already budget a certain number of PD hours/days a year? Staff implied these
costs would be additional.)
MIF PD is free (gratis) for the first year. The total 2-year cost of PD is $391k.
MIF offers a gratis amount of PD in the first year of $142,785 for their Administrator Meeting
training, a book on Bar Modeling for each school, their Instructional Strategies Course by Grade Level,
and eight of their Monthly Touchpoints WebEx sessions. Also during the first year, they are charging
$202,850 for all other training for teachers, coaches, lead teachers, and curriculum managers and
some evening sessions for parents and caregivers. This charge also includes a year subscription to their
ASK Bar email/phone access to coaches at $2250 per building.
During the second year, they are offering $74,198.50 gratis PD, but charging $188,400 fees. The
gratis courses in year two are for Guided Lesson Design-2, on demand e-learning courses for 3
schools, and 8 of the Monthly Touchpoints WebEx sessions. The sessions covered by their fees
include any new teacher training at $2800 per 40 teachers, and any extra level training for existing
teachers. They are assuming 200 new teachers in August of 2015 and 300 existing teachers needing
extra level training in their pricing.
Again, none of this pricing includes SPSs cost to pay the teachers to attend the sessions.
A session may be a full day or a half day.
MIF doesn't mention the option of SPS developing its own trainers (in a "train the trainers" model) but it
doesn't state that this would be forbidden, either. It would be helpful to know if that would be an option.
I'm unclear as to whether this was asked.
At the very beginning of the introduction to the PD plan, MIF states The successful
implementation of Math in Focus: Singapore Math by Marshall Cavendish depends on sustainable
and job embedded Professional Development delivered by our team of math content and product
experts. We also assume from the content of the below email answers to our specific questions
about pricing that they are not willing to negotiate on the PD costs.
Below are the answers to the questions you asked about Math in Focus, answered by James
Genereaux HM Sales Representative.

Here are detailed answers for Adam Dysart:

1. What makes the Math in Focus program so expensive?

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) does not own the Math in Focus Program. HMH distributes Math in
Focus for the owners/authors of the program . Under the terms of that distribution agreement, the
owners of the program set pricing. They approved a 5% discount for SPS.

HMH is unable, for example, to offer the special promotions that were offered SPS on the Go
Math! Program (buy four SEs, get one free and buy one classroom manipulative kit get one free).
Northwest Pricing on Go Math! also benefits from the fact that so many Northwest school districts have
adopted Go Math! - including Anchorage School District with 30,000 students.

In addition, Math in Focus requires a significant amount of professional development. This is a significant
additional cost ($391,250 total years 1 and 2).

We are able to offer the five-year payment terms for Math in Focus as detailed in the RFP documents.

2. What was finally negotiated in terms of access/free updates?

Free updates are not included as part of the Math in Focus submission.

3. Is this their final Math in Focus number?

Yes.

Since no 3rd year of PD is mentioned, I'm assuming the vendor expects the district to handle its own
training after the first two years, which then does imply that a "train the trainer" model would be an
option for MIF too.
The question of 3
rd
year PD was not asked of MIF.
ENVISION
EnVision PD info sheet is dated 2012. I wonder if that info is current. I can't tell if it applies to the most
recent version of EnVision or not. The supplemental document is dated 2014, though.
EnV does mention the possibility of SPS developing its own "trainers."
EnV does not give a total PD cost, but claims it is included in total cost of adoption. It does mention a
$3500/ per class fee.
Our only required cost would be our cost to pay the teachers to attend.
The gratis PD from EnV in each of the seven years of the adoption includes any new teachers or
teacher who need an annual refreshing. This is accomplished in a one-day workshop. There is
also a My Pearson Training page that's available to our customers 24/7.
The added sessions at $3500 per day are optional, as is the offer for Job Embedded training
models. The added optional sessions, according to Russell Crew, Pearson Rep, usually tend
to identify or select teacher leaders in year one to participate in these deeper trainings with
the idea of having them train the rest of the math teach population.
EnV implies that its PD could in fact cost $100,000-200,000 more than quoted, and that it intentionally
low-balled its quote to allow for this add-on:
It was my goal to come in about 100-200K short of the RFP offering, to leave room for
discussion around specific PD needs or even job embedded/consultative offerings to ensure a
quality math program from year 1 and on.
The add-on includes Pearson's suggestion that SPS hire on a (fulltime?) Pearson EnVision consultant. If
SPS chooses this option, this cost should be added to the EnVision total. I feel that any proposal to hire
a Pearson consultant should be discussed before any commitment is made by SPS. I'm not convinced it
would be necessary or desirable. Also, that would be a potentially significant ongoing, long-term cost (a
FT? salary).

We also host Job Embedded training models where the district agrees to hire a
enVisionMATH consultant/trainer who stays in the district and is consistently available. This
is typically discussed with a district leader whereby we can put plans, goals, and surveys in
place.
Note, if EnVision PD does turn out to cost $100-200k more than quoted, that would potentially put it
closer to MIF's PD 2-year costs of $391k.
Again, these extra costs are totally optional.
And that added $100-200k should be included in any EnV cost totals. I'm not sure that it was included in
the totals we were shown and included with the BAR.
Happy reading!
Sue
(yes, this does keep me up at night...)
Sue Peters
Seattle School Board Director - District IV
sue.peters@seattleschools.org
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
To: "Campbell, Marni A"
Subject: RE: Meeting
Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:06:51 AM
That does help. How many students do you have? I hope this is the last question :)
-----Original Message-----
From: Campbell, Marni A [mailto:Marni.Campbell@highlineschools.org]
To: Heath, Shauna L
Subject: Re: Meeting
Complicated answer. For a two year rollout K-5 it was about $2.1 million total (per my STEM director), but that
included hardware and software to support a digital tool (ST Math) as part of the strategy (a significant
cost<probably about $1 million Im thinking). It also includes materials and PD.
On 5/13/14, 10:53 AM, "Heath, Shauna L" <slheath@seattleschools.org> wrote:
>Total?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Campbell, Marni A [mailto:Marni.Campbell@highlineschools.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:52 AM
>To: Heath, Shauna L
>Subject: Re: Meeting
>
>Materials? Training?
>
>On 5/13/14, 10:52 AM, "Heath, Shauna L" <slheath@seattleschools.org>
>wrote:
>
>>Thank you Marni! Do you happen to know how much it cost district wide?
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Campbell, Marni A [mailto:Marni.Campbell@highlineschools.org]
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:36 AM
>>To: Heath, Shauna L
>>Subject: RE: Meeting
>>
>>Hi Shauna,
>>
>>Here's what I have for you: we did essentially four full days of PD
>>per year for Math in Focus implementation--two full days in August and
>>a combination of either half days w/subs or after school PD (multiple
>>offerings!).
>>
>>Hope this helps!
>>
>>Marni Campbell
>>Executive Director of Instruction and Innovation Highline Public
>>Schools
>>15675 Ambaum Blvd. SW, Burien WA, 98166
>>206-631-3150
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Heath, Shauna L [mailto:slheath@seattleschools.org]
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 5:28 PM
>>To: Jessica Vavrus
>>Cc: Campbell, Marni A
>>Subject: Meeting
>>
>>Jessica,
>>
>>It was great to hear from OSPI last week. I wanted to reach out again
>>and offer any service to OSPI around Career and College Readiness. I
>>have reached out to Marni Campbell at Highline and I am sure she would
>>be receptive to being a part of any conversation.
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>
>>Shauna
>
To: Sipe, Shawn L; Dysart, Adam W
Cc: Caldwell, Eric
Subject: RE: PD offerings from Math in Focus and EnVision -- Apples to apples?
Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:52:08 AM
Please write a correction and then send to menot directly to the board.

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Heath, Shauna L; Dysart, Adam W
Cc: Caldwell, Eric

Shauna,
There are actual errors in this summary below. Is it appropriate to send a correction?

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Hale, Theresa L
To: Blanford, Stephan; Carr, Sherry L; Martin-Morris, Harium; McLaren, Martha; Patu, Betty; Peaslee,
Sharon D; Peters, Susan M
Cc: Banda, J ose L; Wright, Charles E; Tolley, Michael F; Sipe, Shawn L; Heath, Shauna L

Good morning Directors,

Director Peters has asked that the email below and the attached documents be forwarded for your
information. Please do not "reply all" to this message.

Thank you,

Theresa Hale
Board Office Manager
206-252-0041
tlhale@seattleschools.org

To: McLaren, Martha; Peaslee, Sharon D
Subject: PD offerings from Math in Focus and EnVision -- Apples to apples?

Hi Marty and Sharon,
Pursuant to last night's C&I meeting, here is the professional development (PD) Houghton Mifflin (Math in
Focus) and Pearson (EnVision) are apparently offering SPS as part of their respective math adoption
RFP packages (attached).
Of note:
MATH IN FOCUS
MIF PD seems quite comprehensive, and includes PD for parents and administrators as well. (This was
not mentioned at C&I meeting.)
It sounds like learning the Singapore approach is a significant part of the PD.
Note, vendor states MIF is "based on the authentic Singapore math curriculum." (Staff stated that
MIF is not the same as Singapore, so I'm unclear how much of a variation there is between the two.)
MIF bid implies there is in fact some flexibility in how much PD they offer. eg. **Fewer sessions may
be an option if grade level numbers are lower
(I was under the impression from staff that MIF did not budge from a required amount of PD. So this is
good news.)
If so, then in the case of a dual adoption, this would allow SPS to budget fewer sessions, as needed.
That would also mean fewer teacher costs at the district's end.
(Btw, doesn't the district already budget a certain number of PD hours/days a year? Staff implied these
costs would be additional.)
MIF PD is free (gratis) for the first year. The total 2-year cost of PD is $391k.
A session may be a full day or a half day.
MIF doesn't mention the option of SPS developing its own trainers (in a "train the trainers" model) but it
doesn't state that this would be forbidden, either. It would be helpful to know if that would be an option.
I'm unclear as to whether this was asked.
Since no 3rd year of PD is mentioned, I'm assuming the vendor expects the district to handle its own
training after the first two years, which then does imply that a "train the trainer" model would be an
option for MIF too.
ENVISION
EnVision PD info sheet is dated 2012. I wonder if that info is current. I can't tell if it applies to the most
recent version of EnVision or not. The supplemental document is dated 2014, though.
EnV does mention the possibility of SPS developing its own "trainers."
EnV does not give a total PD cost, but claims it is included in total cost of adoption. It does mention a
$3500/ per class fee.
EnV implies that its PD could in fact cost $100,000-200,000 more than quoted, and that it intentionally
low-balled its quote to allow for this add-on:
The add-on includes Pearson's suggestion that SPS hire on a (fulltime?) Pearson EnVision consultant. If
SPS chooses this option, this cost should be added to the EnVision total. I feel that any proposal to hire
a Pearson consultant should be discussed before any commitment is made by SPS. I'm not convinced it
would be necessary or desirable. Also, that would be a potentially significant ongoing, long-term cost (a
FT? salary).

place.
Note, if EnVision PD does turn out to cost $100-200k more than quoted, that would potentially put it
closer to MIF's PD 2-year costs of $391k.
And that added $100-200k should be included in any EnV cost totals. I'm not sure that it was included in
the totals we were shown and included with the BAR.
Happy reading!
Sue
(yes, this does keep me up at night...)
Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: English, Ron; Heath, Shauna L; Bennett, Erinn P; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Sebring, Linda; Tolley, Michael F; Cerqui,
J ohn
Cc: Caldwell, Eric; Dysart, Adam W; Wiley, Delinda; DeMahy, Anita
Subject: RE: MAC BAR DRAFT for C&I
Date: Monday, May 12, 2014 9:48:21 AM
Ron,
We added this to the COST section under Background: Comparative costs between all three final
programs are shown in Attachment 18.

COST ANALYSIS FOR FINAL PROGRAMS SPS MATH ADOPTION COMMITTEE
APRIL 2014
The overall yearly cost as quoted by the publishers, with the professional development costs (not
including our cost to pay teachers) built into the first year, and also into the second year by Math
in Focus.
Years 1 -7 costs for Go Math!:

1 $ 1,513,041.00
2 $ 305,387.00
3 $ 305,387.00
4 $ 305,387.00
5 $ 305,387.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00

Total price for all 7 years $2,734.588.04
******************************************

Years 1 - 7 costs for Math in Focus:

1 $ 4,269,506.00
2 $ 747,354.00
3 $ 558,954.00
4 $ 558,954.00
5 $ 558,954.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00

Total price for all 7 years- $6,851,166.60
******************************************

Years 1-7 cost for envision

1 $1,561,109.69
2 $ 451,258.59
3 $ 451,258.59
4 $ 451,258.59
5 $ 451,258.59
6 $ 451,258.59
7 $ 451,258.59

Total price for all 7 years $4,268,661.23

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: English, Ron
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 6:36 PM
To: Sipe, Shawn L; Heath, Shauna L; Bennett, Erinn P; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Sebring, Linda; Tolley,
Michael F; Cerqui, J ohn
Subject: RE: MAC BAR DRAFT for C&I

It still does not have anything about the costs of the other products (unless I missed something)
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Heath, Shauna L; English, Ron; Bennett, Erinn P; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Sebring, Linda; Tolley, Michael
F; Cerqui, J ohn
Subject: FW: MAC BAR DRAFT for C&I
To All, FYI

The attached version is the latest Math Adoption Bar DRAFT that has gone out to the C&I Policy
Committee to prepare for their meeting on Monday. PLEASE BE AWARE that it has not completed
the routing to all necessary parties, including final signing from Michael Tolley, Ron English, and
Superintendent Banda.

Since we have done much of the circulation via email instead of the traditional walk-around, I am
asking that you consider this copy the only viable one for now. Please discard older copies. I have
all iterations of the document as it went through the routing process so far if you need to see
them.

Also, we will possibly amend it again before submitting formal copies to the C&I Policy committee
on Monday afternoon.

Thanks to all for helping us work through what continues to be a project with a very tight timeline.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Wiley, Delinda
Subject: MAC BAR DRAFT for C&I

Here it is. Be sure to note that this is a DRAFT and has not circulated to all pertinent staff.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: English, Ron
To: Heath, Shauna L
Subject: Re: MAC BAR DRAFT for C&I
Date: Friday, May 09, 2014 9:09:46 PM
Sure
Sent from my iPhone
On May 9, 2014, at 7:31 PM, "Heath, Shauna L" <slheath@seattleschools.org> wrote:
I cannot access it right now, but there should be an attachment. It is the same cost
breakdown that we sent to the board earlier this week. I will check later. In
talking with John we decided to bring the per pupil cost on Monday after more
analysis. Hope that is ok.
Shauna Heath
On May 9, 2014, at 6:36 PM, "English, Ron" <renglish@seattleschools.org>
wrote:
It still does not have anything about the costs of the other products (unless I
missed something)
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Heath, Shauna L; English, Ron; Bennett, Erinn P; Gotsch, Kenneth C;
Sebring, Linda; Tolley, Michael F; Cerqui, J ohn
Subject: FW: MAC BAR DRAFT for C&I
To All, FYI

The attached version is the latest Math Adoption Bar DRAFT that has
gone out to the C&I Policy Committee to prepare for their meeting on
Monday. PLEASE BE AWARE that it has not completed the routing to all
necessary parties, including final signing from Michael Tolley, Ron
English, and Superintendent Banda.

Since we have done much of the circulation via email instead of the
traditional walk-around, I am asking that you consider this copy the only
viable one for now. Please discard older copies. I have all iterations of
the document as it went through the routing process so far if you need
to see them.

Also, we will possibly amend it again before submitting formal copies to
the C&I Policy committee on Monday afternoon.

Thanks to all for helping us work through what continues to be a project
with a very tight timeline.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Wiley, Delinda
Subject: MAC BAR DRAFT for C&I

Here it is. Be sure to note that this is a DRAFT and has not circulated to
all pertinent staff.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: English, Ron
To: Heath, Shauna L
Cc: Sipe, Shawn L; Caldwell, Eric; Dysart, Adam W
Subject: Re: adjusted alternatives section in BAR for Math adoption
Yes
Sent from my iPhone
On May 9, 2014, at 3:00 PM, "Heath, Shauna L" <slheath@seattleschools.org> wrote:
Ron,

I took the numbers that Shawn had given the MAC and divided them to come up with
a per pupil allocation over 5 years and 7 years. Again these are basic and can give us
a cost of 1,000 students per program. Is that accurate enough?

 MiF costs approximately 285.00 per student
for the adoption
 enVisons is $177 per student.
 MiF is 57.00 per year over 5 years.
 Envisions is 25.00 per year over 7 years or
28.00 per year over 5 years (for comparison only).

 One day of PD at the required rate for 8
hours is approximately $320,000 in pay for every K-5 certificated teacher.
 If you calculate 8 days of required PD the
proposal of MiF, results in an estimate of 2,560,000 per 1000 teachers.

Shauna

From: English, Ron
To: Heath, Shauna L; Sipe, Shawn L
Subject: RE: adjusted alternatives section in BAR for Math adoption

All I am seeking is a comparison of costs between vendors, and a rough guesstimate of the
cost of a dual adoption, for the board to see the differences. It need not be exact, and
can simply indicate the information we have at this time.
To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: English, Ron
I did use the vendors numbers. I would have Ron indicate whether we should use the
purchasing numbers.

Shauna

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Heath, Shauna L

Shauna,
Did you start with the per pupil pricing from the vendors when you came up with
those numbers? Purchasing has actual per pupil pricing, possibly without PD
included) but they asked me not to make it public.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: English, Ron
Cc: Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Bennett, Erinn P; Tolley, Michael F; DeMahy, Anita;
Wiley, Delinda; Dysart, Adam W; Murphy, Craig

Shawn,

Can you add these edits? We have per pupil pricing so would that be ok to include?

Best,
Shauna Heath
On May 9, 2014, at 2:35 PM, "English, Ron" <renglish@seattleschools.org> wrote:
I have a couple of concerns.

1. The BAR does not discuss the fact that Michael Tolley issued a directive to
the MAC to not consider pricing. That needs to be said.
2. We also need to say what the pricing is for the competing products, since
management made the decision that the comparative pricing of the vendors
supported the MAC recommendation of envision.
3. The next Alternative D needs to unequivocally say that staff does not
recommend this option.
From: English, Ron
To: Heath, Shauna L; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Bennett, Erinn P;
Tolley, Michael F
Cc: DeMahy, Anita; Wiley, Delinda; Dysart, Adam W; Murphy, Craig
Let's make sure it is complete first.
To: English, Ron; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Bennett, Erinn P;
Tolley, Michael F
Ron,

Are you ok with sending this to the board as a draft so that they can review
prior to C and I?

Shauna
From: English, Ron
To: Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Heath, Shauna L; Bennett, Erinn P;
Tolley, Michael F
Everyone,

We must discuss pricing.

Ron
From: Sipe, Shawn L
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 10:19 AM
To: Gotsch, Kenneth C; English, Ron; Heath, Shauna L; Bennett, Erinn P;
Tolley, Michael F
Cc: DeMahy, Anita; Wiley, Delinda; Dysart, Adam W
Ken,
Here is the newest electronic form of the BAR for Math Adoption.

The area shaded in yellow under Alternatives is the recent addition
requested by Ron English. Also, one attachment, the spreadsheet of
costs per item, was removed at the request of Craig Murphy since it is
not meant to be a public document.

I will walk up and bring you the paper copies of each iteration in a few
minutes.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Gotsch, Kenneth C
To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: DeMahy, Anita

Thanks. No hurry. I'm sure it's fine.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 9, 2014, at 9:57 AM, "Sipe, Shawn L"
<slsipe@seattleschools.org> wrote:
It will be ready in about 10 minutes.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: DeMahy, Anita
Subject: Re: adjusted alternatives section in BAR for Math
adoption

Can I get an electronic version of the corrected copy of the
BAR?

Ken
Sent from my iPhone
On May 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, "Sipe, Shawn L"
Ron,
It looks like we did send on the incorrect
version to Ken. I am so sorry. I am adjusting
the version now to replace it with yours and
Erinns comments and corrections.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
Professional Library/Instructional Materials
Office
John Stanford Center for Educational
Excellence
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Dysart, Adam W
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 2:22 PM
To: English, Ron; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch,
Kenneth C; Heath, Shauna L
Cc: Caldwell, Eric
Subject: RE: adjusted alternatives section in BAR
for Math adoption

We incorporated all of the edits you sent last
night in the version Kenneth received. The
folder with the hardcopies includes the prior
versions, including a copy with edits for
comparison. If any of these edits seem
incongruous and not in keeping with your
intended change to the document, please
mark the new copy with specific suggestions
and/or exact wording.

For Alternatives, letter D, dual adoption, the
challenge is shaping or framing an option that
was never on the table to begin with. The
entire adoption process is predicated on
selecting for one recommended program, so it
is challenging to reframe the work of the
committee, purchasing, and in terms of
teaching and learning in this new context. In
essence, it will take more time to conduct a
thorough analysis of this option the idea of
adding it into the fold has just begun.

From: English, Ron
To: Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Heath,
Shauna L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: RE: adjusted alternatives section in BAR
for Math adoption

First, this does not address the various changes I
recommended last night.

Second, as to the alternative of a dual adoption,
you have identified the right place for that
discussion, but it needs to be much more
extensive with pros and cons and include a
straight-up statement that "for these reasons we
do not recommend this option.
".
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Gotsch, Kenneth C; English, Ron; Heath,
Shauna L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: adjusted alternatives section in BAR for
Math adoption
Ken,
There is one change in this attached copy of
the BAR that is not in the hard copy you
possess. Please see the ALTERNATIVES
section, Letter D as an addition.

Also, the attachments with the document are
not correctly aligned, but the spreadsheet of
actual costs per item from enVision are
pertinent for your review.

Ron, perhaps you can coordinate with Ken for
both of your signatures, since the routing
sheet is with him at this time.

Shauna, please be aware that changes are
being made.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
Professional Library/Instructional Materials
Office
John Stanford Center for Educational
Excellence
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: English, Ron
To: Dysart, Adam W
Cc: Sipe, Shawn L
Back is a good spot.
The statement needs to be added as part of the cost discussion
Sent from my iPhone
On May 9, 2014, at 2:52 PM, "Dysart, Adam W" <addysart@seattleschools.org> wrote:
In terms of placement, do you want the comparative costs in Background, under
Cost? We are wondering where it is stated management made the decision that the
comparative pricing of the vendors supported the MAC recommendation of envision? We
are not seeing such a statement in the BAR, or is that implied?

Thanks,

- Adam
From: English, Ron
To: Dysart, Adam W; Heath, Shauna L; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Bennett, Erinn
P; Tolley, Michael F
Cc: DeMahy, Anita; Wiley, Delinda; Murphy, Craig; Cerqui, J ohn

Tahnks. I missed items 1 and 32. what you have is fine.

2. Include the data and let it go.

J ohn Cerqui can sign for me.
To: English, Ron; Heath, Shauna L; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Bennett, Erinn P;
Tolley, Michael F
Cc: DeMahy, Anita; Wiley, Delinda; Murphy, Craig
See below

From: English, Ron
To: Heath, Shauna L; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Bennett, Erinn P; Tolley, Michael
F


1. The BAR does not discuss the fact that Michael Tolley issued a directive to the MAC to
not consider pricing. That needs to be said.

Under subheading Day of Deliberation, 4/25/2014, section VII Background
Information:

In response to MAC members concerns around cost, it was reiterated prior to
beginning deliberation that cost should not be considered as a primary criterion
for ranking. Based on Assistant Superintendent Michael Tolleys directive,
MAC members were instructed to only evaluate each program on merit, not
overall cost.

2. We also need to say what the pricing is for the competing products, since management
made the decision that the comparative pricing of the vendors supported the MAC
recommendation of envision.

We can insert the 7 year comparative costs in the current placement of enVisions
proposal.

3. The next Alternative D needs to unequivocally say that staff does not recommend this
option.

This is in the alternatives section currently:

For reasons stated in alternative B and in section VIII, this is not the course of action
recommended by lead staff

Does this need to be stated differently?
From: English, Ron
To: Heath, Shauna L; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Bennett, Erinn P; Tolley, Michael
F
To: English, Ron; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Bennett, Erinn P; Tolley, Michael F
Ron,

Are you ok with sending this to the board as a draft so that they can review prior to C and
I?

Shauna
From: English, Ron
To: Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Heath, Shauna L; Bennett, Erinn P; Tolley, Michael
F
Everyone,


Ron
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Gotsch, Kenneth C; English, Ron; Heath, Shauna L; Bennett, Erinn P; Tolley, Michael F
Ken,

The area shaded in yellow under Alternatives is the recent addition requested by Ron
English. Also, one attachment, the spreadsheet of costs per item, was removed at the
request of Craig Murphy since it is not meant to be a public document.

I will walk up and bring you the paper copies of each iteration in a few minutes.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: DeMahy, Anita

Sent from my iPhone
On May 9, 2014, at 9:57 AM, "Sipe, Shawn L" <slsipe@seattleschools.org> wrote:

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: DeMahy, Anita

Can I get an electronic version of the corrected copy of the BAR?

Ken
Sent from my iPhone
On May 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, "Sipe, Shawn L"
Ron,
It looks like we did send on the incorrect version to Ken. I
am so sorry. I am adjusting the version now to replace it
with yours and Erinns comments and corrections.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: English, Ron; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Heath,
Shauna L
Cc: Caldwell, Eric
Subject: RE: adjusted alternatives section in BAR for Math
adoption

We incorporated all of the edits you sent last night in the
version Kenneth received. The folder with the hardcopies
includes the prior versions, including a copy with edits for
comparison. If any of these edits seem incongruous and
not in keeping with your intended change to the document,
please mark the new copy with specific suggestions and/or
exact wording.

For Alternatives, letter D, dual adoption, the challenge is
shaping or framing an option that was never on the table to
begin with. The entire adoption process is predicated on
selecting for one recommended program, so it is
challenging to reframe the work of the committee,
purchasing, and in terms of teaching and learning in this
new context. In essence, it will take more time to conduct
a thorough analysis of this option the idea of adding it
into the fold has just begun.

From: English, Ron
To: Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Heath, Shauna L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: RE: adjusted alternatives section in BAR for Math
adoption

First, this does not address the various changes I
recommended last night.

Second, as to the alternative of a dual adoption, you have
identified the right place for that discussion, but it needs to be
much more extensive with pros and cons and include a
straight-up statement that "for these reasons we do not
recommend this option.
".
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Gotsch, Kenneth C; English, Ron; Heath, Shauna L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: adjusted alternatives section in BAR for Math
adoption
Ken,
There is one change in this attached copy of the BAR that is
not in the hard copy you possess. Please see the
ALTERNATIVES section, Letter D as an addition.

Also, the attachments with the document are not correctly
aligned, but the spreadsheet of actual costs per item from
enVision are pertinent for your review.

Ron, perhaps you can coordinate with Ken for both of your
signatures, since the routing sheet is with him at this time.

Shauna, please be aware that changes are being made.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Cerqui, J ohn
To: Heath, Shauna L
Subject: FW: adjusted alternatives section in BAR for Math adoption
Shauna, if you need me to sign something I am here until 4:10; off to Apple store to fix or buy new
phone argh!

John Cerqui
Deputy General Counsel
(206) 252-0110

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This email and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not
the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email or any
attachment is prohibited.

From: English, Ron
To: Dysart, Adam W; Heath, Shauna L; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Bennett, Erinn P; Tolley,
Michael F

Tahnks. I missed items 1 and 32. what you have is fine.

2. Include the data and let it go.

J ohn Cerqui can sign for me.
To: English, Ron; Heath, Shauna L; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Bennett, Erinn P; Tolley, Michael
F
Cc: DeMahy, Anita; Wiley, Delinda; Murphy, Craig
See below

From: English, Ron
To: Heath, Shauna L; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Bennett, Erinn P; Tolley, Michael F


1. The BAR does not discuss the fact that Michael Tolley issued a directive to the MAC to not consider
pricing. That needs to be said.

Under subheading Day of Deliberation, 4/25/2014, section VII Background Information:

In response to MAC members concerns around cost, it was reiterated prior to beginning
deliberation that cost should not be considered as a primary criterion for ranking. Based
on Assistant Superintendent Michael Tolleys directive, MAC members were instructed to
only evaluate each program on merit, not overall cost.

2. We also need to say what the pricing is for the competing products, since management made the
decision that the comparative pricing of the vendors supported the MAC recommendation of envision.

We can insert the 7 year comparative costs in the current placement of enVisions proposal.

3. The next Alternative D needs to unequivocally say that staff does not recommend this option.

This is in the alternatives section currently:

For reasons stated in alternative B and in section VIII, this is not the course of action recommended
by lead staff

Does this need to be stated differently?
From: English, Ron
To: Heath, Shauna L; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Bennett, Erinn P; Tolley, Michael F
To: English, Ron; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Bennett, Erinn P; Tolley, Michael F
Ron,

Are you ok with sending this to the board as a draft so that they can review prior to C and I?

Shauna
From: English, Ron
To: Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Heath, Shauna L; Bennett, Erinn P; Tolley, Michael F
Everyone,


Ron
From: Sipe, Shawn L
Ken,

The area shaded in yellow under Alternatives is the recent addition requested by Ron English. Also,
one attachment, the spreadsheet of costs per item, was removed at the request of Craig Murphy
since it is not meant to be a public document.


Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: DeMahy, Anita

Sent from my iPhone

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: DeMahy, Anita


Ken
Sent from my iPhone
On May 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, "Sipe, Shawn L" <slsipe@seattleschools.org> wrote:
Ron,
It looks like we did send on the incorrect version to Ken. I am so sorry. I
am adjusting the version now to replace it with yours and Erinns
comments and corrections.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: English, Ron; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Heath, Shauna L
Cc: Caldwell, Eric

We incorporated all of the edits you sent last night in the version
Kenneth received. The folder with the hardcopies includes the prior
versions, including a copy with edits for comparison. If any of these
edits seem incongruous and not in keeping with your intended change
to the document, please mark the new copy with specific suggestions

For Alternatives, letter D, dual adoption, the challenge is shaping or
framing an option that was never on the table to begin with. The entire
adoption process is predicated on selecting for one recommended
program, so it is challenging to reframe the work of the committee,
purchasing, and in terms of teaching and learning in this new context. In
essence, it will take more time to conduct a thorough analysis of this
option the idea of adding it into the fold has just begun.

From: English, Ron
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

First, this does not address the various changes I recommended last night.

Second, as to the alternative of a dual adoption, you have identified the right
place for that discussion, but it needs to be much more extensive with pros
and cons and include a straight-up statement that "for these reasons we do
not recommend this option.
".
From: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: adjusted alternatives section in BAR for Math adoption
Ken,
There is one change in this attached copy of the BAR that is not in the
hard copy you possess. Please see the ALTERNATIVES section, Letter D
as an addition.

Also, the attachments with the document are not correctly aligned, but
the spreadsheet of actual costs per item from enVision are pertinent for
your review.

Ron, perhaps you can coordinate with Ken for both of your signatures,
since the routing sheet is with him at this time.


Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: English, Ron; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Heath, Shauna L; Bennett, Erinn P; Tolley, Michael F
Those figures would need to be determined by Craig and his team. Has such a request been made?

From: English, Ron
Cc: DeMahy, Anita; Wiley, Delinda; Dysart, Adam W; Murphy, Craig; Cerqui, J ohn

Recommend you provide a comparison of costs between the top three, as well as a discussion of the cost
of a split adoption.
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: English, Ron; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Heath, Shauna L; Bennett, Erinn P; Tolley, Michael F
Cc: DeMahy, Anita; Wiley, Delinda; Dysart, Adam W; Murphy, Craig; Cerqui, J ohn
Ron,
The following is in the BACKGROUND SECTION:
COST

The cost proposal from Pearson is as follows:


1 $1,561,109.69
2 $ 451,258.59
3 $ 451,258.59
4 $ 451,258.59
5 $ 451,258.59
6 $ 451,258.59
7 $ 451,258.59


This includes materials, technology, and the first tier of Professional Development offered by the
vendor.

I will add the total above to the Contract section under Recommended Motion.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: English, Ron

Everyone,


Ron
From: Sipe, Shawn L
Ken,

The area shaded in yellow under Alternatives is the recent addition requested by Ron English. Also,
one attachment, the spreadsheet of costs per item, was removed at the request of Craig Murphy
since it is not meant to be a public document.


Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: DeMahy, Anita

Sent from my iPhone

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: DeMahy, Anita


Ken
Sent from my iPhone
On May 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, "Sipe, Shawn L" <slsipe@seattleschools.org> wrote:
Ron,
It looks like we did send on the incorrect version to Ken. I am so sorry. I
am adjusting the version now to replace it with yours and Erinns
comments and corrections.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: English, Ron; Sipe, Shawn L; Gotsch, Kenneth C; Heath, Shauna L
Cc: Caldwell, Eric

We incorporated all of the edits you sent last night in the version
Kenneth received. The folder with the hardcopies includes the prior
versions, including a copy with edits for comparison. If any of these
edits seem incongruous and not in keeping with your intended change
to the document, please mark the new copy with specific suggestions

For Alternatives, letter D, dual adoption, the challenge is shaping or
framing an option that was never on the table to begin with. The entire
adoption process is predicated on selecting for one recommended
program, so it is challenging to reframe the work of the committee,
purchasing, and in terms of teaching and learning in this new context. In
essence, it will take more time to conduct a thorough analysis of this
option the idea of adding it into the fold has just begun.

From: English, Ron
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

First, this does not address the various changes I recommended last night.

Second, as to the alternative of a dual adoption, you have identified the right
place for that discussion, but it needs to be much more extensive with pros
and cons and include a straight-up statement that "for these reasons we do
not recommend this option.
".
From: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: adjusted alternatives section in BAR for Math adoption
Ken,
There is one change in this attached copy of the BAR that is not in the
hard copy you possess. Please see the ALTERNATIVES section, Letter D
as an addition.

Also, the attachments with the document are not correctly aligned, but
the spreadsheet of actual costs per item from enVision are pertinent for
your review.

Ron, perhaps you can coordinate with Ken for both of your signatures,
since the routing sheet is with him at this time.


Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

Cc: Tolley, Michael F
Subject: FW: Cost of Math Adoption
Date: Thursday, May 08, 2014 3:55:58 PM
Attachments: MiFmaterials.xls
enVisionsmaterials.xls
Copy of Go Math List of Materials.xls
I know that this is not completely accurate, but if you just take these totals, MiF costs approximately
285.00 per student for the adoption and enVisons is 177 per student. MiF is 57.00 per year over 5
years. Envisions is 25.00 per year over 7 years or 28.00 per year over 5 years (for comparison only).
One day of PD at the required rate for 8 hours is 320,000 in pay. If you calculate 8 days of required PD
the proposal of MiF, results in an estimate of 2,560,000 per 1000 teachers.
Shauna
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 2:03 PM
Cc: Wiley, Delinda
Subject: Cost of Math Adoption
Please let me know if you would like me to send or if Delinda should send.

Shauna

Director Peters,

Below is the information that was communicated with the Materials Adoption Committee about
cost and what materials are included.

Best,

Michael Tolley

First, the overall first year cost as quoted by the publishers includes all materials, including
manipulatives, teacher resources, and technology in the total cost. The professional
development costs (not including our cost to pay teachers) is built into the first year in each case
except for Math in Focus. Years 2 through 7 include costs of consumable materials.

1 $ 1,513,041.00
2 $ 305,387.00
3 $ 305,387.00
4 $ 305,387.00
5 $ 305,387.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00

******************************************


1 $ 4,269,506.00
2 $ 747,354.00 (includes Year 2 of PD and consumables)
3 $ 558,954.00
4 $ 558,954.00
5 $ 558,954.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00


******************************************


1 $1,561,109.69
2 $ 451,258.59
3 $ 451,258.59
4 $ 451,258.59
5 $ 451,258.59
6 $ 451,258.59
7 $ 451,258.59

Total price for all 7 years $4,268,661.23\

BUDGET
At this point, the SPS budget will bear $1,500,000 for the first year and we will follow our past
budgeting practice for yearly added consumables at about $500,000 over the six year period
following the first year of adoption. At this point we have about 30,000 K-5 students.

Our budget for Professional Development costs to pay teachers and any in-house expenses is
$355,000. The general cost per teacher for PD just under $200 per day. At present we have about
1,100 K-5 general ed classroom teachers. The PD plans differ for each program and we can discuss
this at a later time.

NOTE about Math in Focus:
The publisher of Math in Focus, HMH, explains the high price of their program as follows:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) does not own the Math in Focus Program. HMH distributes Math in Focus
for the owners/authors of the program . Under the terms of that distribution agreement, the owners of the
program set pricing. They approved a 5% discount for SPS.
HMH is unable, for example, to offer the special promotions that were offered SPS on the Go Math! Program
(buy four SEs, get one free and buy one classroom manipulative kit get one free). Northwest Pricing on Go
Math! also benefits from the fact that so many Northwest school districts have adopted Go Math! - including
Anchorage School District with 30,000 students.

As for our MAC work in regards to the cost of MIF, we will not take the program out of
consideration at this point, but the committee members are charged to consider the high cost in
comparison to our budget during their deliberation process and be aware that choosing this
program would require us to request more money in order to adopt it.

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: alternatives
Importance: High
Adam.
I added a bit to option C and underlined to highlight the topic of each choice.

Also, I added a statement in green. What do you think?

I. ALTERNATIVES

A. Do not adopt a new curriculum. The currently adopted curriculum for K-5, Everyday
Math, has been in use in the district for seven years. Some schools have supplemented or
substituted its use due to lack of alignment to Common Core State Standards for
Mathematics (CCSS-M), in hopes of strengthening their overall math curriculum, and/or in
an attempt to improve the overall rigor of instruction. Continued use of this product will
further splinter the district's consistent, coherent approach to CCSS-M aligned instruction
across the entire K-5 spectrum. While some schools have pursued an alternative core
program through Parent Teacher Associations or other funding for the reasons stated,
particularly better alignment to CCSS-M, a majority of schools cannot afford to pay for such
changes on their own, creating an imbalance and inequitable instructional setting across
SPS.
The current adopted instructional materials for K-5 elementary math are not aligned to
CCSS, with increasing number of schools seeking alternative materials to supplement or
outright replace Everyday Math. For schools that have the capacity to purchase such
materials, they have done so already, creating an atmosphere of inequity across the
system.
It is important to have all teachers using consistent instructional materials for equity
purposes and to better align supports across the district. Further, in order to equip
teachers with the best possible resources for teaching mathematics effectively, the amount
of time they spend modifying and adapting existing, misaligned resources needs to be
reduced. Professional development for teachers is imperative to improve student
achievement and can be accomplished much more effectively when teachers use common
instructional materials, share resources, and collaboratively work on improving instruction.
The adoption of a new, common elementary math program will better align these
objectives, positioning Seattle Public Schools to meet core strategic plan goals such as
ensuring educational excellence and equity for every student and improve systems
districtwide to support academic outcomes.
No adoption of K-5 materials at this time would result in further splintering of K-5 cohesive
math instruction across the district and cause further inequity between schools.

B. Many publishers, state produced curricula, and free, online based math program
developers are still finalizing changes to their respective programs while the country
transitions to CCSS-M. For various reasons, many of these products and programs are
not complete currently. For this reason, many districts (including Spokane) have opted to
either combine pre-existing resources with newer, free programs available for download or
make amendments to currently adopted material until CCSS-M testing has begun and
program options are more complete on the marketplace. Seattle could pursue a similar
course of action, with the risk factors above still in place, in which teachers are directed to
free core math curricula or such materials as provided by the district. The district also does
not currently have a level of staffing to support this alternative.
C. Adopt one of the competing proposed curricula. This option is not recommended for the
reasons stated above.

D. Dual adoption has been suggested during the process of this Board Action Report
(BAR) review and has not been considered by the committee. The risks to this proposed
alternative include increased costs of the overall adoption and inability to deliver materials
into the hands of students by the beginning of the school year 2014- 2015.
Also, given current levels of staffing in the Curriculum and Instruction Department, resource
support and production would be significantly diminished. A dual adoption would also
create a lack of continuity and clarity of curriculum for students across the district. Due to
the cost disparity between program proposals, inequity in funding among schools will
occur.
Renewal of a decision process to select more than one program, renegotiation of contracts,
development of a process for schools to select an option, and reappraising professional
development deliverables will complicate and slow the process to adopt materials.
With all of the above risks to the adoption process, we do not recommend this option.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: McEvoy, Pegi
To: English, Ron; Heath, Shauna L
Cc: Banda, J ose L; Tolley, Michael F; Westgard, Bob; Paraghamian, Aleta
Subject: RE: SECOND Request for information pertaining to math adoption costs
Date: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 7:53:30 PM
Ron and Shauna,
Thank you for providing clarity. I will work with team tomorrow. Pegi

From: English, Ron
To: Heath, Shauna L; McEvoy, Pegi

Craig suggested he had heard a rumor we were doing something else. I consider you the
authoritative source. If you are firm on Envisons, then we should provide the documents.

To: McEvoy, Pegi; English, Ron

Ron,

I am not sure what is meant by a lack of conclusion about what is being recommended. If you are
referencing which material it is clear that envisions is the recommendation. I believe Michael
would concur. If that is not what you mean please feel free to let me know.

Thanks,

Shauna

From: McEvoy, Pegi
To: English, Ron
Cc: Heath, Shauna L; Banda, J ose L; Tolley, Michael F; Westgard, Bob; Paraghamian, Aleta

Ron, We will hold off until we are all in alignment. Pegi

From: English, Ron
To: English, Ron; McEvoy, Pegi

Everyone,

In talking to Craig, it is unclear to me whether Shauna and Michael have reached a conclusion in
their own minds as to what is being recommended. Until that happens (and assuming the
Superintendent concurs) we should not disclose information in a public forum.

Craig indicated that you may not yet be certain how you are going to proceed, but the draft BAR
clearly indicates a single recommendation.

Where are we?

Ron

From: English, Ron
To: McEvoy, Pegi

My thinking is:

Board members are entitled to ask for information that they deem relevant, and we should strive
to provide it to them, keeping in mind that whatever one gets, they all get.

I recently advised in another procurement that once the recommendation is made, i.e., once staff
have identified who they wish to recommend to the Board, the procurement decision is done and
we should disclose everything that is requested by either a Board member or the public. I do not
believe a request for all documents interferes with the procurement decision process, and should
be honored. The same principle applies here; Once Shauna and Michael decision which vendor to
recommend, we should become an open book, and not hold anything back.

Specifically, I do not think that Sues request for advance information puts us in jeopardy.

As you may recall, we have discussed the issue of Board requests, and determined that if the
Assistant Superintendent thinks that the request is too labor intensive relative to other priorities,
then Jose should make the decision whether to comply with the request and, if appropriate,
contact the Board member.

Ron

From: McEvoy, Pegi
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 9:56 AM
To: English, Ron
Cc: Heath, Shauna L; Banda, J ose L; Tolley, Michael F; Westgard, Bob

Ron,
Michael, Shauna and Craig have been working on this issue and have responded to Sue.
In the original discussion, there were concerns about the timing of information and
response due to the constraints around the procurement process. I believe that they did
respond to Sue in an appropriate manner based upon this timing. The recommended
award will be presented to the upcoming C and I committee, however, Sue would like to
see detailed information prior to that meeting. This appears to be outside of the usual
process. Does this put us in jeopardy or perhaps is this something that we need to work
with Sue on as a new school board member?

If there is a current Legal level decision for Purchasing to release competitive/commercial
information directly to the Board and outside normal operating procedures, please let us
know.

We have basic price tabulations, question/response docs etc. The actual curricular
evaluation process rests with the Adoption committee members.

It will take staff 1-3 days to package/present docs in a meaningful way that could
be understood by those outside our procurement system.

Thanks,
Pegi

From: McEvoy, Pegi
To: Murphy, Craig
Subject: FW: SECOND Request for information pertaining to math adoption costs
At this point, are there concerns about

To: Tolley, Michael F; McEvoy, Pegi
Cc: Heath, Shauna L; Banda, J ose L; McLaren, Martha
Subject: SECOND Request for information pertaining to math adoption costs

Michael and Pegi,
I have received no follow-up from Craig Murphy to my inquiry of a month ago.
I will be having my math adoption 2x2 with Michael and Shauna tomorrow, and would like to have this
information in time for that meeting.
It should also be shared with the rest of the board.
Again, I would like to know what was requested by the district of each math curriculum vendor, in terms
of materials and services, and what was offered, as well as specific price breakdowns.
I am cc-ing Director McLaren, Committee Chair of C&I.
Thank you.

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
From: Tolley, Michael F
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 1:53 PM
To: Peters, Susan M
Cc: Heath, Shauna L; McEvoy, Pegi; Banda, J ose L
Subject: RE: Request for information pertaining to math adoption costs
Director Peters,

Thank you for sending your questions. As you may be aware, the RFP process occurs as a Purchasing
Department responsibility separate from the Curriculum and Instruction Department as a check and
balance as well as for transparency. We will forward your email to Craig Murphy and his staff to answer
these questions.

Thank you.

Michael Tolley

Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 10:21 AM
To: Tolley, Michael F; Heath, Shauna L
Cc: Banda, J ose L
Subject: Request for information pertaining to math adoption costs

Dear Michael and Shauna,
During Monday's C&I meeting, board committee members were provided an update on the math
curriculum adoption, including the costs for the three finalists. Thank you for this information.
(This info has since been posted on the Seattle Schools Community Forum Blog:
http://www.saveseattleschools.blogspot.com/2014/04/curriculum-and-instruction-policy.html.)
As was noted at the meeting, there is a significant cost difference between the three options. I am
surprised by the discrepancy and would like to be certain that the vendors' quotes accurately correspond
to the district's request (i.e .that we are looking at apples to apples comparisons in what the vendors
would provide the district by way of materials and support).
Shauna indicated that she would go back to the highest bidder and verify the prices. Is it fair to assume
that such bids are negotiable and vendors have a vested interest in being competitive? If so, will there
be updated prices requested or offered?
In the interest of better understanding these differences, and for the sake of transparency, I would like
to request copies of the
complete documentation of the RFP for the K-5 math adoption and any related documentation pertaining
to costs, from both the district and the vendors. Please share this information with the board.
Thank you very much.
Regards,

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
From: English, Ron
To: McEvoy, Pegi
I think you should assemble the materials. My most likely guess is that Craigs information is not
current and Shauna and Michael will tell us that.

From: McEvoy, Pegi
To: English, Ron

Ron, We will hold off until we are all in alignment. Pegi

From: English, Ron
To: English, Ron; McEvoy, Pegi

Everyone,

In talking to Craig, it is unclear to me whether Shauna and Michael have reached a conclusion in
their own minds as to what is being recommended. Until that happens (and assuming the
Superintendent concurs) we should not disclose information in a public forum.

Craig indicated that you may not yet be certain how you are going to proceed, but the draft BAR
clearly indicates a single recommendation.

Where are we?

Ron

From: English, Ron
To: McEvoy, Pegi

My thinking is:





Ron

From: McEvoy, Pegi
To: English, Ron

Ron,

know.



Thanks,
Pegi

From: McEvoy, Pegi
To: Murphy, Craig


Michael and Pegi,
Thank you.

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
To: Peters, Susan M
Director Peters,

these questions.

Thank you.

Michael Tolley

Cc: Banda, J ose L

Regards,

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
From: Murphy, Craig
To: English, Ron; Heath, Shauna L
Cc: Tolley, Michael F; McEvoy, Pegi; Westgard, Bob
Subject: MIF price tabulation
7/May/2014
MIF price tabulation

Ron and Shauna,
.
Purchasing has not historically released competitive publisher price information prior to an
adoption award to others outside of District process participants(District Teaching and Learning).
We will leave it to senior management and Legal whether a release of information to the Board
prior to being presented thru the designated committee is appropriate.

The below Math in Focus pricing reference (within Shaunas e-mail draft) appears to have been
extracted from an April 7, 2014 vendor e-mail. It contained an error ($157K) that was discovered
by Purchasing during the pricing review process. The official presentation of the price tabulation
from Purchasing to T & L on April 25, 2014 included the correct pricing that has been validated by
Purchasing and the three vendor/publisher finalists.
.

1 $ 4,269,506.00 (The correct price for this item is $4,426,950.60)
3 $ 558,954.00
4 $ 558,954.00
5 $ 558,954.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00


Thanks,

CRAIG MURPHY, PURCHASING MANAGER
SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1
cemurphy@seattleschools.org
Phone: 206-252-0570
Fax: 206-252-0505

To: English, Ron
Cc: Tolley, Michael F; Murphy, Craig; McEvoy, Pegi
Subject: FW:

Ron,

Here is what I think is a simplified version of the pricing that we could send.

Thoughts?
Cc: Murphy, Craig; McEvoy, Pegi
Subject:
Director Peters,


Best,

Michael Tolley


1 $ 1,513,041.00
2 $ 305,387.00
3 $ 305,387.00
4 $ 305,387.00
5 $ 305,387.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00

******************************************


1 $ 4,269,506.00
3 $ 558,954.00
4 $ 558,954.00
5 $ 558,954.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00


******************************************


1 $1,561,109.69
2 $ 451,258.59
3 $ 451,258.59
4 $ 451,258.59
5 $ 451,258.59
6 $ 451,258.59
7 $ 451,258.59


BUDGET




To: Peters, Susan M
Cc: McEvoy, Pegi; Heath, Shauna L; Banda, J ose L; McLaren, Martha; Tolley, Michael F
Attachments: FW Cost of Math Adoption.msg
Director Peters,

Below is the information that was communicated to the Materials Adoption Committee about cost
and what materials are included. As you know, the Purchasing Office is working to provide
additional documentation.

Best,

Michael Tolley


1 $ 1,513,041.00
2 $ 305,387.00
3 $ 305,387.00
4 $ 305,387.00
5 $ 305,387.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00

******************************************


1 $ 4,269,506.00
3 $ 558,954.00
4 $ 558,954.00
5 $ 558,954.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00


******************************************


1 $1,561,109.69
2 $ 451,258.59
3 $ 451,258.59
4 $ 451,258.59
5 $ 451,258.59
6 $ 451,258.59
7 $ 451,258.59


BUDGET





Michael and Pegi,
Thank you.

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
To: Peters, Susan M
Director Peters,

these questions.

Thank you.

Michael Tolley

Cc: Banda, J ose L

Regards,

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
From: McEvoy, Pegi
To: Heath, Shauna L; English, Ron
Perfect! I let Sue know to expect it! Pegi

To: McEvoy, Pegi; English, Ron

Ron shared that we could and should send out the information given to the MAC related to the cost and
materials. I will meet with Michael and send it out to all board members today.

Shauna
From: McEvoy, Pegi
To: English, Ron
Thank you Ron. I just talked with Sue and let her know where we are in the process. She is fine
with that. She stated that she has a 2X2 tomorrow and wanted to be prepared for the meeting
and therefore wanted any information that we could deliver ahead of time. I will talk with Bob
about next steps. Pegi

From: English, Ron
To: McEvoy, Pegi

My thinking is:





Ron

From: McEvoy, Pegi
To: English, Ron

Ron,

know.



Thanks,
Pegi

From: McEvoy, Pegi
To: Murphy, Craig


Michael and Pegi,
Thank you.

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
To: Peters, Susan M
Director Peters,

these questions.

Thank you.

Michael Tolley

Cc: Banda, J ose L

Regards,

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
From: J ohnston, Susan
To: Sipe, Shawn L; Heath, Shauna L
Subject: RE: Final pricing on our three final programs
Date: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:22:35 AM
Craig and I are working on this. Apparently he has gotten the same emails so I dont want to
duplicate our efforts.
As soon as we sort this out and confirm what is needed, you will be getting an email from Craig.

Susan Johnston
Buyer
Seattle School District #1
206-252-0569 Phone
206-252-0505 Fax

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Heath, Shauna L
Cc: J ohnston, Susan
Importance: High

Here is the one without pricing.

Susan, would you also send Shauna the same info (RFP list of materials with pricing and per student
cost) for Go!Math?
Thanks,

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Sipe, Shawn L

Do you have go math?

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Heath, Shauna L
Shauna,
These are the lists of the materials included. Susan will send you the same but with the estimated
quantities and pricing. Note that the quantities are just estimates, and probably high.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Sipe, Shawn L

Thanks Shawn! Can you also send the spreadsheet of what was included?

Shauna
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Heath, Shauna L
Subject: FW: Final pricing on our three final programs
Shauna,
Here is the email we sent to the MAC of the pricing for all three programs.

Susan,
I dont have the electronic versions of the other things that Shauna needs today. Would you send
her the sections of the both the Math In Focus and the enVision RFPs that contain their cost
proposals detailed by item and also their per student cost breakdowns.

Shauna, if you need more than this, let us know.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Sipe, Shawn L
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 4:09 PM
To: Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart, Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula;
ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser, Nancy;
Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, J ohn P; Lewicki, Patricia; Lulu, Aschenaki;
MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Martin McIntosh; Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T;
Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke; Sipe, Shawn L; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler,
Kristen K
Cc: Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M; Caldwell, Eric
Subject: Final pricing on our three final programs

Hello MAC members,

Here is the data about costs/prices for our final programs.


1 $ 1,513,041.00
2 $ 305,387.00
3 $ 305,387.00
4 $ 305,387.00
5 $ 305,387.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00

******************************************


1 $ 4,269,506.00
3 $ 558,954.00
4 $ 558,954.00
5 $ 558,954.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00


******************************************


1 $1,561,109.69
2 $ 451,258.59
3 $ 451,258.59
4 $ 451,258.59
5 $ 451,258.59
6 $ 451,258.59
7 $ 451,258.59


BUDGET




Please call or email with questions,
Adam 252-0135 and Shawn 252-0227

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

Cc: Murphy, Craig; McEvoy, Pegi
Attachments: MiFmaterials.xls
enVisionsmaterials.xls
Director Peters,
Best,
Michael Tolley

1 $ 1,513,041.00
2 $ 305,387.00
3 $ 305,387.00
4 $ 305,387.00
5 $ 305,387.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00

******************************************


1 $ 4,269,506.00
3 $ 558,954.00
4 $ 558,954.00
5 $ 558,954.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00


******************************************


1 $1,561,109.69
2 $ 451,258.59
3 $ 451,258.59
4 $ 451,258.59
5 $ 451,258.59
6 $ 451,258.59
7 $ 451,258.59


BUDGET




From: Murphy, Craig
To: Heath, Shauna L
Subject: RE: RFP0244 K-5 MATH RE: Request for information pertaining to math adoption costs
Bob W and Pegi met to discuss and an e-mail was sent to Legal to review.
.
I believe the original Tolley e-mail and description about how adoption process information flows
to the Board on adoptions is the current thinking on this.
.
. Financial information will be separately analyzed and presented to the Board, along
with your recommendation..
.

Thanks,

Phone: 206-252-0570
Fax: 206-252-0505

To: Murphy, Craig
Cc: Tolley, Michael F; English, Ron
Subject: RE: RFP0244 K-5 MATH RE: Request for information pertaining to math adoption costs

Craig,

Can we touch base with Michael to provide a response to Director Peters that communicates your email
below?

Shauna
From: Murphy, Craig
To: Heath, Shauna L
Subject: RFP0244 K-5 MATH RE: Request for information pertaining to math adoption costs
A little bit of history and Purchasings response to Pegi Ms inquiry of status today

Thanks,

Phone: 206-252-0570
Fax: 206-252-0505

From: Murphy, Craig
To: Wiley, Delinda
Subject: FW: RFP0244 K-5 MATH RE: Request for information pertaining to math adoption costs

Hi Delinda,
.
FYi

Thanks,

Phone: 206-252-0570
Fax: 206-252-0505

From: Murphy, Craig
To: McEvoy, Pegi; Westgard, Bob
Subject: RFP0244 K-5 MATH RE: Request for information pertaining to math adoption costs

7/May/2014
RFP0244 K-5 MATH RE: Request for information pertaining to math adoption costs

Hi Pegi,
.
We actually responded thru DeLinda Wileys office ( see April 24 below) as that is where Director
Peters communication came thru.
.
As we were in the middle of the commercial evaluation at the time, we did not have a complete
picture of information to inform with(and stated so) and it was decided that Director Tolleys
statement (excerpt below)was the basis for how the release of information would flow.
.
. Financial information will be separately analyzed and presented to the Board, along
.
If there was any misunderstanding on Purchasings part as to the appropriate timing/method for
releasing information to the Board or others let us know.
.
We have been in contact with Shauna Heath and Anna Box and understood that a committee
majority decision had been reached to recommend/present the Pearson EnVision product.
.
If there is a current management/Legal level decision for Purchasing to release
competitive/commercial information directly to the Board and outside/separate from the
process/path described in the Tolley communication let us know.
.
We have basic price tabulations, question/response docs etc. The actual curricular evaluation
process rests with the committee members.
.
It will take staff 1-3 days to package/present docs in a meaningful way that could be understood
by those outside our procurement system.

Thanks,

From: McEvoy, Pegi
To: Murphy, Craig

Hi Craig,
Did you receive this e-mail from Michael last month with the request from the Board? I thought
that everything was answered during the 2x2s. Pegi


Michael and Pegi,
Thank you.

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
From: Wiley, Delinda
To: Murphy, Craig
Subject: RE: DRAFT FOR YOUR REVIEW RFP0244 K-5 MATH RE: Request for information pertaining to
math adoption costs

I was on vacation during spring break and wasnt ccd. Thank you.

DeLinda

From: Murphy, Craig
To: Wiley, Delinda
Cc: Westgard, Bob; English, Ron; Heath, Shauna L; Tolley, Michael F; Box, Anna M
Subject: FW: DRAFT FOR YOUR REVIEW RFP0244 K-5 MATH RE: Request for information pertaining to
math adoption costs

24/April/2014

Hi Delinda,
.
Thanks for your patience.
.
We were under the impression that Director Peters or your staff were included in Michael Tolleys
April 17 (below) e-mail.
.
It in general addresses the adoption committees role/status and in particular mentions that.
Financial information will be separately analyzed and presented to the Board, along
.
Purchasings response to Director Peters e-mail request for documentation is in agreement with
the Tolley e-mail of April 17.
.
From Director Peters April 9
th
e-mail.
Shauna indicated that she would go back to the highest bidder and verify the prices. Is
it fair to assume that such bids are negotiable and vendors have a vested interest in being
competitive? If so, will there be updated prices requested or offered?...
Purchasing is in contact with all the finalists, clarifying offers/responses. Our process allows
for/includes communications and opportunities for updated pricing from vendors. Some items for
clarification (technical or curricular) require review by the adoption committee and other subjects
require commercial/contractual consideration by Purchasing or others. RFP
review/recommendation is a team effort requiring many resources within the District.
.
With regards to a request for complete documentation for the RFP. As this process is ongoing and
100% of the information/documentation that will be considered is not yet received, organized or
evaluated by staff, we do not feel it would, in its current state present a complete picture. We
could certainly provide the Board with copies of the District RFP. Vendor communications,
clarifications and negotiations are on-going so we dont believe the current state of vendor
response documentation is complete/final and validated for decision making and presentation to
others.
.
Please let us know if a stand-alone copy of the RFP is desired at this time or if youd rather wait for
the 100% complete review/recommendation documentation package that will be presented as
part of the C & I Committees presentation to the Board.

Thanks,

Phone: 206-252-0570
Fax: 206-252-0505

To: Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Lewicki, Patricia; Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S; Dysart, Adam W;
Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kiser, Nancy;
Leahy, J ohn P; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Newton, Morena; Ngobi, Fredrick;
Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Lewis, Phyllis C; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K;
'lee.chanhom@gmail.com'; 'emaildao@gmail.com'; 'ellingston@gmail.com'; 'libbyib@gmail.com';
'topatr@mac.com'; 'rick@mtnw-usa.com'; 'y.kerim@gmail.com'; 'pclewis45@yahoo.com'
Cc: Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M; Caldwell, Eric; Tolley, Michael F

Dear Math Adoption Committee,
Anna Box, Math Program Manager, shared with me your recent and thoughtful email chain
regarding the pricing on the final three math instructional materials. While I understand your
concern around the financial variables of the textbooks, I would like to ask you to focus your
expertise and your deliberations on selecting the best mathematics text for our Seattle Public
Schools students. You are the group that has been charged with recommending a text based
on the merits of that book as a very important piece in the education of our children. I am
depending on you for that recommendation.
Financial information will be separately analyzed and presented to the Board, along with your
recommendation
Thank you so much for all the time you have put into the math textbook recommendation
process. I look forward to receiving your recommendation in the very near future.
Warmest regards,
Michael F. Tolley
Assistant Superintendent for Teaching and Learning

Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 1:51 PM
To: Murphy, Craig

Hi Craig,

Whats the status of this request?

Thank you.

DeLinda

From: Murphy, Craig
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 3:35 PM
To: Wiley, Delinda
Cc: English, Ron; Westgard, Bob; J ohnston, Susan

Hi Delinda,
.
I was out of the office all last week and just seeing some of this e-mail chain when the District
OUTLOOK system was repaired late this AM.
.
Please give me a day or two to review this request with others.
.
Thanks,

Phone: 206-252-0570
Fax: 206-252-0505

Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 2:28 PM
To: Murphy, Craig
Subject: FW: Request for information pertaining to math adoption costs
Importance: High

Hi Craig,

Just following up to see if you had a chance to provide a response to Director Peters questions?

Thank you.

DeLinda

To: Murphy, Craig; J ohnston, Susan

Craig and Susan,

Can you answer Director Peters questions?

Shauna

To: Peters, Susan M

Director Peters,

these questions.

Thank you.

Michael Tolley

Cc: Banda, J ose L

Regards,

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
To: Murphy, Craig
Craig,
Do you have this response? Would it be possible to chat about this request?
Shauna
Michael and Pegi,
Thank you.
Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
To: Peters, Susan M
Director Peters,

these questions.

Thank you.

Michael Tolley

Cc: Banda, J ose L

Regards,

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
From: Kischner, Gerrit
To: Heath, Shauna L
Thanks, Shauna. I'm going to miss Bike to School tomorrow for more of the Asst. Sup for HR screening,
drag. I would appreciate your contacting Shawn and Craig to work with me on single school costs.
Gerrit
To: Kischner, Gerrit
Gerrit,
I wanted to make sure you knew that I read your email tonight. I will definitely respond in more detail
tomorrow, but I have to get up early for bike to school day :)
I want to let you know that you can and should work through Shawn and Craig Murphy to figure out
costs for MiF at a single school. I will communicate with them tomorrow. We are also interested in
what they would charge.
Thank you again for being so open to conversation and I will add more tomorrow.
Best,
Shauna
To: Heath, Shauna L
Hi Shauna,

No, I didnt hear about the C&I meeting, but yes, I can attend. Just before, I have a BLT meeting in
which this is going to be the number one issue, so maybe Ill be fresh with some ideas.

That said, Im happy to offer my opinion on this, but I dont want to be in a position of contradicting
you or Michael. I have great respect for the heavy lift the two of you have with this adoption, so
please know that my suggestions are truly in the spirit of trying to find a politically feasible as well
as instructionally effective approach. In me, youve got a Seattle boy through and through
maybe a little too much resistance to towing a party line, but I know how to work the public
process and make sure people feel good about options.

I really want to help figure out a solution thats good for all schools, not just Schmitz Park. I heard
you loud and clear that we need to be careful at Schmitz Park not to foment a lot of MIF energy
because that could derail the whole process. At the same time, for better or for worse, I think
Schmitz Park has built an identity around Singapore. I took over a school in 2008 that had been
very successful at flying under the radar screen. Teachers told me that my predecessor would
simply tell teachers when they needed to jump to the District off their backs, and then they could
go back to filling out worksheets, etc. Ive tried hard, especially with our growth, to make it clear
that we are part of the District, we have to join in with District initiatives (for the most part;), and
we are not a little private-public school where entitled parents get what they want. Im proud,
for example, that while our enrollment has increased 85%, our PTA budget has only increased 27%
in the same period. We dont pay for any FTE with PTA money, for example. But the consolation
prize, as I see it, has been the identity we have had with Singapore Math. The comparison I made
today to the international schools isnt far off every school needs an identity, and building this
identity has been very powerful for teachers and students both.

When I evaluated MIF, I was pleased that all the pieces were in place that could continue our work I
this regard plus the supplemental resources looked very good. I just dont see how to shift this
building to enVision without a major uproar from teachers and parents alike.

This afternoon I tried getting a price on what MIF would cost for SP alone, but I cant as an
individual. Would you let me work directly with Shawns contact on this to see what we could
come up with? If I cant put a specific price tag on this, then Im not going to have any credibility
with my final recommendation to my staff and PTA. Im also going to ask REA to get the middle
school math scores for our kids up at Madison: thats probably the best comparison of the math
base that kids come to middle school with. There are a lot of reasons why I dont think our simple
data tells the story or can be compared with any other school.

Sorry, probably more than you needed to know, but Ill be there next week. Let me know if
anything more comes up this week.

Best,
Gerrit

Subject: Meeting

Gerrit,

Thank you for coming today. I really do appreciate you bringing your thoughts to the table. I am not
sure if you heard my ask of you attending C & I Policy meeting on Monday to offer your opinion. It
begins at 4:30 in the board office.

Thanks again,

Shauna
To: J ohnston, Susan; Sipe, Shawn L; Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M
Subject: RE: RFP0240 K-5 CORE MATHEMATIC ADOPTION-CLARIFICATION NEEDED
Date: Friday, May 02, 2014 8:49:52 AM
In beginning to get our heads around what PD can and should look like, I wanted to touch base
around what is being offered/what we desire.

Here are some starting points:

Pearson included a one day overview in the RFP
Pearson is willing to offer a job embedded (for one year) rep who works exclusively for SPS
(cost$ ?)
Alternatively, we pay an additional $3500 per one day (30 teachers) for training beyond the
one day overview
Pearson recommends a train the trainer model for the further staff development beyond
overview
Do we piggy back CLTs or identify new math specific TLs in each building?

I believe we have two days set aside in August (dates ?). One possibility is to conduct district-wide
one day overviews plus a second day with TLs, with built in follow-up throughout the year with
TLs. Budget considerations?

- Adam

To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: RFP0240 K-5 CORE MATHEMATIC ADOPTION-CLARIFICATION NEEDED
Importance: High

Hi Shawn and Adam,

Ive highlighted the answers to the questions I asked Pearson below.
Please let me know if you have anything further to ask.

Thanks!

Susan Johnston
Buyer
206-252-0569 Phone
206-252-0505 Fax

From: Crew, Russell [mailto:russell.crew@pearson.com]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 11:59 AM
To: J ohnston, Susan
Subject: Fwd: Fw: RFP0240 K-5 CORE MATHEMATIC ADOPTION-CLARIFICATION NEEDED

Hi Susan -
As a FYI around the PD offering, I also wanted to share this tidbit of info.

Pearson already has two math specialists that live in the state of WA and who would be
available to the district at no costs as its a part of their job to service Pacific Northwest
accounts (large and small). They actually serve the entire Pacific Northwest, but live in
Seattle and are very familiar with the math landscape in SPS. They, along with myself, would
always be available (respective to work calendars) to Seattle PS and there is not cost
associated with their presence.

If the district wanted a enVisionMATH Consultant who only serves Seattle PS, we do have the
PD service available but that type of model needs to be discussed with district leaders and
math department around goals, design, and outcomes.
The RFP only stated needs for product implementation and so we just wanted to stay
consistent with that question.

My calendar is wide open today, so I'll be free to discuss with you and Craig at your leisure.
Thanks -
Russell Crew

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Crew, Russell <russell.crew@pearson.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: RFP0240 K-5 CORE MATHEMATIC ADOPTION-CLARIFICATION
NEEDED
To: "Johnston, Susan" <sjohnston@seattleschools.org>
Hi Susan - Apologies for the delay as I was out of town on Friday and preparing for the Easter
holiday.

My answer ares below:

1. In regards to the RFP missing the teacher access pack and standards practice workbook.

Pearson Answer: The teachers edition access pack and resource package is included. For
example, see line 14 on our submission where it states "Teacher Edition and Resource
Package". Those are included and at no cost. If you are referring to a "digital resource"
package, that comes with the teacher package and is also included at zero cost.

The standards practice workbook is included as well. For example, see line 17 "Common
Core Standards Practice Workbook)

2.) In regards to the question around 6 year and 7 year licenses and being paid/sold for in
advance...

Pearson Answer: No. The book at grades 3-5 automatically comes with a 6 year licenses. So
whether you bought them now or in year 4, they would still come with a 6 year licenses. I
have approved a 7th year of online access for free because of the size of the initial purchase.

We also understand that historically and presently, SPS only purchases on a year to year basis.

3.) In regards to the question around being a model of hard covered student textbooks...

Pearson answer: enVision Common Core Math 2015 has a text book for each grade level.
However, at the K-2 grades, the text is a soft cover and is also a consumable. At grades 3-5,
the text book are hardcovers and are accompanied with student workbooks. (the student
workbooks are not hardcovers as a FYI).

4.) In regards to our quote being matched to a year-to-year purchase...

Pearson answer: Yes, our RFP and prices are bases on the year to year model that SPS. The
language in this answer was copy and pasted over from the original RFI and should not have
included "if bought all up front in year 1, the price is discounted...". The prices in our RFP
ARE BASED on the year-to-year model that SPS requested. The prices for K-5 on the RFP
are consistent with year-to-year modeling.

5.) In regards to professional development...(attachment of a what this training day looks
like is attached)

Pearson answer: Pearson is offering our Product Implementation Essentials at no cost for
SPS, each year and with K-2 consumable purchases, which is a one day workshop for
teachers who are new to enVisionMATH or need an annual refreshing. Participants/Teachers
in this training experience model lessons with extra emphasis on the activity based instruction
embedded in the program. This is a general overview that will enable teachers to learn and
teach, as well as assess enVisionMATH in their classrooms. The training also covers the
digital components (or Pearson Realize usage), as well as a thorough overview of the
manipulative and resources that help teachers teach enVisionMATH. This is being included
in our RFP for years 1-6 with the annual purchases of K-2 consumables.

Is T & L ok with this answer?

Other PD offerings delve more into particular areas of instruction and are usually created with the districts
Math Director, Dir. of Curriculum & Instruction, etc.. These additional training enables teacher/educators
to broaden their knowledge base and deliver instruction in a more efficient manner. They offer skills that
will enable educators to accomplish specific goals assigned to the workshop. Examples are listed below:
Using Student Assessment to Drive Instruction
Problem-Based Interactive Learning
Personalize and Differentiate Instruction
Developing Computational Fluency
Developing Algebraic Thinking
Developing Problem Solving
Analyzing Fraction Concepts
These PD offerings are usually $3500/per class with a class serving up to 30
teachers. You should also note that these PD offerings are great trainings for a
selected amount of teachers, who can then re-deliver the content/knowledge into the
larger teacher base. Districts of the SPS size usually tend to identify or select
"teacher leaders" in year one to participate in these deeper trainings with the idea of
having them train the rest of the math teach population. A train the trainer type approach.

place.


6.) In regards to year one pricing being true for years 2 - 7

Pearson answer: Yes.

7.) in regards to more clarity around PD....

Pearson Answer: Please refer to answer number 5 up above. Again, the basic product
essentials or product implementation/overview essentials is included with this RFP and being
offered each year with the purchase of K-2 consumables. This is a general overview training
about enVisionMATH and is ideal for new teachers, new teachers to enVisionMATH, or a
refresher for teachers who are using enVisionMATH. We do have some very specific PD
offerings that are included with enVisionMATH and are designed to help district teachers or
leaders meet specific district math goals. They are a plethora of options and are usually
discussed in more depth with district leaders around specific math goals or outcomes the
district is targeting. I certainly welcome this conversation.

8.) In regards to what's included in the $451,258.59 pricing

Pearson Answer: I have attached excel documents for exactly what's included in that cost for
years 2-7.

Thanks Susan and do let me know if there is a time you and Craig have in mind to talk today.
Very Sincerely,
Russell Crew

Were these items missed, or combined with something else on the RFP?
On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:30 PM, "Johnston, Susan"
<sjohnston@seattleschools.org> wrote:
Hi Russell,

We have several questions regarding your submitted RFP dated March 26, 2014.

Attachment 4-Request for Quote Form

The form you returned to us was the 2015 edition-(I understand these were not
available to quote for the RFI process)

Comparing Pearsons the RFI quote dated 12/17/13 to what you submitted on the
RFP quote dated 3/27/14, we have several questions.
.
The RFP appears to be missing the Teacher Access Pack and the Standards
Practice workbook.


You quoted for grades 3-5, a 7-year digital license on the RFI, but on the RFP, you
quoted a 6-year digital license.
Is six or seven years worth of licenses being sold/paid for in advance?

Attachment 5-Request for Quote Part A

1. We asked, Is your product/service/pricing based on a model that uses
primarily hard cover student textbooks that are to be reused by multiple
students/classes over the course of the Districts historical 7 year adoption cycle?

You answered Yes but put an explanation on Attachment 6-Part B saying This
is a model for K-5, K-2 consumable.
Is K-2 is consumable, and Grades 3-5 is Hardcover? Please explain/confirm.

2. We asked, Does your product/service offering/pricing include hard cover
student books for first year adoption/implementation as well as ongoing
requirements for supporting the adoption for years 2-7 of the adoption cycle?

You answered yes, but again put an explanation on Part B saying.Grades 3-5 is
paid for in year 1. K-2 can be bought for all seven years in year 1 or it can be
purchased yearly. If bought all up front in year 1, the price is discounted. We will
service the program as needed for the sever-year adoption.
Is the quote based on a year-to-year subsequent purchase, which matches our
yearly funding model?

9. We asked Does your product/service/pricing include all District identified
professional development for first year adoption/implementation as well as
ongoing requirements for supporting the adoption for years 2-7 of the adoption
cycle?

You answered yes, and filled out Part B saying, We will offer product
activation/implementation training at no cost for years 2-7 with the annual purchase
of K-2 consumables. If the district requires more specialized professional
development needs beyond product activation/implementation training (i.e.
advanced level training), the cost ranges from $3,500-$3,700/day with a class
accommodating up to 30 teachers.
Is this first year only? How does activation/implementation training differ from first
year Professional Development?

13. We asked, Do you agree that your below product/service/pricing offered for the
first/initial/adoption year will be held/apply to any future and/or upgraded items
for any individual/subsequent/future purchases of any quantity that may be made
in years 2-7 following the adoption?
You answered yes but stated on Part B We will hold prices in year 1 for the seven-
year adoption.
Will year 1 itemized/quoted prices be valid for items purchased in years 2-7?

first/initial/adoption year and years 2-7 following the adoption shows/includes all
costs to be paid for by the District for any subsequent purchases for the life of
the adoption cycle?
You answered yes All costs are included. If any additional professional development is needed
beyond the proposal, the cost is $3,500 per day.

I attached the Request for Quotation Form above. Please answer the questions in
Red on the last page. The committee would like to know what is included in the
$451,258.59 charge for years 2 through 7.

Thanks, and have a great weekend.

Susan Johnston
Buyer
206-252-0569 Phone
206-252-0505 Fax

--
Russell Crew
Account General Manager
(Anchorage, Portland, & Seattle Schools)

E: russell.crew@pearson.com
T: 206-499-1073
F: 206-201-8167

Pearson
Always Learning
Learn more at www.pearson.com

--
Russell Crew

T: 206-499-1073
F: 206-201-8167

Pearson
Always Learning
To: Box, Anna M
Subject: RE: Professional Development info for three programs
Can you send attachments? I am not following what he is suggesting. If you have a minute I am in
2765.
Thanks,
Shauna
From: Box, Anna M
To: Heath, Shauna L
Subject: FW: Professional Development info for three programs
FYI

From: Rick Burke [mailto:Rick@mtnw-usa.com]
To: Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Sipe, Shawn L; Barbara Grant (barbara@bgrantgroup.com); Bermet,
Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart, Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula;
Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, J ohn P; Lewicki, Patricia; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark
D; Martin McIntosh; Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I.
Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K
Cc: Box, Anna M

Hi Sabrina and fellow MAC members,

Well written letter, excellent points, and I fully support that position.

One additional wish-list item for future adoptions: Many of our neighboring districts have done
their adoptions as 2-part processes, consisting of an initial screening period, followed by a pilot
phase where the programs were actually used in classrooms/schools, and then the conclusions
from the pilot studies (school, teacher, parent, student) brought into the final selection process.
This doesnt really cost more than what weve just completed, but provides a much richer feedback
picture for this important decision.

Keep process optimizations front of mind, since middle school math is very overdue. CMP2 was
actually adopted one year before Everyday Math. If folks are concerned about MiF alignment to
CCSS, we should take actions, since CMP2 screams mis-alignment.

-Rick

From: Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S [mailto:askovacsstorli@seattleschools.org]
To: Sipe, Shawn L; Barbara Grant (barbara@bgrantgroup.com); Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao
H. Mai; Dysart, Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea;
Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser, Nancy; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, J ohn P;
Lewicki, Patricia; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Martin McIntosh; Morena newton;
Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke; Stemle,
Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K
Cc: Box, Anna M

Hi all,

I have never read, written, or thought much about how a minority report should be crafted.
Attached is a letter I have written in very little timeto the school board. Call it a minority report
if you will.

Enjoy the sun,

Sabrina Kovacs-Storlie
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Barbara Grant (barbara@bgrantgroup.com); Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart,
Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan;
Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser, Nancy; Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy,
J ohn P; Lewicki, Patricia; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Martin McIntosh; Morena
newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke;
Sipe, Shawn L; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K
Cc: Box, Anna M
Subject: Professional Development info for three programs

Hi All,
I am attaching four documents for those of you who want to see the PD offerings before we discuss
things on Friday. There are three official documents and a fourth that is extra details from
enVision that I cobbled together from Q&A emails.

Here is a basic summary:

enVision provides the first year basics at no charge and offers more indepth instruction for 30
teachers at a charge of $3,500 a class. This can be used to provide a Train the Trainer approach.
They also host Job Embedded training with a teacher dedicated just to the school district.

Go Math! Also provides basics at no charge in the first year in the form of 78 half-day sessions.
Their suggested use of these sessions is on page 4 of their document and they are providing
$117,600 of free PD. They also charge $40,400 in the first year, which is shown as optional in their
outline. They have a year 2 price of $26,400. I dont believe these charges are included in their
total price, but Purchasing is checking on this for us.

Math in Focus has a first year fee of $202,850 for the first year and $188,400 in year 2. They are
also listing gratis PD for $142,785 for year 1 and $74,199 for year 2. We did ask if any of this could
be reduced in any way and were told no.

At some point on Friday, we will discuss PD . These costs are to be covered in the $1,500,000
budget, except for our payment of teacher sub time.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Box, Anna M
To: Murphy, Craig
Subject: RE: DRAFT FOR YOUR REVIEW RFP0244 K-5 MATH RE: Request for information pertaining to math adoption
costs
Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:28:02 PM
Hi Craig, May I share this with the adoption coordinators, Adam Dysart and Shawn Sipe? Thanks

From: Murphy, Craig
To: Wiley, Delinda
math adoption costs

24/April/2014

Hi Delinda,
.
.
.
.
.
th
e-mail.
.
others.
.

Thanks,

Phone: 206-252-0570
Fax: 206-252-0505


Financial information will be separately analyzed and presented to the Board, along with your
recommendation
Warmest regards,
Michael F. Tolley

To: Murphy, Craig

Hi Craig,


Thank you.

DeLinda

From: Murphy, Craig
To: Wiley, Delinda

Hi Delinda,
.
.
.
Thanks,

Phone: 206-252-0570
Fax: 206-252-0505

To: Murphy, Craig
Importance: High

Hi Craig,


Thank you.

DeLinda


Craig and Susan,


Shauna

To: Peters, Susan M

Director Peters,

these questions.

Thank you.

Michael Tolley

Cc: Banda, J ose L

Regards,

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
From: Tolley, Michael F on behalf of Wiley, Delinda
To: Heath, Shauna L
Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 8:36:15 AM
Attachments: ENV2012_ImplementationEssentials.pdf
enVision supplemental info about Professional Development.docx
MIF-PD PP -Seattle Public Schools FINAL 3-3-13.docx
Seattle Go Math! PP final 3-3-13.docx
FYI

From: Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S

Hello Mr. Tolley,

I am forwarding this message to you because I am concerned about the amount of focus that is
being placed on the cost of adopting a new math curriculum. My personal and professional goal of
being on this committee is to put forward the best math program for our students. The emphasis
on price and training is something that has certainly tainted perceptions of those on the
committee and will have an impact at Fridays meeting. Im not sure what can be done about it
but after your reassuring message last week, I thought you should continue to be made aware of
this situation.

Regards,

Sabrina Kovacs-Storlie
National Board Certified Teacher
Schmitz Park Elementary
252-9687
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Barbara Grant (barbara@bgrantgroup.com); Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart,
Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan;
Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser, Nancy; Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy,
J ohn P; Lewicki, Patricia; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Martin McIntosh; Morena
newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke;
Sipe, Shawn L; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K
Cc: Box, Anna M
Subject: Professional Development info for three programs

Hi All,
I am attaching four documents for those of you who want to see the PD offerings before we discuss
things on Friday. There are three official documents and a fourth that is extra details from
enVision that I cobbled together from Q&A emails.

Here is a basic summary:

enVision provides the first year basics at no charge and offers more indepth instruction for 30
teachers at a charge of $3,500 a class. This can be used to provide a Train the Trainer approach.
They also host Job Embedded training with a teacher dedicated just to the school district.

Go Math! Also provides basics at no charge in the first year in the form of 78 half-day sessions.
Their suggested use of these sessions is on page 4 of their document and they are providing
$117,600 of free PD. They also charge $40,400 in the first year, which is shown as optional in their
outline. They have a year 2 price of $26,400. I dont believe these charges are included in their
total price, but Purchasing is checking on this for us.

Math in Focus has a first year fee of $202,850 for the first year and $188,400 in year 2. They are
also listing gratis PD for $142,785 for year 1 and $74,199 for year 2. We did ask if any of this could
be reduced in any way and were told no.

At some point on Friday, we will discuss PD . These costs are to be covered in the $1,500,000
budget, except for our payment of teacher sub time.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: RE: RFP0240 K-5 CORE MATHEMATIC ADOPTION-CLARIFICATION NEEDED
Date: Monday, April 21, 2014 1:43:07 PM
Thanks, Susan. An FYI, the Standards Practice workbook student edition is NOT included on the
printed sheet you gave me without pricing, but IS on the online spreadsheet with pricing. (ref
Question 1) We just need to be sure we get it.

Also, it looks like they give us the Common Core Reteaching and Practice Workbook free each year
for each grade when we buy the new paperback K-2 textbooks.

Adam will speak to the PD Q&A.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: RFP0240 K-5 CORE MATHEMATIC ADOPTION-CLARIFICATION NEEDED
Importance: High

Hi Shawn and Adam,

Ive highlighted the answers to the questions I asked Pearson below.
Please let me know if you have anything further to ask.

Thanks!

Susan Johnston
Buyer
206-252-0569 Phone
206-252-0505 Fax

From: Crew, Russell [mailto:russell.crew@pearson.com]
Subject: Fwd: Fw: RFP0240 K-5 CORE MATHEMATIC ADOPTION-CLARIFICATION NEEDED

Hi Susan -
As a FYI around the PD offering, I also wanted to share this tidbit of info.

Pearson already has two math specialists that live in the state of WA and who would be
available to the district at no costs as its a part of their job to service Pacific Northwest
accounts (large and small). They actually serve the entire Pacific Northwest, but live in
Seattle and are very familiar with the math landscape in SPS. They, along with myself, would
always be available (respective to work calendars) to Seattle PS and there is not cost
associated with their presence.

If the district wanted a enVisionMATH Consultant who only serves Seattle PS, we do have the
PD service available but that type of model needs to be discussed with district leaders and
math department around goals, design, and outcomes.
The RFP only stated needs for product implementation and so we just wanted to stay
consistent with that question.

My calendar is wide open today, so I'll be free to discuss with you and Craig at your leisure.
Thanks -
Russell Crew

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Crew, Russell <russell.crew@pearson.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: RFP0240 K-5 CORE MATHEMATIC ADOPTION-CLARIFICATION
NEEDED
To: "Johnston, Susan" <sjohnston@seattleschools.org>
Hi Susan - Apologies for the delay as I was out of town on Friday and preparing for the Easter
holiday.

My answer ares below:

1. In regards to the RFP missing the teacher access pack and standards practice workbook.

Pearson Answer: The teachers edition access pack and resource package is included. For
example, see line 14 on our submission where it states "Teacher Edition and Resource
Package". Those are included and at no cost. If you are referring to a "digital resource"
package, that comes with the teacher package and is also included at zero cost.

The standards practice workbook is included as well. For example, see line 17 "Common
Core Standards Practice Workbook)

2.) In regards to the question around 6 year and 7 year licenses and being paid/sold for in
advance...

Pearson Answer: No. The book at grades 3-5 automatically comes with a 6 year licenses. So
whether you bought them now or in year 4, they would still come with a 6 year licenses. I
have approved a 7th year of online access for free because of the size of the initial purchase.

We also understand that historically and presently, SPS only purchases on a year to year basis.

3.) In regards to the question around being a model of hard covered student textbooks...

Pearson answer: enVision Common Core Math 2015 has a text book for each grade level.
However, at the K-2 grades, the text is a soft cover and is also a consumable. At grades 3-5,
the text book are hardcovers and are accompanied with student workbooks. (the student
workbooks are not hardcovers as a FYI).

4.) In regards to our quote being matched to a year-to-year purchase...

Pearson answer: Yes, our RFP and prices are bases on the year to year model that SPS. The
language in this answer was copy and pasted over from the original RFI and should not have
included "if bought all up front in year 1, the price is discounted...". The prices in our RFP
ARE BASED on the year-to-year model that SPS requested. The prices for K-5 on the RFP
are consistent with year-to-year modeling.

5.) In regards to professional development...(attachment of a what this training day looks
like is attached)

Pearson answer: Pearson is offering our Product Implementation Essentials at no cost for
SPS, each year and with K-2 consumable purchases, which is a one day workshop for
teachers who are new to enVisionMATH or need an annual refreshing. Participants/Teachers
in this training experience model lessons with extra emphasis on the activity based instruction
embedded in the program. This is a general overview that will enable teachers to learn and
teach, as well as assess enVisionMATH in their classrooms. The training also covers the
digital components (or Pearson Realize usage), as well as a thorough overview of the
manipulative and resources that help teachers teach enVisionMATH. This is being included
in our RFP for years 1-6 with the annual purchases of K-2 consumables.

Is T & L ok with this answer?

Other PD offerings delve more into particular areas of instruction and are usually created with the districts
Math Director, Dir. of Curriculum & Instruction, etc.. These additional training enables teacher/educators
to broaden their knowledge base and deliver instruction in a more efficient manner. They offer skills that
will enable educators to accomplish specific goals assigned to the workshop. Examples are listed below:
Using Student Assessment to Drive Instruction
Problem-Based Interactive Learning
Personalize and Differentiate Instruction
Developing Computational Fluency
Developing Algebraic Thinking
Developing Problem Solving
Analyzing Fraction Concepts
These PD offerings are usually $3500/per class with a class serving up to 30
teachers. You should also note that these PD offerings are great trainings for a
selected amount of teachers, who can then re-deliver the content/knowledge into the
larger teacher base. Districts of the SPS size usually tend to identify or select
"teacher leaders" in year one to participate in these deeper trainings with the idea of
having them train the rest of the math teach population. A train the trainer type approach.

place.


6.) In regards to year one pricing being true for years 2 - 7

Pearson answer: Yes.

7.) in regards to more clarity around PD....

Pearson Answer: Please refer to answer number 5 up above. Again, the basic product
essentials or product implementation/overview essentials is included with this RFP and being
offered each year with the purchase of K-2 consumables. This is a general overview training
about enVisionMATH and is ideal for new teachers, new teachers to enVisionMATH, or a
refresher for teachers who are using enVisionMATH. We do have some very specific PD
offerings that are included with enVisionMATH and are designed to help district teachers or
leaders meet specific district math goals. They are a plethora of options and are usually
discussed in more depth with district leaders around specific math goals or outcomes the
district is targeting. I certainly welcome this conversation.

8.) In regards to what's included in the $451,258.59 pricing

Pearson Answer: I have attached excel documents for exactly what's included in that cost for
years 2-7.

Thanks Susan and do let me know if there is a time you and Craig have in mind to talk today.
Very Sincerely,
Russell Crew

On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:30 PM, "Johnston, Susan"
<sjohnston@seattleschools.org> wrote:
Hi Russell,

We have several questions regarding your submitted RFP dated March 26, 2014.

Attachment 4-Request for Quote Form

The form you returned to us was the 2015 edition-(I understand these were not
available to quote for the RFI process)

Comparing Pearsons the RFI quote dated 12/17/13 to what you submitted on the
RFP quote dated 3/27/14, we have several questions.
.
The RFP appears to be missing the Teacher Access Pack and the Standards
Practice workbook.


You quoted for grades 3-5, a 7-year digital license on the RFI, but on the RFP, you
quoted a 6-year digital license.
Is six or seven years worth of licenses being sold/paid for in advance?

Attachment 5-Request for Quote Part A

1. We asked, Is your product/service/pricing based on a model that uses
primarily hard cover student textbooks that are to be reused by multiple
students/classes over the course of the Districts historical 7 year adoption cycle?

You answered Yes but put an explanation on Attachment 6-Part B saying This
is a model for K-5, K-2 consumable.
Is K-2 is consumable, and Grades 3-5 is Hardcover? Please explain/confirm.

2. We asked, Does your product/service offering/pricing include hard cover
student books for first year adoption/implementation as well as ongoing
requirements for supporting the adoption for years 2-7 of the adoption cycle?

You answered yes, but again put an explanation on Part B saying.Grades 3-5 is
paid for in year 1. K-2 can be bought for all seven years in year 1 or it can be
purchased yearly. If bought all up front in year 1, the price is discounted. We will
service the program as needed for the sever-year adoption.
Is the quote based on a year-to-year subsequent purchase, which matches our
yearly funding model?

9. We asked Does your product/service/pricing include all District identified
professional development for first year adoption/implementation as well as
ongoing requirements for supporting the adoption for years 2-7 of the adoption
cycle?

You answered yes, and filled out Part B saying, We will offer product
activation/implementation training at no cost for years 2-7 with the annual purchase
of K-2 consumables. If the district requires more specialized professional
development needs beyond product activation/implementation training (i.e.
advanced level training), the cost ranges from $3,500-$3,700/day with a class
accommodating up to 30 teachers.

first/initial/adoption year will be held/apply to any future and/or upgraded items
for any individual/subsequent/future purchases of any quantity that may be made
in years 2-7 following the adoption?
You answered yes but stated on Part B We will hold prices in year 1 for the seven-
year adoption.
Will year 1 itemized/quoted prices be valid for items purchased in years 2-7?

first/initial/adoption year and years 2-7 following the adoption shows/includes all
costs to be paid for by the District for any subsequent purchases for the life of
the adoption cycle?
You answered yes All costs are included. If any additional professional development is needed
beyond the proposal, the cost is $3,500 per day.

I attached the Request for Quotation Form above. Please answer the questions in
Red on the last page. The committee would like to know what is included in the
$451,258.59 charge for years 2 through 7.

Thanks, and have a great weekend.

Susan Johnston
Buyer
206-252-0569 Phone
206-252-0505 Fax

--
Russell Crew

T: 206-499-1073
F: 206-201-8167

Pearson
Always Learning

--
Russell Crew

T: 206-499-1073
F: 206-201-8167

Pearson
Always Learning
From: Box, Anna M
To: Dysart, Adam W
Date: Monday, April 21, 2014 9:15:35 AM
I decided I didn't need to since M Tolley sent the one he did requesting committee members to focus their
deliberation on quality not price.
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:30 AM
To: Box, Anna M
Just now getting to email - taking a break from work! Will see what you sent out, but belatedly, yes, that is fine.
________________________________________
From: Box, Anna M
To: Dysart, Adam W
Given our conversation with Shauna earlier in the week and given that she is out of contact for the next couple of
weeks, unless you ask me not to, I would like to "reply all" that Shauna encourages the committee to concentrate on
finding the best possible book for our students, independent of the cost. This doesn't mean there are unlimited
funds, it is just to help the committee focus on the task of using their expertise to select the best possible book.
Thanks,
From: Lewicki, Patricia
To: Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart, Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich,
Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser, Nancy;
Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, John P; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor,
Mark D; Martin McIntosh; Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson;
Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K
Isn't it super unrealistic to think we would be able to request more money to the tune of over $4 million dollars for
year one? This would be more than double what the district budgeted. Does it make sense to even include it in our
ratings?
From: Sipe, Shawn L
ellingston@gmail.com<mailto:ellingston@gmail.com>; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim
Aydin; Kiser, Nancy; Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, John P; Lewicki, Patricia; Lulu,
Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Martin McIntosh; Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally
T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke; Sipe, Shawn L; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler,
Kristen K
Hello MAC members,
First, the overall first year cost as quoted by the publishers includes all materials, including manipulatives, teacher
resources, and technology in the total cost. The professional development costs (not including our cost to pay
teachers) is built into the first year in each case except for Math in Focus. Years 2 through 7 include costs of
consumable materials.
Year's 1 -7 costs for Go Math!:
1 $ 1,513,041.00
2 $ 305,387.00
3 $ 305,387.00
4 $ 305,387.00
5 $ 305,387.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00
******************************************
Year's 1 - 7 costs for Math in Focus:
1 $ 4,269,506.00
3 $ 558,954.00
4 $ 558,954.00
5 $ 558,954.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00
******************************************
Year's 1-7 cost for envision
1 $1,561,109.69
2 $ 451,258.59
3 $ 451,258.59
4 $ 451,258.59
5 $ 451,258.59
6 $ 451,258.59
7 $ 451,258.59
BUDGET
At this point, the SPS budget will bear $1,500,000 for the first year and we will follow our past budgeting practice
for yearly added consumables at about $500,000 over the six year period following the first year of adoption. At
this point we have about 30,000 K-5 students.
Our budget for Professional Development costs to pay teachers and any in-house expenses is $355,000. The general
cost per teacher for PD just under $200 per day. At present we have about 1,100 K-5 general ed classroom
teachers. The PD plans differ for each program and we can discuss this at a later time.
"Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) does not own the Math in Focus Program. HMH distributes Math in Focus for
the owners/authors of the program . Under the terms of that distribution agreement, the owners of the program set
pricing. They approved a 5% discount for SPS.
HMH is unable, for example, to offer the special promotions that were offered SPS on the Go Math! Program (buy
four SEs, get one free and buy one classroom manipulative kit get one free). Northwest Pricing on Go Math! also
benefits from the fact that so many Northwest school districts have adopted Go Math! - including Anchorage
School District with 30,000 students.
additional cost ($391,250 total years 1 and 2)."
As for our MAC work in regards to the cost of MIF, we will not take the program out of consideration at this point,
but the committee members are charged to consider the high cost in comparison to our budget during their
deliberation process and be aware that choosing this program would require us to request more money in order to
adopt it.
Adam 252-0135 and Shawn 252-0227
Shawn Eckman Sipe
Professional Library/Instructional Materials Office John Stanford Center for Educational Excellence Seattle Public
Schools
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636
slsipe@seattleschools.org<mailto:slsipe@seattleschools.org>
To: Nguyen, Sally T
Date: Monday, April 21, 2014 9:14:54 AM
JSC
MS 32-156
From: Nguyen, Sally T
To: Dysart, Adam W
Are we sending the scoring sheet to you? If so, can I get your mailstop.
To: Rick Burke; Martin McIntosh; Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S
Cc: Lewicki, Patricia; Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich,
Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser, Nancy;
Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, John P; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Morena newton;
Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler,
Kristen K; Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M; Caldwell, Eric
Upon my return from break, I will get together with purchasing and procurement to see how itemized the response is
from each publisher, but in short, I believe we can share the essential breakdown of costs for textual materials and
training.
In response to how the cost of each program should or should not come into play in your screen, I can say with
certainty that you will be asked to continue to screen the three remaining programs. However, cost will not be
ignored as one of our data points in deliberation, as we discussed prior.
Shawn and I did receive a response from the HMH rep RE the high cost of MiF and we were told the numbers are
final. So, while we can look at the particular cost of each program component, it appears the numbers are non-
negotiable.
Please continue to screen and send final screen results as soon as they are completed (no later than Thursday, April
24th).
________________________________________
From: Rick Burke [Rick@mtnw-usa.com]
To: Martin McIntosh; Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S
Cc: Lewicki, Patricia; Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart, Adam W; Einmo,
Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim
Aydin; Kiser, Nancy; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, John P; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D;
Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Stemle,
Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K; Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M; Caldwell, Eric
Question for Adam & Shawn:
Did each vendor itemize their proposal? What is the unit cost of the materials, vs professional development, etc.
Can the committee "value-assess" each publisher's offer within the context of the district's actual needs?
Rick Burke
From: Martin McIntosh [mailto:mc_intosh@mac.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 1:56 PM
To: Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S
Cc: Lewicki, Patricia; Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart, Adam W; Einmo,
Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim
Aydin; Kiser, Nancy; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, John P; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D;
Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke;
Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K; Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M; Caldwell, Eric
Subject: Re: Final pricing on our three final programs
I believe the Price difference between the most expensive program and the least expensive program over seven years
is approximately 0.1 percent of The Seattle school budget.
If we have nearly 20,000 students in kindergarten through fifth grade, I think the seven-year cost difference comes
to approximately $42 per student per year.
A good question for you teachers is whether you feel the benefits of the more expensive program is worth a
thousand dollars or so per classroom.
Sent from a mobile device.
206-465-7524
> On Apr 12, 2014, at 9:51 AM, "Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S" <askovacsstorli@seattleschools.org> wrote:
>
> Is this information public yet?
> ________________________________
> From: Lewicki, Patricia
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 3:37 PM
> To: Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart,
> Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com;
> Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser,
> Nancy; Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, John P;
> Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Martin McIntosh;
> Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia
> I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler,
> Kristen K
> Cc: Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M; Caldwell, Eric
> Subject: RE: Final pricing on our three final programs
>
> Isn't it super unrealistic to think we would be able to request more money to the tune of over $4 million dollars for
year one? This would be more than double what the district budgeted. Does it make sense to even include it in our
ratings?
>
> From: Sipe, Shawn L
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 4:09 PM
> To: Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart, Adam W; Einmo,
> Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea;
> Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser, Nancy;
> Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, John P;
> Lewicki, Patricia; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D;
> Martin McIntosh; Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T;
> Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke; Sipe,
> Shawn L; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K
> Subject: Final pricing on our three final programs
>
> Hello MAC members,
>
> Here is the data about costs/prices for our final programs.
>
> First, the overall first year cost as quoted by the publishers includes all materials, including manipulatives, teacher
resources, and technology in the total cost. The professional development costs (not including our cost to pay
teachers) is built into the first year in each case except for Math in Focus. Years 2 through 7 include costs of
consumable materials.
>
> Year's 1 -7 costs for Go Math!:
> 1 $ 1,513,041.00
> 2 $ 305,387.00
> 3 $ 305,387.00
> 4 $ 305,387.00
> 5 $ 305,387.00
> 6 $ 0.00
> 7 $ 0.00
>
> Total price for all 7 years $2,734.588.04
> ******************************************
>
> Year's 1 - 7 costs for Math in Focus:
>
> 1 $ 4,269,506.00
> 2 $ 747,354.00 (includes Year 2 of PD and consumables)
> 3 $ 558,954.00
> 4 $ 558,954.00
> 5 $ 558,954.00
> 6 $ 0.00
> 7 $ 0.00
>
> Total price for all 7 years- $6,851,166.60
>
> ******************************************
>
> Year's 1-7 cost for envision
>
> 1 $1,561,109.69
> 2 $ 451,258.59
> 3 $ 451,258.59
> 4 $ 451,258.59
> 5 $ 451,258.59
> 6 $ 451,258.59
> 7 $ 451,258.59
>
> Total price for all 7 years $4,268,661.23\
>
>
>
>
> BUDGET
> At this point, the SPS budget will bear $1,500,000 for the first year and we will follow our past budgeting practice
for yearly added consumables at about $500,000 over the six year period following the first year of adoption. At
this point we have about 30,000 K-5 students.
>
> Our budget for Professional Development costs to pay teachers and any in-house expenses is $355,000. The
general cost per teacher for PD just under $200 per day. At present we have about 1,100 K-5 general ed classroom
teachers. The PD plans differ for each program and we can discuss this at a later time.
>
>
> NOTE about Math in Focus:
> The publisher of Math in Focus, HMH, explains the high price of their program as follows:
> "Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) does not own the Math in Focus Program. HMH distributes Math in Focus
for the owners/authors of the program . Under the terms of that distribution agreement, the owners of the program
set pricing. They approved a 5% discount for SPS.
> HMH is unable, for example, to offer the special promotions that were offered SPS on the Go Math! Program
(buy four SEs, get one free and buy one classroom manipulative kit get one free). Northwest Pricing on Go Math!
also benefits from the fact that so many Northwest school districts have adopted Go Math! - including Anchorage
School District with 30,000 students.
> In addition, Math in Focus requires a significant amount of professional development. This is a significant
additional cost ($391,250 total years 1 and 2)."
>
> As for our MAC work in regards to the cost of MIF, we will not take the program out of consideration at this
point, but the committee members are charged to consider the high cost in comparison to our budget during their
deliberation process and be aware that choosing this program would require us to request more money in order to
adopt it.
>
>
> Please call or email with questions,
> Adam 252-0135 and Shawn 252-0227
>
>
>
>
>
> Shawn Eckman Sipe
> Instructional Materials Specialist
> Professional Library/Instructional Materials Office John Stanford
> Center for Educational Excellence Seattle Public Schools
> (206)-252-0227
> MS 22-636
> slsipe@seattleschools.org<mailto:slsipe@seattleschools.org>
>
From: Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S
To: Chanhom Lee; Dysart, Adam W
Cc: Rick Burke; Martin McIntosh; Lewicki, Patricia; Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S; Dao H. Mai; Einmo, Diana C;
Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser,
Nancy; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, J ohn P; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Morena
newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Stemle, Matthew C;
Wagler, Kristen K; Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M; Caldwell, Eric
Date: Saturday, April 19, 2014 7:01:58 PM
If people don't like any program because it's hard, then we have a serious problem!
Sabrina
From: Chanhom Lee [lee.chanhom@gmail.com]
To: Dysart, Adam W
Cc: Rick Burke; Martin McIntosh; Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Lewicki, Patricia; Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet,
Deborah S; Dao H. Mai; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea;
Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser, Nancy; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, J ohn P; Lulu,
Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme,
Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K; Heath, Shauna L; Box,
Anna M; Caldwell, Eric
With my experience over 43 years working with students in Math from K-12 in many
countries such as Laos, Thailand, Hong kong, China, and France, including 29 years with
Middle and High School in Seattle. In my opinion, MIF is not perfect but is the closest
program to many Countries standard programs, the mental math, the critical thinking problem
solving by Fifth Grader it's very help prepared students to the higher Education. I hated to see
it goes because of the price. I believed the price is high because the Publisher published
TONS of side reading story problem books with only 1 or 2 math problems in each beautiful
book, it's help but we can practice math without those. Adam? you think it is possible to
bargain with the Publisher to just buy the necessary Math Core books only, not bunch of little
side books which I don't think classroom teacher will have much times for those (you go and
check it out, you will know what I am talking about) the price might goes down by a lots
without those printed.
I knew many teachers didn't like MIF because it's a little too hard, If we adapted MIF, in
first three years, some 2nd-5th graders will straggled a lots , but in the long runs, it will worth
it. It's time to change! Who knows our Math score compare in Nation wide in the future
might be up high? This is just my believed and my opinion!
Chanhom

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Dysart, Adam W <addysart@seattleschools.org> wrote:
Upon my return from break, I will get together with purchasing and procurement to see how
itemized the response is from each publisher, but in short, I believe we can share the
essential breakdown of costs for textual materials and training.
In response to how the cost of each program should or should not come into play in your
screen, I can say with certainty that you will be asked to continue to screen the three
remaining programs. However, cost will not be ignored as one of our data points in
deliberation, as we discussed prior.
Shawn and I did receive a response from the HMH rep RE the high cost of MiF and we were
told the numbers are final. So, while we can look at the particular cost of each program
component, it appears the numbers are non-negotiable.
Please continue to screen and send final screen results as soon as they are completed (no
later than Thursday, April 24th).
________________________________________
From: Rick Burke [Rick@mtnw-usa.com]
To: Martin McIntosh; Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S
Cc: Lewicki, Patricia; Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai;
Dysart, Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame,
Andrea; Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser, Nancy; Laurenstine
Bradford; Leahy, John P; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Morena
newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis
Lewis; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K; Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M; Caldwell,
Eric
Did each vendor itemize their proposal? What is the unit cost of the materials, vs
professional development, etc. Can the committee "value-assess" each publisher's offer
within the context of the district's actual needs?
Rick Burke
Cc: Lewicki, Patricia; Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai;
Dysart, Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame,
Andrea; Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser, Nancy; Laurenstine
Bradford; Leahy, John P; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Morena
newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis
Lewis; Rick Burke; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K; Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna
M; Caldwell, Eric
I believe the Price difference between the most expensive program and the least expensive
program over seven years is approximately 0.1 percent of The Seattle school budget.
If we have nearly 20,000 students in kindergarten through fifth grade, I think the seven-year
cost difference comes to approximately $42 per student per year.
A good question for you teachers is whether you feel the benefits of the more expensive
program is worth a thousand dollars or so per classroom.
206-465-7524
> On Apr 12, 2014, at 9:51 AM, "Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S"
<askovacsstorli@seattleschools.org> wrote:
>
> ________________________________
> Kristen K
>
> Isnt it super unrealistic to think we would be able to request more money to the tune of
over $4 million dollars for year one? This would be more than double what the district
budgeted. Does it make sense to even include it in our ratings?
>
>
>
>
> First, the overall first year cost as quoted by the publishers includes all materials,
including manipulatives, teacher resources, and technology in the total cost. The
professional development costs (not including our cost to pay teachers) is built into the first
year in each case except for Math in Focus. Years 2 through 7 include costs of consumable
materials.
>
> Years 1 -7 costs for Go Math!:
> 1 $ 1,513,041.00
> 2 $ 305,387.00
> 3 $ 305,387.00
> 4 $ 305,387.00
> 5 $ 305,387.00
> 6 $ 0.00
> 7 $ 0.00
>
> ******************************************
>
> Years 1 - 7 costs for Math in Focus:
>
> 1 $ 4,269,506.00
> 3 $ 558,954.00
> 4 $ 558,954.00
> 5 $ 558,954.00
> 6 $ 0.00
> 7 $ 0.00
>
>
> ******************************************
>
> Years 1-7 cost for envision
>
> 1 $1,561,109.69
> 2 $ 451,258.59
> 3 $ 451,258.59
> 4 $ 451,258.59
> 5 $ 451,258.59
> 6 $ 451,258.59
> 7 $ 451,258.59
>
>
>
>
>
> BUDGET
> At this point, the SPS budget will bear $1,500,000 for the first year and we will follow our
past budgeting practice for yearly added consumables at about $500,000 over the six year
period following the first year of adoption. At this point we have about 30,000 K-5
students.
>
> Our budget for Professional Development costs to pay teachers and any in-house expenses
is $355,000. The general cost per teacher for PD just under $200 per day. At present we
have about 1,100 K-5 general ed classroom teachers. The PD plans differ for each program
and we can discuss this at a later time.
>
>
> The publisher of Math in Focus, HMH, explains the high price of their program as
follows:
> Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) does not own the Math in Focus Program. HMH
distributes Math in Focus for the owners/authors of the program . Under the terms of that
distribution agreement, the owners of the program set pricing. They approved a 5%
discount for SPS.
> HMH is unable, for example, to offer the special promotions that were offered SPS on the
Go Math! Program (buy four SEs, get one free and buy one classroom manipulative kit get
one free). Northwest Pricing on Go Math! also benefits from the fact that so many
Northwest school districts have adopted Go Math! - including Anchorage School District
with 30,000 students.
> In addition, Math in Focus requires a significant amount of professional development.
This is a significant additional cost ($391,250 total years 1 and 2).
>
> As for our MAC work in regards to the cost of MIF, we will not take the program out of
consideration at this point, but the committee members are charged to consider the high cost
in comparison to our budget during their deliberation process and be aware that choosing
this program would require us to request more money in order to adopt it.
>
>
> Adam 252-0135 and Shawn 252-0227
>
>
>
>
>
> Shawn Eckman Sipe
> (206)-252-0227
> MS 22-636
>
To: Taylor, Mark D; Sipe, Shawn L
Subject: RE: Math in Focus - in?
Just now getting to email, sorry.
Move ahead with screening, regardless of budget numbers. In the end, we need to know the true value of these
programs to the committee, cost aside.
________________________________________
From: Taylor, Mark D
To: Dysart, Adam W; Sipe, Shawn L
Subject: Math in Focus - in?
Hi Shawn and Adam,
I was wondering if "Math in Focus" actually is out of the running due to budget constraints.
It's one I haven't finished my 2nd Screen for - so I was wondering if I have to finish it or not?
My guess is that the publisher will actually negotiate with SPS - perhaps by amortizing the cost over the 7 years.
thanks for any guidance,
--Mark
To: Box, Anna M
Cc: Heath, Shauna L
Subject: Re: draft for M Tolley to send in next Friday"s update?
Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:04:27 PM
Anna,
Thank you for drafting this item for the School Board Friday Update.
Michael
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 16, 2014, at 3:49 PM, "Box, Anna M" <ambox@seattleschools.org> wrote:
FYI, I sent this to Ron and Craig for comments on Wednesday. Havent heard back
from them. Just wanted to keep you in the loop.

Anna

From: Box, Anna M
To: English, Ron; Murphy, Craig
Subject: draft for M Tolley to send in next Friday's update?

According to Venetia in Charles Wrights office, there will not be a Friday update to
board members this week as it is Spring Break. Heres a possible draft for next Friday.
Thanks for taking a minute to look at it.

Cost estimates for the math textbook adoptions have come in and they vary widely.
At this time these estimates are not public knowledge, but are available to adoption
committee members. I have instructed the adoption committee members to utilize
their expertise to select the best programs on the merits of that program, not the
price of it. I have also instructed our SPS purchasing office to continue to negotiate
with the vendors in hopes of bringing these prices into line with each other.

From: Box, Anna M
FYI

To: Damon Ellingston
Cc: Rick Burke; Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Lewicki, Patricia; Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom
Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart, Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan;
Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser, Nancy; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, J ohn P; Lulu, Aschenaki;
MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth;
Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K; Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna
M; Caldwell, Eric

I was approximating using the near $4million difference between the most expensive and least
expensive over three years (and used 20K for some reason!) and a class size near 30 ish

I got the $0.1% estimate from the Wikipedia page on the annual budget. ..

On Apr 15, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Damon Ellingston <ellingston@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey everybody,
I thought I'd put in my $0.02 on the whole pricing thing. We as a committee are charged with
choosing the best math curriculum for Seattle's public school K-5 students. As all of us have
experience teaching math, either formally or informally, that is our main criterion for
selection. We are also advised to "take cost into account."
But what does the phrase "take cost into account" actually mean? Firstly, none of us (that I
know of) really knows the real in's and out's of SPS' overall budget, so we as a committee do
not have budgeting expertise. Is there more money available? Could there be, for the right
program? We are math teachers, not fiscal analysts, so we don't really know the answers to
those questions.
Could the price be negotiated with H-M-Co? It seems like, if we say to them "We really like
your program but it's priced way out of line" that they might come to the bargaining table. My
point is, pricing and purchasing involves a whole skill set that we weren't really selected for
and don't really possess, so I think it's pre-emptive for us to decide "we cant' do this" when we
know incredibly little about what "we" can or can't do. I don't think we should be "price-
blind", but I don't think we should let price trump all other criteria. And it seems like the
public is leaning pretty strongly towards the pricier program.
One more thing, Martin - I divide 2.6 million by 7 years, divide again by 30,000 students, and
get $12 per student per year, or about $400 per classroom. I know Highline adopted this
program, I'd be very curious to know what they paid for it, not to mention if their test scores
improved.
Damon

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Rick Burke <Rick@mtnw-usa.com> wrote:
Did each vendor itemize their proposal? What is the unit cost of the materials, vs professional
development, etc. Can the committee "value-assess" each publisher's offer within the context
of the district's actual needs?
Rick Burke
Cc: Lewicki, Patricia; Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart,
Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea;
Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser, Nancy; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy,
John P; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Morena newton; Ngobi,
Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke;
206-465-7524
>
> ________________________________
> Kristen K
>
> Isnt it super unrealistic to think we would be able to request more money to the tune of over
$4 million dollars for year one? This would be more than double what the district budgeted.
Does it make sense to even include it in our ratings?
>
>
>
>
> First, the overall first year cost as quoted by the publishers includes all materials, including
development costs (not including our cost to pay teachers) is built into the first year in each
case except for Math in Focus. Years 2 through 7 include costs of consumable materials.
>
> 1 $ 1,513,041.00
> 2 $ 305,387.00
> 3 $ 305,387.00
> 4 $ 305,387.00
> 5 $ 305,387.00
> 6 $ 0.00
> 7 $ 0.00
>
> ******************************************
>
>
> 1 $ 4,269,506.00
> 3 $ 558,954.00
> 4 $ 558,954.00
> 5 $ 558,954.00
> 6 $ 0.00
> 7 $ 0.00
>
>
> ******************************************
>
>
> 1 $1,561,109.69
> 2 $ 451,258.59
> 3 $ 451,258.59
> 4 $ 451,258.59
> 5 $ 451,258.59
> 6 $ 451,258.59
> 7 $ 451,258.59
>
>
>
>
>
> BUDGET
period following the first year of adoption. At this point we have about 30,000 K-5 students.
>
> Our budget for Professional Development costs to pay teachers and any in-house expenses is
$355,000. The general cost per teacher for PD just under $200 per day. At present we have
about 1,100 K-5 general ed classroom teachers. The PD plans differ for each program and we
can discuss this at a later time.
>
>
distribution agreement, the owners of the program set pricing. They approved a 5% discount
for SPS.
one free). Northwest Pricing on Go Math! also benefits from the fact that so many Northwest
school districts have adopted Go Math! - including Anchorage School District with 30,000
students.
> In addition, Math in Focus requires a significant amount of professional development. This
is a significant additional cost ($391,250 total years 1 and 2).
>
in comparison to our budget during their deliberation process and be aware that choosing this
>
>
> Adam 252-0135 and Shawn 252-0227
>
>
>
>
>
> Shawn Eckman Sipe
> (206)-252-0227
> MS 22-636
>

From: Kerim Aydin
Cc: Rick Burke; Martin McIntosh; Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Lewicki, Patricia; Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S;
Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart, Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan;
Henton, Cynthia; Kiser, Nancy; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, J ohn P; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor,
Mark D; Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis;
Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:21:08 PM
I think there's two separate questions on "taking price into account".
The first question is "if we had the budget for all of them, is the
expensive program worth the extra cost? Is it that many times
better?" I think that's something we should very much consider.
The second question, "if we recommend it, can/will SPS pay it?" is a
different question, that we shouldn't really focus on too much.
Remember, as stated by the SPS lawyer, a lot of our product is the
justification for our choice as well as our scoresheets. Let's say
the expensive program wins our evaluation based purely on our
scoresheets/ votes. We can write "this program was marginally
better, though Option B was nearly as good and more cost-effective",
or we could write "this program is very much worth the extra cost, and
no others came close, so we strongly recommend finding the funds to
buy it". This will also be an important point for the board and the
public to see and understand about our choices.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Damon Ellingston <ellingston@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey everybody,
>
> I thought I'd put in my $0.02 on the whole pricing thing. We as a
> committee are charged with choosing the best math curriculum for Seattle's
> public school K-5 students. As all of us have experience teaching math,
> either formally or informally, that is our main criterion for selection. We
> are also advised to "take cost into account."
> But what does the phrase "take cost into account" actually mean? Firstly,
> none of us (that I know of) really knows the real in's and out's of SPS'
> overall budget, so we as a committee do not have budgeting expertise. Is
> there more money available? Could there be, for the right program? We are
> math teachers, not fiscal analysts, so we don't really know the answers to
> those questions.
> Could the price be negotiated with H-M-Co? It seems like, if we say to
> them "We really like your program but it's priced way out of line" that they
> might come to the bargaining table. My point is, pricing and purchasing
> involves a whole skill set that we weren't really selected for and don't
> really possess, so I think it's pre-emptive for us to decide "we cant' do
> this" when we know incredibly little about what "we" can or can't do. I
> don't think we should be "price-blind", but I don't think we should let
> price trump all other criteria. And it seems like the public is leaning
> pretty strongly towards the pricier program.
>
> One more thing, Martin - I divide 2.6 million by 7 years, divide again by
> 30,000 students, and get $12 per student per year, or about $400 per
> classroom. I know Highline adopted this program, I'd be very curious to know
> what they paid for it, not to mention if their test scores improved.
>
> Damon
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Rick Burke <Rick@mtnw-usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> Question for Adam & Shawn:
>>
>> Did each vendor itemize their proposal? What is the unit cost of the
>> materials, vs professional development, etc. Can the committee
>> "value-assess" each publisher's offer within the context of the district's
>> actual needs?
>>
>> Rick Burke
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin McIntosh [mailto:mc_intosh@mac.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 1:56 PM
>> To: Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S
>> Cc: Lewicki, Patricia; Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao
>> H. Mai; Dysart, Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula;
>> ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim
>> Aydin; Kiser, Nancy; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, John P; Lulu, Aschenaki;
>> MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen,
>> Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke;
>> Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K; Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M;
>> Caldwell, Eric
>> Subject: Re: Final pricing on our three final programs
>>
>> I believe the Price difference between the most expensive program and the
>> least expensive program over seven years is approximately 0.1 percent of The
>> Seattle school budget.
>>
>> If we have nearly 20,000 students in kindergarten through fifth grade, I
>> think the seven-year cost difference comes to approximately $42 per student
>> per year.
>>
>> A good question for you teachers is whether you feel the benefits of the
>> more expensive program is worth a thousand dollars or so per classroom.
>>
>> Sent from a mobile device.
>> 206-465-7524
>>
>> > On Apr 12, 2014, at 9:51 AM, "Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S"
>> > <askovacsstorli@seattleschools.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Is this information public yet?
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Lewicki, Patricia
>> > Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 3:37 PM
>> > To: Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart,
>> > Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com;
>> > Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser,
>> > Nancy; Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, John P;
>> > Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Martin McIntosh;
>> > Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia
>> > I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler,
>> > Kristen K
>> > Cc: Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M; Caldwell, Eric
>> > Subject: RE: Final pricing on our three final programs
>> >
>> > Isnt it super unrealistic to think we would be able to request more
>> > money to the tune of over $4 million dollars for year one? This would be
>> > more than double what the district budgeted. Does it make sense to even
>> > include it in our ratings?
>> >
>> > From: Sipe, Shawn L
>> > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 4:09 PM
>> > To: Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart, Adam W; Einmo,
>> > Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea;
>> > Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser, Nancy;
>> > Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, John P;
>> > Lewicki, Patricia; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D;
>> > Martin McIntosh; Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T;
>> > Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke; Sipe,
>> > Shawn L; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K
>> > Cc: Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M; Caldwell, Eric
>> > Subject: Final pricing on our three final programs
>> >
>> > Hello MAC members,
>> >
>> > Here is the data about costs/prices for our final programs.
>> >
>> > First, the overall first year cost as quoted by the publishers includes
>> > all materials, including manipulatives, teacher resources, and technology in
>> > the total cost. The professional development costs (not including our cost
>> > to pay teachers) is built into the first year in each case except for Math
>> > in Focus. Years 2 through 7 include costs of consumable materials.
>> >
>> > Years 1 -7 costs for Go Math!:
>> > 1 $ 1,513,041.00
>> > 2 $ 305,387.00
>> > 3 $ 305,387.00
>> > 4 $ 305,387.00
>> > 5 $ 305,387.00
>> > 6 $ 0.00
>> > 7 $ 0.00
>> >
>> > Total price for all 7 years $2,734.588.04
>> > ******************************************
>> >
>> > Years 1 - 7 costs for Math in Focus:
>> >
>> > 1 $ 4,269,506.00
>> > 2 $ 747,354.00 (includes Year 2 of PD and consumables)
>> > 3 $ 558,954.00
>> > 4 $ 558,954.00
>> > 5 $ 558,954.00
>> > 6 $ 0.00
>> > 7 $ 0.00
>> >
>> > Total price for all 7 years- $6,851,166.60
>> >
>> > ******************************************
>> >
>> > Years 1-7 cost for envision
>> >
>> > 1 $1,561,109.69
>> > 2 $ 451,258.59
>> > 3 $ 451,258.59
>> > 4 $ 451,258.59
>> > 5 $ 451,258.59
>> > 6 $ 451,258.59
>> > 7 $ 451,258.59
>> >
>> > Total price for all 7 years $4,268,661.23\
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > BUDGET
>> > At this point, the SPS budget will bear $1,500,000 for the first year
>> > and we will follow our past budgeting practice for yearly added consumables
>> > at about $500,000 over the six year period following the first year of
>> > adoption. At this point we have about 30,000 K-5 students.
>> >
>> > Our budget for Professional Development costs to pay teachers and any
>> > in-house expenses is $355,000. The general cost per teacher for PD just
>> > under $200 per day. At present we have about 1,100 K-5 general ed classroom
>> > teachers. The PD plans differ for each program and we can discuss this at a
>> > later time.
>> >
>> >
>> > NOTE about Math in Focus:
>> > The publisher of Math in Focus, HMH, explains the high price of their
>> > program as follows:
>> > Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) does not own the Math in Focus Program.
>> > HMH distributes Math in Focus for the owners/authors of the program . Under
>> > the terms of that distribution agreement, the owners of the program set
>> > pricing. They approved a 5% discount for SPS.
>> > HMH is unable, for example, to offer the special promotions that were
>> > offered SPS on the Go Math! Program (buy four SEs, get one free and buy one
>> > classroom manipulative kit get one free). Northwest Pricing on Go Math!
>> > also benefits from the fact that so many Northwest school districts have
>> > adopted Go Math! - including Anchorage School District with 30,000
>> > students.
>> > In addition, Math in Focus requires a significant amount of professional
>> > development. This is a significant additional cost ($391,250 total years 1
>> > and 2).
>> >
>> > As for our MAC work in regards to the cost of MIF, we will not take the
>> > program out of consideration at this point, but the committee members are
>> > charged to consider the high cost in comparison to our budget during their
>> > deliberation process and be aware that choosing this program would require
>> > us to request more money in order to adopt it.
>> >
>> >
>> > Please call or email with questions,
>> > Adam 252-0135 and Shawn 252-0227
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Shawn Eckman Sipe
>> > Instructional Materials Specialist
>> > Professional Library/Instructional Materials Office John Stanford
>> > Center for Educational Excellence Seattle Public Schools
>> > (206)-252-0227
>> > MS 22-636
>> > slsipe@seattleschools.org<mailto:slsipe@seattleschools.org>
>> >
>
>
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: "Damon Ellingston"; Rick Burke
Cc: Martin McIntosh; Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Lewicki, Patricia; Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai;
Dysart, Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim
Aydin; Kiser, Nancy; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, J ohn P; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D;
Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Stemle,
Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K; Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M; Caldwell, Eric; Tolley, Michael F
Thanks to all who have been discussing in this thread. A few new developments:

First, to answer Audreys question: This IS NOT PUBLIC knowledge yet. We still do not have what
we thought was firm pricing from one of the vendors. The Purchasing Department is working on
this discrepancy. I will pass on any new definitive info as I get it.

In answer to some of your questions about price per student, etc. I am adding a few new tables
here. This is information I gleaned from the publishers documents and, again, we are still verifying
the numbers. But this gives you some idea of the comparisons.

Total estimated # of students K-Gr. 5 = 30,000 (Actual count this year is 26,998.)
Total estimated K-5 classrooms (The quotes were based on 250 per grade level) = 1,500
classrooms (Our actual classroom count this year is 1069.)

Price per student as provided by the vendors: (this includes student and teacher
materials, technology access, tax (except for enVision), freight and handling, along with
professional development.
Go Math! Math in Focus enVision
Year 1 $50.43 $147.56 Gr K-2 $27.48,
Gr 3-5 $67.06
Year 2 $10.18 $24.91 Gr. K-2 $27.48,
Gr. 3-5 $0
Year 3 $10.18 $18.95 Gr. K-2 $27.48,
Gr. 3-5 $0
Year 4 $10.18 $18.95 Gr. K-2 $27.48,
Gr. 3-5 $0
Year 5 $10.18 $18.95 Gr. K-2 $27.48,
Gr. 3-5 $0
Year 6 $10.18 $18.95 Gr. K-2 $27.48,
Gr. 3-5 $0
Year 7 $10.18 $18.95 Gr. K-2 $27.48,
Gr. 3-5 $0
These comparisons are fairly even. They compare all of the materials we deemed as
essential, and any added teacher materials (many of the frills we saw) are part of the
teacher package at no extra cost in the first year. All student and teacher texts come
with online versions.

Professional Development cost comparison:
Go Math! Math in Focus enVision
Year 1 $117,600 gratis, plus
$40,000 optional
$202,850 fee plus
$142,785 gratis
Gratis, $3,500 per
day if needed
beyond proposal

$26,400 optional
$188,400 fee, plus
$74,198.50 gratis
Gratis, $3,500 per
day if needed
beyond proposal

$26,400 optional
Not quoted Gratis, $3,500 per
day if needed
beyond proposal

$26,400 optional
day if needed
beyond proposal

$26,400 optional
day if needed
beyond proposal

$26,400 optional
day if needed
beyond proposal

$26,400 optional
day if needed
beyond proposal

Adam will be dealing with the details of the PD after Spring Break.

As you can see, the Math In Focus high costs rest partially with their high cost of professional
development. The bargaining has been done as best as can be with this product. Their reasons
for their pricing structure are listed in the first part of this email thread. We have been in contact
with Highlines purchasing department and they confirm that the Math in Focus product was much
more expensive that any others they viewed.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Damon Ellingston [mailto:ellingston@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:20 AM
To: Rick Burke
Cc: Martin McIntosh; Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Lewicki, Patricia; Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S;
Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart, Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel,
Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser, Nancy; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, J ohn P; Lulu,
Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme,
Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K; Heath, Shauna L; Box,
Anna M; Caldwell, Eric

Hey everybody,
I thought I'd put in my $0.02 on the whole pricing thing. We as a committee are charged with
choosing the best math curriculum for Seattle's public school K-5 students. As all of us have
experience teaching math, either formally or informally, that is our main criterion for
selection. We are also advised to "take cost into account."
But what does the phrase "take cost into account" actually mean? Firstly, none of us (that I
know of) really knows the real in's and out's of SPS' overall budget, so we as a committee do
not have budgeting expertise. Is there more money available? Could there be, for the right
program? We are math teachers, not fiscal analysts, so we don't really know the answers to
those questions.
Could the price be negotiated with H-M-Co? It seems like, if we say to them "We really like
your program but it's priced way out of line" that they might come to the bargaining table. My
point is, pricing and purchasing involves a whole skill set that we weren't really selected for
and don't really possess, so I think it's pre-emptive for us to decide "we cant' do this" when we
know incredibly little about what "we" can or can't do. I don't think we should be "price-
blind", but I don't think we should let price trump all other criteria. And it seems like the
public is leaning pretty strongly towards the pricier program.
One more thing, Martin - I divide 2.6 million by 7 years, divide again by 30,000 students, and
get $12 per student per year, or about $400 per classroom. I know Highline adopted this
program, I'd be very curious to know what they paid for it, not to mention if their test scores
improved.
Damon

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Rick Burke <Rick@mtnw-usa.com> wrote:
Did each vendor itemize their proposal? What is the unit cost of the materials, vs professional
development, etc. Can the committee "value-assess" each publisher's offer within the context
of the district's actual needs?
Rick Burke
Cc: Lewicki, Patricia; Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart,
Adam W; Einmo, Diana C; Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea;
Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin; Kiser, Nancy; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy,
John P; Lulu, Aschenaki; MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Morena newton; Ngobi,
Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke;
206-465-7524
>
> ________________________________
> Kristen K
>
> Isnt it super unrealistic to think we would be able to request more money to the tune of over
$4 million dollars for year one? This would be more than double what the district budgeted.
Does it make sense to even include it in our ratings?
>
>
>
>
> First, the overall first year cost as quoted by the publishers includes all materials, including
development costs (not including our cost to pay teachers) is built into the first year in each
case except for Math in Focus. Years 2 through 7 include costs of consumable materials.
>
> 1 $ 1,513,041.00
> 2 $ 305,387.00
> 3 $ 305,387.00
> 4 $ 305,387.00
> 5 $ 305,387.00
> 6 $ 0.00
> 7 $ 0.00
>
> ******************************************
>
>
> 1 $ 4,269,506.00
> 3 $ 558,954.00
> 4 $ 558,954.00
> 5 $ 558,954.00
> 6 $ 0.00
> 7 $ 0.00
>
>
> ******************************************
>
>
> 1 $1,561,109.69
> 2 $ 451,258.59
> 3 $ 451,258.59
> 4 $ 451,258.59
> 5 $ 451,258.59
> 6 $ 451,258.59
> 7 $ 451,258.59
>
>
>
>
>
> BUDGET
period following the first year of adoption. At this point we have about 30,000 K-5 students.
>
> Our budget for Professional Development costs to pay teachers and any in-house expenses is
$355,000. The general cost per teacher for PD just under $200 per day. At present we have
about 1,100 K-5 general ed classroom teachers. The PD plans differ for each program and we
can discuss this at a later time.
>
>
distribution agreement, the owners of the program set pricing. They approved a 5% discount
for SPS.
one free). Northwest Pricing on Go Math! also benefits from the fact that so many Northwest
school districts have adopted Go Math! - including Anchorage School District with 30,000
students.
> In addition, Math in Focus requires a significant amount of professional development. This
is a significant additional cost ($391,250 total years 1 and 2).
>
in comparison to our budget during their deliberation process and be aware that choosing this
>
>
> Adam 252-0135 and Shawn 252-0227
>
>
>
>
>
> Shawn Eckman Sipe
> (206)-252-0227
> MS 22-636
>

From: Dao Mai
To: "Martin McIntosh"; "Lewicki, Patricia"
Cc: "Sipe, Shawn L"; "Bermet, Deborah S"; "Chanhom Lee"; "Dysart, Adam W"; "Einmo, Diana C"; "Eisenrich, Paula";
ellingston@gmail.com; "Escame, Andrea"; "Fluegel, Susan"; "Henton, Cynthia"; "Kerim Aydin"; "Kiser, Nancy";
"Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S"; "Laurenstine Bradford"; "Leahy, J ohn P"; "Lulu, Aschenaki"; "MacDonald, Mary";
"Taylor, Mark D"; "Morena newton"; "Ngobi, Fredrick"; "Nguyen, Sally T"; "Orme, Beth"; "Patricia I. Robertson";
"Phyllis Lewis"; "Rick Burke"; "Stemle, Matthew C"; "Wagler, Kristen K"; "Heath, Shauna L"; "Box, Anna M";
"Caldwell, Eric"
Date: Friday, April 11, 2014 9:51:32 PM
I know! Crazy how things just turn on a dime.
Well, I for one, am glad we went with a final 4 otherwise the public would have only one
curriculum to review in Round 2...

To: Lewicki, Patricia
Cc: Sipe, Shawn L; Bermet, Deborah S; Chanhom Lee; Dao H. Mai; Dysart, Adam W; Einmo, Diana C;
Eisenrich, Paula; ellingston@gmail.com; Escame, Andrea; Fluegel, Susan; Henton, Cynthia; Kerim Aydin;
Kiser, Nancy; Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, J ohn P; Lulu, Aschenaki;
MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T; Orme, Beth;
Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler, Kristen K; Heath, Shauna L;
Box, Anna M; Caldwell, Eric

One down for legal reasons, (perhaps) another for budgetary reasons.. Who is praying we
lose another before our final meeting? (er, public schools, so lets say "hoping")

On Apr 11, 2014, at 3:37 PM, "Lewicki, Patricia" <pjlewicki@seattleschools.org> wrote:
Isnt it super unrealistic to think we would be able to request more money to the tune of over $4
million dollars for year one? This would be more than double what the district budgeted. Does it
make sense to even include it in our ratings?

From: Sipe, Shawn L
Kovacs-Storlie, Audrey S; Laurenstine Bradford; Leahy, J ohn P; Lewicki, Patricia; Lulu, Aschenaki;
MacDonald, Mary; Taylor, Mark D; Martin McIntosh; Morena newton; Ngobi, Fredrick; Nguyen, Sally T;
Orme, Beth; Patricia I. Robertson; Phyllis Lewis; Rick Burke; Sipe, Shawn L; Stemle, Matthew C; Wagler,
Kristen K

Hello MAC members,



1 $ 1,513,041.00
2 $ 305,387.00
3 $ 305,387.00
4 $ 305,387.00
5 $ 305,387.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00

******************************************


1 $ 4,269,506.00
3 $ 558,954.00
4 $ 558,954.00
5 $ 558,954.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00


******************************************


1 $1,561,109.69
2 $ 451,258.59
3 $ 451,258.59
4 $ 451,258.59
5 $ 451,258.59
6 $ 451,258.59
7 $ 451,258.59


BUDGET




Adam 252-0135 and Shawn 252-0227

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Sipe, Shawn L
Subject: RE: draft of $$ letter for the MAC
Okay, so just got out of my meeting with Shauna (it was delayed)

I wont have time to assemble a clean message right now, so if you want to get it started tomorrow
morning, I will check in at some point.

The budget numbers you have are solid. So we have the two amounts to pay for teacher
attendance at PD sessions which totals roughly $355,000 combined (minus what has been
deducted already for committee work). I think it would be good to give the committee the
following info:

Our total budget (1.5 + teacher pay, etc)
They final #s from publishers
The amount we have to spend on consumables in year 2 + (Shauna confirmed this to be
about $500,000)
The amount it costs to pay a teacher for one day training (a little under $200)

Further, we should explain that Math in Focus is not automatically bumped from consideration.
However, their overall cost it a factor to consider in deliberation (in that the committee would
have to request more $ in order to adopt).

I will check in during a break in action tomorrow.

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: draft of $$ letter for the MAC

Here is my first stab with questions .. may be useful for your meeting this afternoon.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

Craig and Susan,


Shauna

To: Peters, Susan M

Director Peters,

these questions.

Thank you.

Michael Tolley

Cc: Banda, J ose L

Regards,

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
To: Peters, Susan M
Director Peters,

these questions.

Thank you.

Michael Tolley

Cc: Banda, J ose L

Regards,

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: J ohnston, Susan; Dysart, Adam W; Caldwell, Eric
Subject: RE: Go Math! 7 year PD PLan - RFP02440 clarification
Attachments: image001.png
Importance: High
Susan,
Did you ask these questions of James for the Math In Focus also?

That is where we need to see these costs!

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Dysart, Adam W; Sipe, Shawn L; Caldwell, Eric
Subject: Go Math! 7 year PD PLan - RFP02440 clarification
Importance: High

PD info for Go Math!

Susan Johnston
Buyer
206-252-0569 Phone
206-252-0505 Fax

From: Genereaux, J ames [mailto:J ames.Genereaux@hmhco.com]
Cc: Murphy, Kari
Subject: Re: Go Math! 7 year PD PLan - RFP02440 clarification
Importance: High

Hello Susan,

Here are answers to the three PD questions regarding Go Math!

1. What does the Go Math! Professional Development entail in terms of number of days, materials,
etc?

Attached is the Go Math! Seven Year Professional Development Plan for SPS.

Upon purchase of Go Math! K-5, Seattle Public Schools will be entitled to 78 complimentary HALF-DAY (3-
hour) training/PD sessions.

The attached PD Plan includes a seven-year Implementation calendar for years 2014-2021 with our
recommendation for the use of those 78 sessions. However, final choice of sessions and use of the
implementation entitlements will be subject to the decisions of the SPS District Leadership and the
SPS/HMH Implementation Planning Meeting.

The Go Math! Seven-Year Partnership Plan will provide Seattle Public Schools with 78
complimentary 3-hour sessions at a value of $218,400. This can include:
Administrator Training
Initial Program Overview for 1800 educators before mid-August 2014
Four Parent University Nights in year one
New Teacher Program Overview for all new teachers in years two through seven.

In addition to the 78 complimentary 3-hour Professional Development sessions, the PD Plan recommends
purchase of Paid Professional Development sessions for Seattle Public Schools. However, the paid PD
sessions are optional and have not been included in the Go Math! annual costs detailed in the Go Math!
RFP submission

2. Is there an option for HM to train our staff (train-the-trainer) and have us train our teachers, thus
saving some expense?

There is no cost for the 78 HALF-DAY (3-hour) training/PD sessions provided by HMH and detailed in the
attached Go Math! PD Plan.

Go Math! is the one program under review by SPS that was created completely after the CCSS for
Mathematics were adopted. Go Math! is NOT A RETROFIT pre-CCSS program and was built from the
ground up to be 100% CCSS compliant. Because it is 100% CCSS and not a retrofit, it requires a reasonable
amount of training.

Go Math! has been very successful with every Northwest implementation - including the training in the
attached PD Plan.

For confirmation and additional details on the Go Math! PD Plan, please feel free to contact the following
Math Curriculum Director who worked with the HMH consulting team to implement Go Math! With 1800
teachers.

Bobbi Jo Erb
Executive Director of Curriculum & Instruction
Anchorage School District
907-748-5480
Erb_BobbiJo@asdk12.org

3. What is the purpose of the year 2-7 PD? Is this for the same first-year-trained teachers or just for
new teachers to the program?

As detailed in the attached plan, the Go Math! PD Plan provides new teacher training in years 2-7.

Thank you,

James

James Genereaux
Washington, Oregon, Alaska

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Mobile: 503-887-8156
10714 SW Tualatin Dr
Tigard, OR 97224-4593
james.genereaux@hmhco.com

To: Dysart, Adam W; Sipe, Shawn L; Caldwell, Eric
Subject: Go Math! 7 year PD PLan - RFP02440 clarification
Attachments: A0621148-F0BB-4204-97AB-77D59561C879[2].png
Seattle GM PP final 3-3-13.docx
Importance: High
PD info for Go Math!

Susan Johnston
Buyer
206-252-0569 Phone
206-252-0505 Fax

From: Genereaux, J ames [mailto:J ames.Genereaux@hmhco.com]
Cc: Murphy, Kari
Subject: Re: Go Math! 7 year PD PLan - RFP02440 clarification
Importance: High

Hello Susan,

Here are answers to the three PD questions regarding Go Math!

1. What does the Go Math! Professional Development entail in terms of number of days, materials,
etc?

Attached is the Go Math! Seven Year Professional Development Plan for SPS.

Upon purchase of Go Math! K-5, Seattle Public Schools will be entitled to 78 complimentary HALF-DAY (3-
hour) training/PD sessions.

The attached PD Plan includes a seven-year Implementation calendar for years 2014-2021 with our
recommendation for the use of those 78 sessions. However, final choice of sessions and use of the
implementation entitlements will be subject to the decisions of the SPS District Leadership and the
SPS/HMH Implementation Planning Meeting.

The Go Math! Seven-Year Partnership Plan will provide Seattle Public Schools with 78
complimentary 3-hour sessions at a value of $218,400. This can include:
Administrator Training
Initial Program Overview for 1800 educators before mid-August 2014
Four Parent University Nights in year one
New Teacher Program Overview for all new teachers in years two through seven.

In addition to the 78 complimentary 3-hour Professional Development sessions, the PD Plan recommends
purchase of Paid Professional Development sessions for Seattle Public Schools. However, the paid PD
sessions are optional and have not been included in the Go Math! annual costs detailed in the Go Math!
RFP submission

2. Is there an option for HM to train our staff (train-the-trainer) and have us train our teachers, thus
saving some expense?

There is no cost for the 78 HALF-DAY (3-hour) training/PD sessions provided by HMH and detailed in the
attached Go Math! PD Plan.

Go Math! is the one program under review by SPS that was created completely after the CCSS for
Mathematics were adopted. Go Math! is NOT A RETROFIT pre-CCSS program and was built from the
ground up to be 100% CCSS compliant. Because it is 100% CCSS and not a retrofit, it requires a reasonable
amount of training.

Go Math! has been very successful with every Northwest implementation - including the training in the
attached PD Plan.

For confirmation and additional details on the Go Math! PD Plan, please feel free to contact the following
Math Curriculum Director who worked with the HMH consulting team to implement Go Math! With 1800
teachers.

Bobbi Jo Erb
Executive Director of Curriculum & Instruction
Anchorage School District
907-748-5480
Erb_BobbiJo@asdk12.org

3. What is the purpose of the year 2-7 PD? Is this for the same first-year-trained teachers or just for
new teachers to the program?

As detailed in the attached plan, the Go Math! PD Plan provides new teacher training in years 2-7.

Thank you,

James

James Genereaux
Washington, Oregon, Alaska

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Mobile: 503-887-8156
10714 SW Tualatin Dr
Tigard, OR 97224-4593
james.genereaux@hmhco.com

Cc: Caldwell, Eric; Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M
Subject: RE: Math in Focus ..answered questions
Date: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 10:47:51 AM
Hi Shawn,

I will give you copies of each RFP response today. It should clear most of your questions.

I forwarded the first two questions you have below, onto James to answer.

Regarding the PD, I believe the reason we asked for a second year was for new teachers to the
program to be trained.

Susan Johnston
Buyer
206-252-0569 Phone
206-252-0505 Fax

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: J ohnston, Susan; Dysart, Adam W
Cc: Caldwell, Eric; Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M
Subject: RE: Math in Focus ..answered questions
Importance: High

Susan,
Thank you for the information from the Math In Focus people.

We have some follow-up questions:
1. What does the Professional Development entail in terms of number of days, materials,
etc?
2. Is there an option for HM to train our staff (train-the-trainer)and have us train our
teachers, thus saving some expense?
3. What is the purpose of the year 2 PD? Is this for the same first-year-trained teachers or
just for new teachers to the program?

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Dysart, Adam W
Cc: Sipe, Shawn L; Caldwell, Eric
Subject: Math in Focus ..answered questions
Importance: High

Hi Adam,

Below are the answers to the questions you asked about Math in Focus, answered by James
Genereaux HM Sales Representative.

Here are detailed answers for Adam Dysart:

1. What makes the Math in Focus program so expensive?

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) does not own the Math in Focus Program. HMH distributes Math in
Focus for the owners/authors of the program . Under the terms of that distribution agreement, the
owners of the program set pricing. They approved a 5% discount for SPS.

HMH is unable, for example, to offer the special promotions that were offered SPS on the Go
Math! Program (buy four SEs, get one free and buy one classroom manipulative kit get one free).
Northwest Pricing on Go Math! also benefits from the fact that so many Northwest school districts have
adopted Go Math! - including Anchorage School District with 30,000 students.


We are able to offer the five-year payment terms for Math in Focus as detailed in the RFP documents.

2. What was finally negotiated in terms of access/free updates?

Free updates are not included as part of the Math in Focus submission.

3. Is this their final Math in Focus number?

Yes.

Susan Johnston
Buyer
206-252-0569 Phone
206-252-0505 Fax

To: Dysart, Adam W
Cc: Sipe, Shawn L; Murphy, Craig; Caldwell, Eric
Subject: RE: Math in Focus questions
Date: Monday, April 07, 2014 3:37:33 PM
Importance: High
Hi Adam,

The price tabulation I sent to you last week was correct. I asked the sales rep @ Houghton Mifflin,
James Genereaux, to answer your questions below, first thing this morning, but as of this minute,
he has not gotten back to me with the answers.


1 $ 1,513,041.00 Year 1s cost
2 $ 305,387.00
3 $ 305,387.00
4 $ 305,387.00
5 $ 305,387.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00

******************************************


1 $ 4,269,506.00 Year 1s cost
2 $ 747,354.00
3 $ 558,954.00
4 $ 558,954.00
5 $ 558,954.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00

******************************************


1 $1,561,109.69 Year 1s cost
2 $ 451,258.59
3 $ 451,258.59
4 $ 451,258.59
5 $ 451,258.59
6 $ 451,258.59
7 $ 451,258.59


Susan Johnston
Buyer
206-252-0569 Phone
206-252-0505 Fax

Cc: Sipe, Shawn L
Subject: Math in Focus

Hello

If you are in the office today, would you have time to touch base about the final numbers from the
math programs? In particular, with the number so large for MinF, I would like to know the
following:

What makes the program so expensive?
What was finally negotiated in terms of access/free updates?
Is this their final number?

Adam Dysart
Curriculum Specialist, Mathematics
206-252-0135
Elementary Math fusion page

From: Murphy, Craig
To: Dysart, Adam W; J ohnston, Susan
Cc: Heath, Shauna L; Heath, Shauna L; Sipe, Shawn L; Caldwell, Eric
Subject: RE: RFP02440 Price Tabulation-Go Math!, Math in Focus, enVision
Adam,
.
Spoke to Carmen at Highline Schools.
.
They adopted Math in Focus over several years beginning in 2011.
.
She is seeking permission to share pricing (without a slow public records request type process)
details.
.
This info wont come any earlier than next week.
.
She did recall that Math in Focus was priced substantially higher than others they considered.

Thanks,

Phone: 206-252-0570
Fax: 206-252-0505

Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 8:03 AM
To: J ohnston, Susan; Sipe, Shawn L; Caldwell, Eric
Cc: Murphy, Craig; Heath, Shauna L; Heath, Shauna L

Correct me if Im wrong, but this leads me to believe Math in Focus is not within budgetary means.
The committee has been told all along that once final numbers come in, theyd be appraised of
cost. If these are the final numbers, Id like to a) determine if MIF stays in the competitive range to
even consider, and b) forward these numbers to the committee.

- Adam

To: Sipe, Shawn L; Dysart, Adam W; Caldwell, Eric
Cc: Murphy, Craig
Subject: RFP02440 Price Tabulation-Go Math!, Math in Focus, enVision
Importance: High

Hello,

Below Ive given the RFP price tabulation for each of the above candidates. Craig and I will be out
of the office most of next week. (Craig all week, Im in Monday & Tuesday)
I will give Shawn hard copies of each RFP submission by Tuesday of next week.
Let me know if you have any questions.


1 $ 1,513,041.00
2 $ 305,387.00
3 $ 305,387.00
4 $ 305,387.00
5 $ 305,387.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00

******************************************


1 $ 4,269,506.00
2 $ 747,354.00
3 $ 558,954.00
4 $ 558,954.00
5 $ 558,954.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00

******************************************


1 $1,561,109.69
2 $ 451,258.59
3 $ 451,258.59
4 $ 451,258.59
5 $ 451,258.59
6 $ 451,258.59
7 $ 451,258.59


Susan Johnston
Buyer
206-252-0569 Phone
206-252-0505 Fax

From: Caldwell, Eric
To: Heath, Shauna L
Yes, same situation as before. If they get selected the Board would have to understand that
additional funding would be needed to do the adoption. They have been very difficult to work with
and it is hard to not get the feeling that they are not really committed to the sale. The numbers
that Susan showed me yesterday actually had their pricing closer to $10M for the adoption. Not
sure what changed.

Eric

To: Caldwell, Eric

They will stay in, correct?
Shauna

To: Heath, Shauna L
Subject: FW: RFP02440 Price Tabulation-Go Math!, Math in Focus, enVision
Importance: High

Hi Shauna,
FYI - The tabulation for Math in Focus is still above the budget.
Eric
Cc: Murphy, Craig
Subject: RFP02440 Price Tabulation-Go Math!, Math in Focus, enVision
Hello,

Below Ive given the RFP price tabulation for each of the above candidates. Craig and I will be out
of the office most of next week. (Craig all week, Im in Monday & Tuesday)
I will give Shawn hard copies of each RFP submission by Tuesday of next week.
Let me know if you have any questions.


1 $ 1,513,041.00
2 $ 305,387.00
3 $ 305,387.00
4 $ 305,387.00
5 $ 305,387.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00

******************************************


1 $ 4,269,506.00
2 $ 747,354.00
3 $ 558,954.00
4 $ 558,954.00
5 $ 558,954.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00

******************************************


1 $1,561,109.69
2 $ 451,258.59
3 $ 451,258.59
4 $ 451,258.59
5 $ 451,258.59
6 $ 451,258.59
7 $ 451,258.59


Susan Johnston
Buyer
206-252-0569 Phone
206-252-0505 Fax

From: Potter, Douglas W
To: Farmer, Elissa
Subject: RE: Possible curricular materials? (erfarmer@seattleschools.org)
Date: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 9:10:40 AM
Ive been looking at Math Ready and hope to take a been look this afternoon. Is there a cost to the
school to use this curriculum?
Doug

From: Farmer, Elissa
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:20 PM
To: 'Ryan Dorman (Google Drive)'
Cc: Wethall, Nicola J ; O'Brien, J ulianne O; Eklund, Alexander I; Pham, De N;
catherine.conway@seattlecolleges.edu; Potter, Douglas W
Subject: Possible curricular materials? (erfarmer@seattleschools.org)

Hi All,

I was looking at the email from Bill Moore that came today, and there was a link to this Math Ready
curriculum that has been developed by the Southern Regional Education Board.

Now that we have our list of topics, I can see that there is a lot of overlap with this curriculum and
what we want (and its free!). Maybe we should consider using this and supplementing where
needed?

-Elissa

From: Ryan Dorman (Google Drive) [mailto:ryandorman1@gmail.com]
To: Farmer, Elissa
Cc: Wethall, Nicola J ; O'Brien, J ulianne O; Eklund, Alexander I; Pham, De N;
catherine.conway@seattlecolleges.edu
Subject: Transition Course Topics (erfarmer@seattleschools.org)

I've shared an item with you.
Hi there 4th Year Transition Course team! This is the topic list that we started to take a look at at the
meeting yesterday. I think that you'll need to have a gmail account of some sort to use google drive, but
assuming you do this should give you access to the shared document. Let me know if you have any
trouble getting it up and running, but this should give us a chance to do some collaboration before the
next meeting (now scheduled for April 2nd.)

The goal of the document is to come up with a list of the topics that we think need to go into the transition
course. If you come up with a great system for which topics are most important go ahead and make a
note of it at the top or bottom of the document (basically somewhere easy to find so that others can build
on the ideas.)

-Ryan
Transition Course Topics
Google Drive: create, share, and keep all your stuff in one place.

From: McElhinney, Denise
To: Dysart, AdamW
Cc: Sipe, Shawn L
Subject: RE: Math Adoption budget so far
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:04:51 AM
Sure.

Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:34 AM
To: McElhinney, Denise; Sipe, Shawn L

Denise Looks like Shawn is out sick.

Do you still want to meet? I can access all the files that I think you need (sub forms, etc)

I am available after 1:30

Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 4:52 PM
To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

1pm is better

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: McElhinney, Denise
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

Would 11AM work for you? Adam, do you want to join us?

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

Yes, I am happy to assist you. I have schools all day tomorrow but some time on Wednesday.

From: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: FW: Math Adoption budget so far

Further info: the budget we were using for printing and substitutes is 4207927480. I have at least 80 entries of sub requests and 2 or 3 printing orders. Can you locate
them for me?

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W; Block, Kae H

Denise,
It looks like some of our expenditures got assigned to the wrong area, namely our substitute spending and printing spending, as far as I can see. Can I sit down with you to
understanding how to fix this problem and also to better understand the SAP system?

Adam may want to join us.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:56 PM
To: Heath, Shauna L; Caldwell, Eric
Cc: Dysart, Adam W; Sipe, Shawn L

The 1.5M budgeted in textual materials is in part the 500K transferred from math org for math curriculum. This budget has 460K balance for PD.
--_________________________________________________

Denise,

Correct me if I am wrong, but the 480,00 is there for PD related to the adoption.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:57 PM, "Caldwell, Eric" <ecaldwell@seattleschools.org> wrote:
Hi Shauna,

Is that still a question for Denise? I didnt see any confirmation of the $500,000 consumables budget.

Eric

Cc: Caldwell, Eric; Dysart, Adam W

Math Adoption cost center is 42201271A0. You can see 1.5M is pre encumbered which means reserved for K-5 Math Adoptions. If you need more detail on the
expenditures please let me know.
dm

To: Sipe, Shawn L; McElhinney, Denise
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

Also, do we have the 500,000 still budgeted for what would have been used to purchase EDM resources?

Shauna
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Heath, Shauna L; McElhinney, Denise
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

Denise,

Can you give Shauna/Adam/me an update on what has been spent so far for the Math Adoption? This would be for cost center 4207927480.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:46 AM
To: Sipe, Shawn L; Block, Kae H
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

This go through me and you get the information from Denise our budget analyst.

Shauna
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Block, Kae H
Cc: Heath, Shauna L; Dysart, Adam W
Subject: Math Adoption budget so far
Kae,
Do I get this information from you in the absence of a replacement for Penny? I would like to do a spot-check at this point.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Sipe, Shawn L; Dysart, AdamW
Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 9:27:01 AM
My desk cubical 3436 at 1:30 tomorrow!

From: Sipe, Shawn L
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:36 AM
To: Dysart, Adam W; McElhinney, Denise

1:30 works for me. Where?
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 7:33 AM
To: McElhinney, Denise; Sipe, Shawn L
I could meet at 1:30 tomorrow.

To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

1pm is better

From: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

Would 11AM work for you? Adam, do you want to join us?

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W


From: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

them for me?

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Sipe, Shawn L

Denise,


Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636


--_________________________________________________

Denise,

Sent from my iPhone
Hi Shauna,


Eric


dm

Cc: Dysart, Adam W


Shauna
From: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

Denise,


Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

Cc: Dysart, Adam W


Shauna
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Block, Kae H
Kae,

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, AdamW
Date: Monday, March 10, 2014 4:41:02 PM

From: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

them for me?

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Sipe, Shawn L

Denise,


Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636


--_________________________________________________

Denise,

Sent from my iPhone
Hi Shauna,


Eric


dm

Cc: Dysart, Adam W


Shauna
From: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

Denise,


Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

Cc: Dysart, Adam W


Shauna
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Block, Kae H
Kae,

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Heath, Shauna L; Caldwell, Eric; McElhinney, Denise
Cc: Sipe, Shawn L; Box, Anna M
Date: Friday, March 07, 2014 12:03:00 AM
The committee plans to deliberate with several key factors present and known:
final screener scores
community input
any relevant benchmarking data
*cost
*within the cost structure, several members have already made it clear that in abidance with Board policy, they need
to weigh any PD options, both in dollar amount and scope of training.
As both a member of the math department and co-coordinator of the committee work, I would vote to put some
options on the table for the committee as a whole to consider, even if the funding is a fixed amount.
________________________________________
To: Caldwell, Eric; McElhinney, Denise
Cc: Sipe, Shawn L; Dysart, Adam W; Box, Anna M
Eric,
Denise and I talked today and I was correct that there is 1.5 allocated and the 460 (plus) is from the textual materials
for math. I asked if we could now encumber 1.7 and leave the remaining amount for PD for staff. We need to
make sure that the math department is clear as they are preparing their PD plan that there is only 200,000 to pay for
staff to attend training. That means that we may have to do a train the trainer model if depending on the amount of
time needed.
Shauna
Cc: Sipe, Shawn L; Dysart, Adam W
Hi Shauna,
Eric
Subject: Re: Math Adoption budget so far
So there is close to 2 million in the budget
Shauna Heath
On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:24 PM, "McElhinney, Denise"
<dmcleese@seattleschools.org<mailto:dmcleese@seattleschools.org>> wrote:
Math Adoption cost center is 42201271A0. You can see 1.5M is pre encumbered which means reserved for K-5
Math Adoptions. If you need more detail on the expenditures please let me know.
dm
<image001.png>
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Shauna
________________________________
From: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Denise,
Can you give Shauna/Adam/me an update on what has been spent so far for the Math Adoption? This would be for
cost center 4207927480.
Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Shauna
________________________________
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Block, Kae H
Kae,
Do I get this information from you in the absence of a replacement for Penny? I would like to do a spot-check at
this point.
Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Caldwell, Eric; Heath, Shauna L; McElhinney, Denise
Cc: Dysart, Adam W; Box, Anna M
Date: Thursday, March 06, 2014 5:17:44 PM
Adam and I looked briefly at the budget today. According to the Planned Budget Activity sheet that
Denise sent us, out other expenses are budgeted separately from the $1.5 million. Extra
spending has been substitutes, Barbaras contract, and part of my salary and benefits. We did do
some printing so far, will have much more very soon, but there is a line item there that has not
been touched. If I am reading this correctly, our spending is listed in the Activity sheet, except for
printing and substitutes. I will spend some time with Denise early next week to further my
understanding of this.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636


I also had a short conversation with Adam and Shawn today about budget. We all agreed that there
needs to quickly be a clear accounting and budgeting for adoption process costs and teacher pay
for PD. My rough estimate as of yesterday afternoon:

1.7M for adoption including vendor costs for PD
250K for paying teachers for PD (Shauna has 200K)
10K for adoption process (Adam indicated that they may already be past that)

I communicated to Craig that we had a maximum of 1.7M for the vendor costs in the RFP. He
included that as part of the RFP.

Eric


Eric,

Denise and I talked today and I was correct that there is 1.5 allocated and the 460 (plus) is from the
textual materials for math. I asked if we could now encumber 1.7 and leave the remaining
amount for PD for staff. We need to make sure that the math department is clear as they are
preparing their PD plan that there is only 200,000 to pay for staff to attend training. That means
that we may have to do a train the trainer model if depending on the amount of time needed.

Shauna


Hi Shauna,

Is that still a question for Denise? I didnt see any confirmation of the $500,000 consumables
budget.

Eric


Shauna Heath
On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:24 PM, "McElhinney, Denise" <dmcleese@seattleschools.org> wrote:
Math Adoption cost center is 42201271A0. You can see 1.5M is pre encumbered
which means reserved for K-5 Math Adoptions. If you need more detail on the
dm

<image001.png>

Cc: Dysart, Adam W

Also, do we have the 500,000 still budgeted for what would have been used to purchase
EDM resources?

Shauna
From: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

Denise,

Can you give Shauna/Adam/me an update on what has been spent so far for the Math
Adoption? This would be for cost center 4207927480.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

Cc: Dysart, Adam W


Shauna
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Block, Kae H
Kae,
Do I get this information from you in the absence of a replacement for Penny? I would
like to do a spot-check at this point.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Box, Anna M
To: Caldwell, Eric; Heath, Shauna L; McElhinney, Denise
Date: Thursday, March 06, 2014 4:57:19 PM
Thanks, all. I totally understand on the 200k for teacher training. Well find a way to make that
work.
Anna


I also had a short conversation with Adam and Shawn today about budget. We all agreed that there
needs to quickly be a clear accounting and budgeting for adoption process costs and teacher pay
for PD. My rough estimate as of yesterday afternoon:

1.7M for adoption including vendor costs for PD
250K for paying teachers for PD (Shauna has 200K)
10K for adoption process (Adam indicated that they may already be past that)

I communicated to Craig that we had a maximum of 1.7M for the vendor costs in the RFP. He
included that as part of the RFP.

Eric


Eric,

Denise and I talked today and I was correct that there is 1.5 allocated and the 460 (plus) is from the
textual materials for math. I asked if we could now encumber 1.7 and leave the remaining
amount for PD for staff. We need to make sure that the math department is clear as they are
preparing their PD plan that there is only 200,000 to pay for staff to attend training. That means
that we may have to do a train the trainer model if depending on the amount of time needed.

Shauna


Hi Shauna,

Is that still a question for Denise? I didnt see any confirmation of the $500,000 consumables
budget.

Eric


Shauna Heath
On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:24 PM, "McElhinney, Denise" <dmcleese@seattleschools.org> wrote:
Math Adoption cost center is 42201271A0. You can see 1.5M is pre encumbered
which means reserved for K-5 Math Adoptions. If you need more detail on the
dm

<image001.png>

Cc: Dysart, Adam W

Also, do we have the 500,000 still budgeted for what would have been used to purchase
EDM resources?

Shauna
From: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

Denise,

Can you give Shauna/Adam/me an update on what has been spent so far for the Math
Adoption? This would be for cost center 4207927480.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

Cc: Dysart, Adam W


Shauna
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Block, Kae H
Kae,
Do I get this information from you in the absence of a replacement for Penny? I would
like to do a spot-check at this point.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Heath, Shauna L
Date: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:20:48 PM
Are you referring to the 500K that was moved from math org to org 42, it sits in the budget I sent.

To: Caldwell, Eric
Cc: McElhinney, Denise; Sipe, Shawn L; Dysart, Adam W

Denise,

Sent from my iPhone
Hi Shauna,

Is that still a question for Denise? I didnt see any confirmation of the $500,000
consumables budget.

Eric


Shauna Heath
On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:24 PM, "McElhinney, Denise" <dmcleese@seattleschools.org>
wrote:
Math Adoption cost center is 42201271A0. You can see 1.5M is pre
encumbered which means reserved for K-5 Math Adoptions. If you need
more detail on the expenditures please let me know.
dm

<image001.png>

Cc: Dysart, Adam W

Also, do we have the 500,000 still budgeted for what would have been used
to purchase EDM resources?

Shauna
From: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W

Denise,

Can you give Shauna/Adam/me an update on what has been spent so far
for the Math Adoption? This would be for cost center 4207927480.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

Cc: Dysart, Adam W

This go through me and you get the information from Denise our budget
analyst.

Shauna
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Block, Kae H
Kae,
Do I get this information from you in the absence of a replacement for
Penny? I would like to do a spot-check at this point.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: Caldwell, Eric
Subject: Re: RFP02440 K-5 Math
Date: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:24:00 PM
I want to confirm tomorrow that we still have the 500000 in math materials.
Shauna Heath
2.0 million total is the final figure for the initial year then? J ust wanted to confirm since it
will now be in the RFP.
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 6:42 PM
To: Caldwell, Eric
Cc: Dysart, Adam W; Sipe, Shawn L; Box, Anna M
Subject: Re: RFP02440 K-5 Math
Meaning the 1.5 million we have and the potential 500,000 we can use from math
materials purchase for next year?
Shauna Heath
On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:20 PM, "Caldwell, Eric" <ecaldwell@seattleschools.org>
wrote:
Here is Craig's update on the RFP - He needs a budget range to include in the
RFP - Can one of you help him with that?

Thanks,

Eric
From: Murphy, Craig
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 2:50 PM
To: Caldwell, Eric
Subject: RFP02440 K-5 Math
Hi Eric,
.
Susan and I met with Contracting Services/Diane who believes with our
current version of RFP we have clarified sufficiently to address
Legals/Rons concerns.
.
We are prettying up for presentation to Legal/Ron now.
.
One thing that was discussed was to now include a budget range for
expected project value. This was concluded to be a range that is 75% of
to 125% over of the target acquisition cost.
.
The 125% should not exceed available budget.
.
For example if your target was $1,000,000.00 your budget range might
be $750,000.00 to $1,250,000.00
.
Are you the one to share those figures with us?
.
Thanks,

Phone: 206-252-0570
Fax: 206-252-0505

From: Denise Hobbs
To: Box, Anna M
Subject: Agile Mind meeting March 3
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:12:33 AM
How about 9am on March 3?
On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:44 PM, "Box, Anna M" <ambox@seattleschools.org> wrote:
Yes. Im available most of both days except from 2:30 5:30 on Monday.

From: Denise Hobbs [mailto:dhobbs@agilemind.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:40 PM
To: Box, Anna M
Subject: Re: Seattle - Office for Ed

Actually, I think that I may come out March 3 & 4. Are you available then?

On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:38 PM, "Box, Anna M" <ambox@seattleschools.org>
wrote:
The meeting was fine. Did they call you? I had to leave about 1:15 and they hadnt
gotten around to actually dialing you. The 25
th
has gotten swallowed up, but I still
have some time midday on 2/26.

Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:00 AM
To: Box, Anna M
Subject: Re: Seattle - Office for Ed

How did the meeting go with Kathryn? I am still thinking of traveling to Seattle
on the 25th - is there still opportunity to meet with her, do you think?

On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:36 PM, "Box, Anna M" <ambox@seattleschools.org> wrote:
th th
Sounds good. I can be flexible on the 25 and 25 . Let me know if you want me to
get Kathryn and her folks to join us.

Looking forward to seeing you.

Anna

Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 2:08 PM
To: Box, Anna M
Subject: Seattle - Office for Ed

Hey there - had a very interesting call with Kathyrn today. I think we need to find
a date for me to travel to Seattle for a meeting before 2/27 -

What do you think of the 25th? I've got to be in Sacramento on the 24th but can
fly from there to Seattle.

Thoughts?

From: Aisenberg, Kathryn
[mailto:Kathryn.Aisenberg@seattle.gov]
Sent: Friday, J anuary 31, 2014 12:08 PM
To: info@agilemind.com
Subject: Request for Info

Good morning,

Im writing to request additional information about your 6-
8
th
grade math, 9
th
grade intensive, and Academic Youth
Development programs. Our office currently helps fund a
number of Seattle Public Schools and were currently
exploring options to strengthen math instruction in several
of our schools serving high populations of students not on
grade level standard. Itd be great to talk to a
representative about your curriculum, program
implementation, educator supports, etc. as well as the
basics around cost and timeline for implementation.

Please let me know if a representative would have some
time to talk this Monday 2/3 before 3 pm PT, Wednesday
2/5 after 1:30 pm PT, or Friday 2/7 before 1 pm PT.

Thanks so much,
Kathryn

Kathryn Aisenberg | Senior Education Policy Analyst |Office for Education
Cell: 206-271-3709 | Desk: 206-684-8365 | Fax: 206-233-5142
Seattle Department of Neighborhoods
Mailing Address: PO Box 94649, Seattle WA 98124-4649
Physical Location: 700 5th Ave, Suite 1700
http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/education
kathryn.aisenberg@seattle.gov

--

Denise Hobbs
Regional Vice President, Agile Mind
c: 505.818.8897 | o: 505.255.2219
dhobbs@agilemind.com | www.agilemind.com
Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

<image001.gif>

Denise Hobbs
c: 505.818.8897 | o: 505.255.2219

<image001.gif>

Denise Hobbs
c: 505.818.8897 | o: 505.255.2219

<image001.gif>

Denise Hobbs
c: 505.818.8897 | o: 505.255.2219

<image001.gif>

Denise Hobbs
c: 505.818.8897 | o: 505.255.2219

To: Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M
Subject: FW: My Math, enVision, Go Math & Math in Focus Tabulation Sheets
Date: Friday, February 14, 2014 2:38:49 PM
Attachments: TABULATION MY MATH.xls
TABULATION EN VISION PEARSON.xls
TABULATION GO MATH.xls
TABULATION MATH IN FOCUS.xls
Answered Committee Questions of McGraw Hill My Math.docx
Answered Questions by Pearson for enVision.docx
Importance: High
Hi Shauna, Anna,

I just spoke with Susan Johnston and she confirmed that Math in Focus is still outside of our current
budget. First year cost is $4,426,950 inclusive of shipping, tax and PD. (PD is only $203K) Ongoing
costs are between $747,354 (second year) and $558,954 (years 3-5), years 6 and 7 are included in
the first 5 year cost.

Eric

Cc: Murphy, Craig
Subject: My Math, enVision, Go Math & Math in Focus Tabulation Sheets
Importance: High

Hi All,

I attached the tabulation sheets for four vendors. Shawn had questions for each. My Math and
enVision have separate word documents showing the question and answers. Houghton Mifflin
answered their questions on their excel form at the bottom.

Let me know if you have any question.
Thanks!

Susan Johnston
Buyer
206-252-0569 Phone
206-252-0505 Fax

Cc: Wiley, Delinda
Subject: RE: Second Request -- FW: Information regarding RTTT P4
Date: Monday, February 10, 2014 7:55:10 AM
I received the exact contract amounts by email just before the Board meeting and included the amounts
as a summary in remarks. They have not been officially released yet. I will forward them to the Board
office when they are.

Eric
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 5:21 AM
Cc: Wiley, Delinda
Subject: Fwd: Second Request -- FW: Information regarding RTTT P4
Eric and Shauna,
Please review the attached email chain and prepare a response for Director Peters. I thought
that this information was included in the Board Action Report.
Thank you,
Michael
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Peters, Susan M" <sue.peters@seattleschools.org>
Date: February 9, 2014, 9:33:49 PM PST
To: "Tolley, Michael F" <mftolley@seattleschools.org>
Subject: Second Request -- FW: Information regarding RTTT P4
Michael,
Have you provided this information to the board, as promised?
I don't recall seeing it. Did I miss it?
Sue
Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 3:23 PM
Subject: RE: Information regarding RTTT P4
Thank you for this information, Michael.
Has the following information been provided to the board yet?
=>It is anticipated that we will have the exact costs for the various packages by the end of
the day Tuesday and will provide them as an addendum before the Board meeting on
Wednesday.
If not, can we expect to see it before this afternoon's meeting?
Regards,
Sue

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101
From: Wiley, Delinda on behalf of Tolley, Michael F
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 9:51 AM
To: Peters, Susan M; Blanford, Stephan; Peaslee, Sharon D; Carr, Sherry L; Martin-Morris,
Harium; McLaren, Martha; Patu, Betty
Cc: Banda, J ose L; Wright, Charles E; Codd, Clover; Bennett, Erinn P; Tolley, Michael F
Subject: Information regarding RTTT P4
Directors,

We wanted to provide you with answers to some of your questions regarding RTTT P4.
Contract details have not yet been finalized and we are meeting with the Puget Sound ESD
at the beginning of next week. We will have confirmation of all expenses before the Board
meeting. Given that, we are providing as much detail as currently possible:

Exact amount of money each of the 14 schools participating in the RTTT4 grant will
be required to provide to cover ongoing (software?) expenses ("annual licensing
renewal") once the grant has been spent. - The exact amount will depend on what
the school identifies as the need, what students they want to cover, what software
package they decide on and which cohort they fall into. Ongoing software costs
could range from $0 - $7000 annually. The current estimate for a full ST math
implementation that is weighted towards a higher initial payment is $3500 a year,
but the actual costs from the consortium RFP are not yet available. Schools will
have the authority to make decisions based on their priorities.

Number of years each of the 14 schools identified in the RTTT4 grant will be
required to provide funds to cover ongoing expenses after the grant has been
exhausted. - The schools would have to pay the ongoing cost for the years after
their cohort began until the end of the grant in December of 2016. For the first
cohort that would mean up to two years. For the final cohort they would not be
obligated by the grant to pay for any ongoing licensing since the grant would run
out before the renewal. I would hope that the schools would find the product
beneficial enough to continue funding past the end of the grant. Please note, these
costs are already being incurred for this purpose in many of these schools.

Confirmed source of such funding from each school. Each of our schools have
several funding sources for non-staff and staff costs. There is a possibility that Title
I funds could cover the costs but that depends on the way the school chooses to
implement, which students are provided service, other Title I eligible expenses, and
current Title regulations which can change from year to year. Principals and BLTs
would make the final decision regarding the budget and which source will be used.

Clarity on how much money total the district is required to match of the $1,098,542
million grant. - the BAR has been revised to state that we will receive a total of
$1,098,542 in grant funds over the term of the grant. The term match was
generically used by the Project 4 grant to indicate the required expenditures the
district could anticipate. The required match for Seattle is listed on the second
page of the BAR. The amount in the grant budget is estimated to be $66,500 for
the term of the grant. This could be slightly less or slightly more, depending upon
actual cost of licenses. It is a small investment for the amount of resource we are
receiving.

It is anticipated that we will have the exact costs for the various packages by the end of
the day Tuesday and will provide them as an addendum before the Board meeting on
Wednesday.

Thank you,

Michael F. Tolley

From: English, Ron
To: Barbello, J ulie A
Cc: Murphy, Craig; Westgard, Bob; J ohnston, Susan; Caldwell, Eric; Dysart, Adam W; Sipe, Shawn L
Subject: Re: Cost data for K-5 candidate math curricula.
Date: Friday, February 07, 2014 9:10:29 AM
Ok
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 7, 2014, at 9:04 AM, "Barbello, Julie A" <jabarbello@seattleschools.org> wrote:
Hi Craig,

Thanks for the information. I totally understand that the RFP review process is right in
the middle of things! Part of the job of the Public Records Officer is to prevent
excessive interference with other essential functions of the agency (RCW 42.56.100). I
will let the requestor know that the process is ongoing and that we will release the
requested records once everything is finalized.

Ron, does that sound about right?

Thanks again for your help! Ill check back in a few months to see where things are for
this request.

Julie

From: Murphy, Craig
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 8:54 AM
Cc: Westgard, Bob; English, Ron; J ohnston, Susan; Caldwell, Eric; Dysart, Adam W; Sipe,
Shawn L
Subject: RE: Cost data for K-5 candidate math curricula.

7/Feb/2014
RE: Cost data for K-5 candidate math curricula.

Good morning Julie,
.
We are in the middle of a combination RFI/RFP (RFI10318 K-5 CORE MATH
ADOPTION)competitive process now.
.
Under normal circumstances, this process can take 14 months. In this case we are on
an accelerated time line.
.
Our RFI was initially advertised in Nov 2013 and if the Adoption Committee (outside of
Purchasing) concludes the process by recommending a specific publishers program
to the Board for approval, that is scheduled to take place in late May/early June of
2014.
.
Since we are in the middle of a competitive solicitation process, Purchasings opinion
is that we cannot release proprietary data at this time. Any release of information
would compromise the integrity of the procurement process.
.
After the conclusion of the process, Purchasing would be happy to respond to Public
Records Requests.
.
Hope this makes sense.
.
If youd like to seek a second opinion on this, I am cc;ing two additional District
resources whose expertise on these matters we value.
.
Bob Westgard Director of Logistics (my supervisor)
Ron English General Council
.
Thanks,

Phone: 206-252-0570
Fax: 206-252-0505

From: Barbello, J ulie A
To: Murphy, Craig
Subject: FW: Cost data for K-5 candidate math curricula.

Hi Craig,

I was told that you would be a good person to reach out to about this public records
request Do you know anything about the Math Adoption Committee RFPs? Let me
know, and if youre not the right person, do you know who might be?

Thanks so much!

Julie A Barbello
Public Records Officer
General Counsel's Office
Phone: 206-252-0122
Fax: 206-252-0111
jabarbello@seattleschools.org

From: js [mailto:joan@mathascent.org]
Subject: Cost data for K-5 candidate math curricula.

Dear Julie,
I understand that, in response to the SPS' Request for Proposals for K-5 Math
curricula, publishers submitted cost data on their programs.
I would like any spreadsheets and/or printed or on-line information provdided by
each publisher of the eight curricula originally considered by the K-5 Math
Adoption Committee.
I understand each publisher completed a detailed questionaire relating to price
escalation, professional development, shipping logisitics, etc.
Please include in your response the completed questioniare from each publisher.
Thank you,
Joan Sias
206 307 7137

To:
Julie A Barbello
Public Records Officer
General Counsel's Office
Phone: 206-252-0110
Fax: 206-252-0111
Mail Stop 32-151
jabarbello@seattleschools.org
From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Barbara Grant (barbara@bgrantgroup.com)
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: FW: attachments for committee update
Date: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 1:56:51 PM
Attachments: Toolkit for Evaluating Alignment of Instructional and Assessment Materials to CCSS_Printer Ready Version.pdf
draft second screener.docx
PROPOSALS FOR FINAL TABULATION.docx
Screening process proposal.docx
agenda with talking points 020714 math adoption committee.docx
Importance: High

Barbara,

I am sending you some of the documents that will go to the committee today for use at the 2/7
meeting. Please take a look first at the agenda with talking points. The RED areas need your
feedback.

We are still in a holding pattern and will be meeting with a working session of the school board
Thursday evening to answer questions about our process and about the 3 vs 4 issue. So some of
this proposed agenda may change. We already know that the timeline will change and will have a
new one prepared for the Friday meeting.

In reference to the costs of the programs, we will also have info from Purchasing by Friday and will
need to decide how and when to use that info during the second screening process. I am not sure
in what form it will come, but we will at least have a cost per student and cost of Professional
Development to work with.

See Adams comments below about official proposals vs Basecamp comments.

Please respond with questions, directions, suggestions, etc. and a weather report from the Big
Apple!

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 12:32 PM
To: Sipe, Shawn L
Subject: attachments for committee update

The IMET tool is a large document. Please just let committee members know that the relevant
pages are 20-24.

Also, let them know we are including draft copies of subcommittee work with no alterations or
modifications. They should read to inform their understanding of the three major decisions. If
they want to also see what has been proposed outside of committee work around any of these
topics, you can direct them back to Basecamp.

No need to comment on any of the proposals via email this week, as we will be affording them the
opportunity to discuss and review in person on Fri.

Adam Dysart
Curriculum Specialist, Mathematics
206-252-0135
Elementary Math fusion page

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: J ohnston, Susan; Dysart, Adam W
Cc: Caldwell, Eric
Subject: enVision essential materials
Date: Wednesday, J anuary 29, 2014 11:00:44 AM
Attachments: Essential Pearson enVision list of materials from adoption committee.xls
Importance: High
Susan,
Here is the envision spreadsheet denoting the essential materials as we see them. The light green
shaded items are essentials. The dark green shadings denote questions, which are listed at the
bottom of the spreadsheet and here below:

Questions and comments on the enVision pricing spreadsheet:
1. If the 2015 edition is to be supplied, is it significantly different from the edition we have
seen? Are there any available to see now?
2. With the CD-ROM materials (Visual Learning Animations and ExamView), can we
provide access to all of our teachers through a central server with one copy of these
products?
3. Will there be updates provided to the materials as we gain experience using the
Common Core Standards?
4. Please provide pricing with and without the following products for each grade:
a. Math Diagnosis and Intervention systems
b. Student manipulative kits
c. Ready made centers kit
d. Problem solving math library (grades 2-5)
5. Please price with the provision of one Math Diagnosis and Intervention kit per school
instead of per classroom.
6. Is there an assessment system online and is it included in the teachers resources or is
there a separate cost? May we see a dummy database in order to see how it works?
7. What is the difference between the Teacher Access pack and the Teacher Resource
pack?

Thanks,
Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Wagler, Kristen K
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: RE: Essentials of the My MATH materials
Date: Tuesday, J anuary 28, 2014 10:30:58 AM
Thanks so much, Kristin. Well take it from here.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Wagler, Kristen K
Sent: Tuesday, J anuary 28, 2014 7:53 AM
To: Sipe, Shawn L
Subject: Re: Essentials of the My MATH materials
Importance: High

Sure! I think the McG-Hill reps who serve Coe (Shelley
Manweller shelleymanweller@live.com) or Jenny Alt jenny.arlt@mheducation.com could give
you a quick response via email. I have students until lunch, so not enough time for a phone call before
your deadline today.

Here is what I'd consider essential, if you're comparing it to the other things you mentioned from the
other programs:

Teacher editions (vol 1&2)
Student workbooks (vol 1&2)
Both of these are available online (teacher and student books)
Reteach and Enrichment Masters (also customizable) are available online only, I think
Assessment masters book (also available online, and fully customizable in Word format)
Manipulative kit (blue velcro cases)
Problem Solving readers (in blue kit?)
There might be more manipulatives included for SPS that I don't have at Coe. I think I remember seeing
them at JSCEE. I know they have a lot of manipulatives available.

Hope this helps!
Kristen

From: <Sipe>, Shawn L <slsipe@seattleschools.org>
Date: Monday, January 27, 2014 6:03 PM
To: SPS <kkwagler@seattleschools.org>
Cc: "Dysart, Adam W" <addysart@seattleschools.org>
Subject: Essentials of the My MATH materials

Kristen,
We spent some time with the four programs this afternoon and could use your advice. The other
three programs had enough of a common arrangement that we could choose the same sort of
materials, comparing apples to apples, so to speak.

The My Math is set up differently. For each class level they identify a teacher edition as an
essential and the rest of the materials as optional/support materials. We are assuming we would
want the individual and the classroom manipulative kits. Which other materials would you
consider essential? The list is attached.

In the other programs, we listed student editions, practice books, online student editions, reteach
materials, enrichment materials, assessment guides and any extra practice workbooks available.
We also included as an added option, depending on cost, intervention kits offered by two of the
other programs and Kindergarten big books offered by the other three. Can you share which of
the My Math materials would be comparable?

The glitch is that we need it by tomorrow around noon. The Purchasing department is
narrowing down the costs then.

Any help you can give is great.

If it helps to talk by phone, Adam and I are both available in the morning.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

To: "Martin McIntosh"; Damon Ellingston
Cc: Lola Bradford; Bermet, Deborah S; Escame, Andrea; barbara@bgrantgroup.com; Kerim Aydin; Ngobi, Fredrick;
Kiser, Nancy; Einmo, Diana C; Orme, Beth
Subject: RE: Tabulation; Cost; Benchmarking
Date: Tuesday, J anuary 28, 2014 8:56:10 AM
Based on the chatter on Basecamp, it seems the tentative proposal is to avoid quantifying
community input and then attempting to fit it somewhere in the screener itself. However, I know
we havent heard from a large contingent of the group. Perhaps, like the process proposal itself,
we have prepared some options for discussion on the 7
th
when all can weigh in.

It seems that the current process proposal would call for some discussion at each juncture when a
program will potentially be moved off the list, taking several factors into consideration and
allowing for committee members to potentially revise their screens if so desired. After discussion,
and any rescreens, the ranks are updated and the runoff continues on to the next round.

The factors are:
Rank (according to screen)
Community input (tentatively separated from the screener)
Cost (if not folded into the screen)
Benchmark data (if applicable)
Professional Development plan (separated from cost to consider desired impact of
implementation)

We will also be spending quite a bit of time discussing the draft second screen, so the cleaner we
can make these proposals heading into the day, the better.

Sent: Monday, J anuary 27, 2014 10:36 PM
Cc: Dysart, Adam W; Lola Bradford; Bermet, Deborah S; Escame, Andrea; barbara@bgrantgroup.com;
Kerim Aydin; Ngobi, Fredrick; Kiser, Nancy; Einmo, Diana C; Orme, Beth
Subject: Re: Tabulation; Cost; Benchmarking

Runoff: whether we do instant runoff or deliberate/discuss after each removal is not really a
big deal. The most relevant thing is we remove choices one by one by vote, possibly
deliberating after each; we remove the one with the fewest first choices, or the most last
choices for a tie; no vetoes, filibusters, or anything badda bing, you lost the race next.

Regarding costs: May I offer how this is done with research grants that accomodates the
ranking/runoff appraoch One first rates proposals scoring only on quality not cost. A final
ranking is obtained. One then reveals the costs overall and also of specific components, and
solicitations of recommendations are made for whether the difference in scores/ranking is
worth the costs, or whether specific components that may be charged extra are worth it..
This is a productive approach since the costs for each will be entirely different and it is not
practical to consider ratings for both combined, and have to be essentially death with on a
one-off manner. If the top choice is not the most costly -- you will not find this out until
ranking is done -- then the conversation is easy. If it is the most expensive, then it is still
easier than considering scoring criteria and costs simultaneously. True it will be a
subjective choice based on our own assessment of cost and benefit, but life, including all
scientific decision processes, require subjective assessments, and that is good enough when
the people are thoughtful and experienced, like the people on this committee.

Regarding community input: In my opinion what we have is as well-defined as needed,
adequate, and in-line with how the board conducts its community input efforts; you allow the
community members to provide a narrative (either by comment or by voice) prior to the
selection process on aspects of the decisions that are important to them and that will confront
us all. As long as their opinions and values can have a chance to influence how we rate the
option, this is what community input is; Trying to incorporate community "scores" or "ranks"
into our own scoring and ranking I see as potentially disasterous . I see no way of doing so
in a scientifically valid way; certainly Kerim can chime in here if he disagrees, and don't want
to imply here that reasonable people cannot disagree.

The difficulty for community is especially challenging (put another way, impossible to make
rigorous formal approach); many people could voice their opinions not by scoring but by
providing a statement of their values that cannot be incorporated in a formal way; what do we
do with the potential dozens of people who provide a comment but not a score? What about
those whose comment suggests that they wish us to ignore the community scores and base our
judgement on our own careful assessment, professional training, and judgement -- like my
colleague who claims that she will send out an email to all the quantitative scientists she
knows and asking them to write "how inappropriate it is to base such an important decision on
anything but the opinions of experts who have spent hours assessing the choices; I would
never see a doctor who treated me based on the votes of the uninformed public, why would I
send my child to who did so? Show respect for the teachers and let them decide what is best. "
[I think this is a direct quote]. Just reading their input and saying "Umm, we'll look at it"
may truly be the worst system on its own, but it may be the only and best choice considering
all the other options. If the board disagrees, then they have more problems that us; they will
have two change the way they do things. I look forward to my vote on their next redistricting
plan, or the location of AP programs, or even the criteria to include children in the AP
program.

On Jan 27, 2014, at 8:40 PM, Damon Ellingston wrote:
Thank you for your helpful reply, Adam. We have some work cut out for us.
The cost proposal seems workable within the context of the screener: if one program is way
out in the cost department, it gets a 1. If two programs cost approximately the same, they get
the same score. This is not rocket science - we simply scale the cost estimates onto a range
from 1 to 4. The question of how much to weight that item can be discussed by the committee
on Feb. 7.
With regard to benchmarking, I agree with Adam that there are technical issues. Being a
scientist & mathematician, I am not inclined to throw up my hands in the face of technical
issues and say, "It can't be done!" However, we should set a high bar for what data we
consider. It may be that there is nothing comparable, but I'd like us to at least try a search to
find that out. Not expecting any help here from anyone on the weighting and tabulation
committee,you all already have your hands full burrowing into the minutiae of the CCSS
palimpsest. Just a thought.
Last, but most important: How is the community input data to be integrated into the final
selection process? So far this is a big question mark. We need some definite, concrete
proposals for how this will work, something beyond, "Umm, we'll look at it." Kerim, perhaps
you could apply some of your mathematical expertise to this question.

- Damon

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Dysart, Adam W <addysart@seattleschools.org> wrote:
See below

From: Damon Ellingston [mailto:ellingston@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, J anuary 27, 2014 9:39 AM
To: Lola Bradford
Cc: Dysart, Adam W; Bermet, Deborah S; Escame, Andrea; Martin Mcintosh; barbara@bgrantgroup.com;
Kerim Aydin; Ngobi, Fredrick; Kiser, Nancy; Einmo, Diana C; Orme, Beth
Subject: Tabulation; Cost; Benchmarking

I've been thinking about the Instant Runoff Voting model and I'm having second thoughts.
Since we're a deliberative body I don't think IRV is a good fit for us, for a couple of reasons.
Before discussing that, I'd like to bring up a few relevant items:
-- COST: We have been told we are going to "get some numbers" on cost when we get the
responses to the IFP on our desks. However, no mention has been made of cost in our second-
round screener. So at what point are we "supposed to consider" cost? My proposal is to add an
item to the final screener on cost which will be scored as follows: Most Expensive gets a 1,
Next Most a 2, Second cheapest a 3, Cheapest a 4. We can then discuss weight for that
question, probably with the whole committee.
The cost of particular programs will be dependent on several factors. Purchasing and procurement
is currently assembling the RFPs with this in mind. If, by chance, a program comes in with a
suggestion that they cannot meet our bid for even the most basic elements needed, then the
decision is straightforward to not screen or include them for consideration, regardless of our actual
screening tool. If, by chance, there is a range of costs involved, all within budget, then this
information can be made apparent to the committee in the final process, either as criteria line
item or as a data point (much like community input).

While the committee cannot negotiate cost or prepare contingencies based on the costs that finally
come in, it seems prudent to consider how we will explicitly look at this in the final round.
Whether this be a line item in the screener (which may be tricky if a program has multiple options,
all within overall budget), or if this should serve as a data point or collection of evidence, much like
community input, remains to be determined. Thoughts?
-- BENCHMARKING: Policy 2015 mandates that our decision "Be based on best practices
and research including benchmarking from similar districts". Adam made some noises about
"can't really do that b/c Common Core isn't yet blah, blah" as though nobody every wrote a
decent textbook before Common Core came along. Be that as it may, it's not Adam's opinion
that counts, it's Policy 2015, so benchmarking is in.
First of all, let's define terms: "BENCHMARKING" does not mean anecdotal preferences, it
means hard data: TESTS. So how do we include test data in our final decision? Projecting it
onto a screen while everyone sips their coffee and pretends to look interested does not satisfy
that mandate, there needs to be some accountability. We can't ask the publishers themselves
for testing data because, well, that would be "unscientific". We can, however, ask them for a
list of similar school districts (urban, high ELL ratio) and then see if we can get data directly
from those school districts/states. After all, we hear from teachers constantly that there's an
avalanche of testing going on; here is an opportunity to make productive use of that data. I
operate on the assumption that we do, in fact, want scores to rise --> conclusion: look at what
has worked/not worked before!
If MSP data (current state assessment) were similar to the proposed SBAC assessments coming into
place in the spring of 2015, and the standards each assessed were likewise comparable, then this
would be a fairly straightforward process. However, we do know from SBAC claims, released
items, and technology enhanced capabilities that such a comparison simply cannot be made very
easily. For more info about SBAC claims, sample items, and to take a test yourself, go to:
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/
Further, test performance is difficult to directly correlate to textbooks. This is for various reasons.
Think value added elements like teacher quality, home life, etc and you get the picture. I invite
anyone on this committee to produce the research showing such a strong correlation believe me,
Ive been looking. Bare bones, it is worth looking into the relative success of a district with any of
these programs anecdotally or even in some of the schools here in the district, but using data at
this point to predict future success on common core is extremely challenging. An interesting case
study of this would be the past 7 years of using Everyday Mathematics in Seattle Public Schools.
While it is the opinion of many that the text is not sufficient and does not meet state testing
demands, overall student performance has increased every year the program has been in use here,
with the achievement gap closing within some of our fragile populations. Do we attribute all this
success to the book? Based on the books reputation among some community and staff, unlikely.
A lot of work has been done in professional development to improve overall instruction. Do we
attribute all of the success to that? I would love to, but simply cant because there are too many
variables.
Some states have even gone so far as to place a moratorium on state testing as they try to make
this transition, seeing the need to prepare students for a very different assessment arena as they
shift resources towards this endeavor, including curricula. In any past adoptions, without such a
transition ongoing, benchmarking against known variables made perfect sense.
The nature of our deliberations, and the inclusion of cost, benchmarking, and community
input, complicates the final selection process. The Instant Runoff Voting model is not
designed for what we're doing. I think we should move to a delegate/convention model: we
first tabulate the screener results, rank them, and announce the results as soon as they're
available (meaning before the meeting). At our February 7 meeting we can discuss how to
combine the screener results, the benchmarking results, the cost factor, and the community
input in our final deliberative process.
For Feb 7
th
, it would be nice to have all proposals clearly out on the table at the start. So if the
process group or subcommittee as a whole can come up with an alternative model (because IRV is
already posted on Basecamp) for folks to preview, that would help with making the most of our
time together. Similarly, if the screener work team wants to further edit and make changes to the
criteria, please do so this week. I will put together a final draft version when all edits are, for the
most part, submitted. A copy of it in Word is posted on Basecamp since it isnt a Google doc, just
send me your suggested edits by email and I will repost as I add them.

Thanks for reading!
Damon

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Lola Bradford <libbyib@gmail.com> wrote:
For integrating the concept of non-negotiability into the proposed process, I like what I
perceive to be Martin's idea: each screener screens each program with the new tool,
and along the way decides whether it is non-negotiably poor on some criterion. We
then discuss possible eliminations and execute whatever we need to at the first
discussion session (the one including community input as well), before each member
revises their scores (on remaining programs) and sends them in for tabulation.
~Lola

On 24 January 2014 14:53, Dysart, Adam W <addysart@seattleschools.org> wrote:
That's probably because I have given multiple answers, so I own that.:)
I haven't been given a definitive answer myself to that question, so I'll stab at what I think is
the answer.
So here it is: both yes and no. Sorry for the ambiguity.
I'll start with no. There are early signs already that some interference in the process can/will
occur. There is also precedent for this (last elementary math adoption). I know this was
covered at the first meeting when Barbara walked us through the entire process, with
statements of fact concerning each step along the way to recommendation residing almost
entirely with the committee, but in the end, once a/the recommendation is made, things can go
sideways, despite everybody's best intentions. This is what I alluded to earlier regarding my
own inquiries on this point - I have been told that the Board is looking to adopt no matter
what. So if we recommend not to adopt after screening all programs who submitted through
two rounds, the decision could still be wrested out of our hands, with whatever program
scored/ranked the highest being selected by default.
Yes, if you consider the decision is still with the committee to make a/the recommendation.
The committee has broad enough powers and discretion, as long as they abide by adoption
cycle protocol (as governed by the IMC), to make an argument for any decision. If, for
example, the committee submitted the second screen for review with the stipulation that all
finalist programs had to meet some threshold or cut score, it would be up to the IMC to
approve this tool. The IMC is mostly looking to see that the tool itself is not dramatically
different than the first screener. In terms of scoring, ranking, weighting, etc, they are less
concerned, as long as the decision is rationale and equitable to all programs.
Again, apologies for the confusion, but this is the best I can offer in the way of an answer.
From: Bermet, Deborah S
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 2:04 PM
To: Dysart, Adam W; Escame, Andrea; Martin Mcintosh
Cc: Damon Ellingston; barbara@bgrantgroup.com; Kerim Aydin; Ngobi, Fredrick; Kiser,
Nancy; Einmo, Diana C; Orme, Beth; Laurenstine Bradford
Subject: RE: Thoughts on non-negotiatbles
Hey Adam,
I have been listening very carefully to your response to the question, "can we recommend
'none' and have heard both yes and no--probably because you have been told both. I think it
would be good to get something in writing, especially in light of the Pathfinder letter.
I'd also like the powers at be to address the possibility of us choosing an online program as in
interim solution. (With all the money saved we could hire back math coaches to help teachers
adopt to Common Core.)
I am thinking about your dose of reality bit--and Beth's suggestion that all committee members
own up to their scores--is there anything in the policy that says scores have to be private? It
feels like it could get ugly...but the reality is we need to do what's best for kids and not let
adult drama carry the day.
Debbie
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 9:48 AM
To: Escame, Andrea; Martin Mcintosh; Bermet, Deborah S
Cc: Damon Ellingston; barbara@bgrantgroup.com; Kerim Aydin; Ngobi, Fredrick; Kiser,
Nancy; Einmo, Diana C; Orme, Beth; Laurenstine Bradford
A few points as you consider this topic:
If the process proposal involves deriving a rank from each screen, and said rank is determined
by some type of score for each criteria, do we place more emphasis on criteria that is
considered non-negotiable? If so, each screener could still game the system to ensure the
ranking comes out the way they want, but it would nevertheless provide talking points for
justification during the elimination round as folks defended the relative strength or weakness
on these criteria.
As for the final recommendation, I have asked the powers that be on several occasions what
would happen if the committee recommended we abstain. I asked again this morning. The
answer, in short, is the Board requested this process to begin with and will be looking for a
program recommendation no matter what. Which has two implications: one, we will most
likely be asked which program was deemed the best of the finalists no matter what, even if we
recommend not to adopt; two, when we provide a rationale with our recommendation, we can
provide context around how the program falls short in some areas of alignment. This is
perfectly reasonable, truthful, and absolutely necessary as the district moves forward. This
will be especially valuable information for my department as we attempt to shape our
professional development and resource support efforts in the most efficient and effective
manner possible.
Based on the data presented to us from the first screen, there is irrefutably a question of
objectivity amongst some of our committee members. So much so that devoting a
considerable amount of time to calibrating the tool and increasing the overall committee
awareness of Common Core shifts, content, and expectations may not in the end prevent the
inevitable - some folks are going to screen and rank with preferences in mind no matter what.
We will certainly spend the time on the 7th going over the criteria and supporting documents,
and this may help some family/community make a more informed decision, but a dose of
reality is also healthy on this topic when it comes to the motivations of all stakeholders.
On another note, I will be cleaning up the draft second screener to send back out, but will
attach the rough doc now for folks to look at and see if there were any other edits that you feel
were missed or need to be added. Please also consider what the suggested scoring system
should be. I think there was some general consensus that ranking within each criteria didn't
make sense, so unless I hear otherwise, I'll equip each criteria with the same 4 pt scale. We'll
need enough data within the screen itself to potentially ward off ties within individuals' ranks.
- Adam
From: Escame, Andrea
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 11:05 PM
To: Martin Mcintosh; Bermet, Deborah S
Cc: Dysart, Adam W; Damon Ellingston; barbara@bgrantgroup.com; Kerim Aydin; Ngobi,
Fredrick; Kiser, Nancy; Einmo, Diana C; Orme, Beth; Laurenstine Bradford
I agree that certain items are non-negotiable as well. If a curriculum does not meet certain
criteria, then it is not aligned to the intent of the common core standards. I believe that the
specific IMET tools that we selected today will be effective tools to allow us to justify our
evidence. Of course, this is a discussion to have with the entire committee as to which criteria
are non-negotiable.
________________________________________
From: Martin Mcintosh [mc_intosh@mac.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:36 PM
To: Bermet, Deborah S
Cc: Dysart, Adam W; Damon Ellingston; barbara@bgrantgroup.com; Kerim Aydin; Ngobi,
Fredrick; Kiser, Nancy; Einmo, Diana C; Escame, Andrea; Orme, Beth; Laurenstine Bradford
Subject: Re: Thoughts on non-negotiatbles
I should clarify.... What I meant this email convey is at least In terms of your final question --
does your proposal interfere with the process proposal? -- that I think it could be made to
work together so don't worry about that too much; but I do not want to speak for the others
who helped with the process piece.... So they should chime in...
Yours is an important question and I for one find the email thread informative. So thanks for
tossing out your ideas.
> On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:23 PM, "Bermet, Deborah S" <dsbermet@seattleschools.org> wrote:
>
> So, my apologies to all for starting an email conversation. I don't think it's a productive way
to discuss this.
> Adam, can we possibly meet again before the 7th?
> I could do it after school so we don't have to pay for more sub time.
>
> Debbie Bermet
> Math Specialist
> Olympic Hills School
> ________________________________________
> From: Martin McIntosh [mc_intosh@mac.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:00 PM
> To: Bermet, Deborah S
> Cc: Dysart, Adam W; 'Damon Ellingston'; barbara@bgrantgroup.com; Kerim
> Aydin; Ngobi, Fredrick; Kiser, Nancy; Einmo, Diana C; Escame, Andrea;
> Orme, Beth; Laurenstine Bradford
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on non-negotiatbles
>
> Deborah,
>
> I will abstain from any discussion of the recommendations as I am not informed enough. But
part of the question about whether you feel you recommendation is can be made compatible
with the "ranking" approach detailed earlier, I think it might if one would to simply keep the
same number of categories (e.g., 4) then make it clear that a 1 (lowest) is a vote for not
meeting the criteria, and the others -- 2, 3, 4 -- are then grades of excellence above that.
>
> Should you adopt some rule to designate "non-negotiables" as such, this would not interfere
from my perspective; but others may find flaws.
>
>
>> On Jan 23, 2014, at 8:20 PM, "Bermet, Deborah S" <dsbermet@seattleschools.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi-just can't stop thinking about all of this....
>> Here's my current thinking; something to start a discussion. Will probably make more
sense to the group that worked on the CCSS portion of the screener but want all to see and
chime in.
>>
>> I want to ensure that even though we're not doing 2 screenings that we do have a minimum
requirement for any curricula we recommend for adoption.
>> To that end, I suggest each rater score the 5 areas in the CCSS section of the screener as
either "meets criteria" or "does not meet criteria". All the words and attachments we added
today will serve as tools for screeners to use to reach their conclusions and for talking points
for when we have our whole group discussion.
>> I suggest we regroup our 5 CCSS sections into the following categories to align with the
IMET non-negotiables.
>> Focus - criteria is "must be at least ___% as calculated on worksheet from pg __"
>> Assessment - criteria is "can not assess any items before they are taught per the CCSS
document; pay particular attention to the 4 items on page ___"
>> Rigor/Balance -criteria is "at least 20% of time/assessments are devoted to each of the 3
areas"
>> Progression and Coherence-use words from today Math Practices- use
>> words from today
>>
>> I think that a program must meet the criteria in focus, assessment and rigor/balance in
order to be considered. Everyone can still rate everything but that is where I, personally,
would draw the line.
>> I'm hoping we can fit this in with the process proposal some of you worked on today.
>>
>> Comments, other ideas?
>>
>>
>>
>> Debbie Bermet
>> Math Specialist
>> Olympic Hills School
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Dysart, Adam W
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:16 AM
>> To: 'Damon Ellingston'; Bermet, Deborah S
>> Cc: barbara@bgrantgroup.com; Kerim Aydin; Ngobi, Fredrick; Kiser,
>> Nancy; Einmo, Diana C; Escame, Andrea; Orme, Beth; Laurenstine
>> Bradford; Martin McIntosh
>> Subject: RE: weighting and tabulation, overview of comprehensive
>> screener work
>>
>> We'll meet in the professional library - your new home away from home!
>>
>> Attached is the 1st screener, by request. And the answer is yes, we are essentially building
off of this, adding specificity, scoring/ranking changes, etc. There will be hard copies made
available as well.
>>
>> From: Damon Ellingston [mailto:ellingston@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:35 AM
>> To: Bermet, Deborah S
>> Cc: barbara@bgrantgroup.com; Kerim Aydin; Ngobi, Fredrick; Dysart,
>> Adam W; Kiser, Nancy; Einmo, Diana C; Escame, Andrea; Orme, Beth;
>> Laurenstine Bradford; Martin McIntosh
>> Subject: Re: weighting and tabulation, overview of comprehensive
>> screener work
>>
>> By the way, anybody know where we're meeting Thursday?
>> Thanks
>> Damon
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Bermet, Deborah S
<dsbermet@seattleschools.org<mailto:dsbermet@seattleschools.org>> wrote:
>> I think this issue is important to discuss further. Let's do it in person on Thurs.
>>
>> Debbie Bermet
>> Math Specialist
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Damon Ellingston
>> [ellingston@gmail.com<mailto:ellingston@gmail.com>]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:48 PM
>> To: Bermet, Deborah S;
>> barbara@bgrantgroup.com<mailto:barbara@bgrantgroup.com>
>> Cc: Kerim Aydin; Ngobi, Fredrick; Dysart, Adam W; Kiser, Nancy;
>> Einmo, Diana C; Escame, Andrea; Orme, Beth; Laurenstine Bradford;
>> Martin McIntosh
>> screener work Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I have some misgivings about the IMET tool and the proposal to create a checklist of
topics not to be assessed above grade level. My understanding is that all state standards,
including CCSS, are a floor and not a ceiling. Therefore I do not see that charting topics in
this manner is either relevant or appropriate. Our choice of curriculum presumably has zero
effect on the Smarter Balanced Assessments; therefore why expect all curricular assessments
to align with SBAC? At the end of the day, we all want the curriculum that is best for Seattle's
K-5 student population. I guess exceeding a standard does not seem to me like a good
criterion to employ in selecting that best curriculum.
>>
>> Damon
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Bermet, Deborah S
<dsbermet@seattleschools.org<mailto:dsbermet@seattleschools.org>
<mailto:dsbermet@seattleschools.org<mailto:dsbermet@seattleschools.org>>> wrote:
>> Hello fellow committee members.
>> The IMET tool Adam sent had a section where they identify items that should not be
assessed before a certain grade level. I think this is a really important part of alignment.
>> I've expanded on that list--focusing exclusively on computation because that is the area
where I noticed the greatest non-alignment while doing round 1 screening.
>> If you think this is helpful, I could make a similar chart for fractions, etc.
>> We would still need to collectively come up with a criteria (for example, a curriculum
should not prematurely assess in ___ areas).
>> This is just a way that will help me keep track of what I'm looking at rather than constantly
flipping back and forth through the CCSS booklet.
>> See you on Thursday
>>
>> Debbie Bermet
>> Math Specialist
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Kerim Aydin
>> [y.kerim@gmail.com<mailto:y.kerim@gmail.com><mailto:y.kerim@gmail.com
>> <mailto:y.kerim@gmail.com>>]
>> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 11:26 AM
>> To: Ngobi, Fredrick
>> Cc: Damon Ellingston; Dysart, Adam W; Kiser, Nancy; Bermet, Deborah
>> S; Einmo, Diana C; Escame, Andrea; Orme, Beth; Laurenstine Bradford;
>> Martin McIntosh
>> screener work
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I thought I would be able to easily slip out of a 3-day work meeting I have next week, but
the schedule just now circulated, and the sessions I'm chairing are all slotted for Thurs
morning - early afternoon (bad dumb luck!).
>>
>> Seeing if it can be re-arranged but very doubtful... so I may have to arrange for catch-up on
work done next Thurs. Still planning to look at Round 1 results over the weekend and
hopefully send something along that will be useful!
>>
>> -Kerim
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Ngobi, Fredrick
<fkngobi@seattleschools.org<mailto:fkngobi@seattleschools.org>
<mailto:fkngobi@seattleschools.org<mailto:fkngobi@seattleschools.org>>
<mailto:fkngobi@seattleschools.org<mailto:fkngobi@seattleschools.org>
<mailto:fkngobi@seattleschools.org<mailto:fkngobi@seattleschools.org>>>> wrote:
>> Welcome to the group, Damon. Great resource!
>>
>> fred
>> From: Damon Ellingston
>> [mailto:ellingston@gmail.com<mailto:ellingston@gmail.com><mailto:elli
>> ngston@gmail.com<mailto:ellingston@gmail.com>><mailto:ellingston@gmai
>> l.com<mailto:ellingston@gmail.com><mailto:ellingston@gmail.com<mailto
>> :ellingston@gmail.com>>>]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:03 PM
>> To: Dysart, Adam W
>> Cc: Kiser, Nancy; Bermet, Deborah S; Einmo, Diana C; Escame, Andrea;
>> Ngobi, Fredrick; Orme, Beth; Laurenstine Bradford;
>> y.kerim@gmail.com<mailto:y.kerim@gmail.com><mailto:y.kerim@gmail.com<
>> mailto:y.kerim@gmail.com>><mailto:y.kerim@gmail.com<mailto:y.kerim@gm
>> ail.com><mailto:y.kerim@gmail.com<mailto:y.kerim@gmail.com>>>; Martin
>> McIntosh
>> screener work
>>
>> Hi folks,
>> I am a refugee from the now-defunct Communications Subcommittee. May
>> I join in with you guys? I see you have been quite busy. I will be
>> about one hour late next Thursday, I have an 8 am class that I cannot skip. See you all on
thursday, Damon On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Dysart, Adam W
<addysart@seattleschools.org<mailto:addysart@seattleschools.org>
<mailto:addysart@seattleschools.org<mailto:addysart@seattleschools.org>>
<mailto:addysart@seattleschools.org<mailto:addysart@seattleschools.org>
<mailto:addysart@seattleschools.org<mailto:addysart@seattleschools.org>>>> wrote:
>> Hello -
>>
>> In effort to send all the requested information identified last night and also to bring Damon
up to speed with what we discussed, I'm going to attempt to capture our next set of
actions/goals.
>>
>> Attached:
>> Example 2008-2009 High School textbook adoption screener (initial and
>> comprehensive) Full text of the IMET tool (you have paper copies of
>> just the math specific portions) Electronic copy of our initial
>> screener
>>
>> Links:
>> Achieve the core (creators of IMET tool resource)
>> http://www.achievethecore.org/dashboard/300/search/1/2/0/1/2/3/4/5/6/
>> 7/8/9/10/11/12 Engage NY http://www.engageny.org/mathematics
>>
>> Next Meeting: Thursday, January 23rd, JSC, 8:30-2:00, room TBD
>>
>> Overview:
>> We discussed some goals for the next screener, included some things to consider before we
meet. I handed out copies of the IMET tool and explained its potential usefulness as a next
iteration tool of our initial screener. We discussed how we may include non-negotiables in
the next screener or some type of cut score to ensure that whatever program receives final
recommendation, it will meet certain minimum requirements. Further, and in an attempt to
head off some of the issues inherent in the first screen, it was proposed that we look into a
program ranking by category vs numeric score by criteria. Also, in order to best address areas
or categories of greatest influence, an idea was put forth to disaggregate 1st screener data for
categories with the most 'spread'. I sent Kerim the final initial screener spreadsheet to in an
attempt to further narrow down such categories and ranking implications.
>>
>> Next Steps/Objectives:
>> Do some homework! But none more than you like or are comfortable with. Some
questions to ask ourselves are:
>>
>> * How will the scoring & weighting remain the same or change?
>>
>> * How will specificity be added to some parts or entirely, without completely
overhauling the initial screener criteria?
>>
>> * How do we implement some type of cut score or non-negotiable? Could there be
two levels to the comprehensive screener, with non-negotiables serving as a 1st pass, other
criteria 2nd?
>>
>> * How will community feedback fully align to the screener in order to eliminate
confusion and procedural missteps? (there is a Basecamp thread for this now)
>>
>> Please feel free to 'reply all' or move this discussion over to Basecamp. Otherwise, I'll see
you in a week.
>>
>> *I will update you with room arrangements when I secure a space. Also, teachers, you
should have received a sub request form already. Please send in ASAP.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Adam Dysart
>> Curriculum Specialist, Mathematics
>> Seattle Public Schools
>> 206-252-0135<tel:206-252-0135>
>> Elementary Math fusion
>> page<http://mathelementary.mysps.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/in
>> tegrated_home.phtml?gid=3797336&msg_notify=FusionPage+description+upd
>> ated.&sessionid=81e854149a02f56c3f9dc1be7e55b8e3>
>

From: Sipe, Shawn L
To: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: FW: (Program components/cost) Information needed from Top 4 for Round 2
Date: Wednesday, J anuary 22, 2014 12:19:30 PM
Adam,
FYI: Susan and Craig intend to have us meet briefly on each RFP in the next two weeks or so to go
over which materials are necessary and which are supplemental or not needed in each program.
The pricing they are getting includes bundles and they may contain some unnecessary items that
would bring our pricing down if not included.

Would it be appropriate to include a committee member in these meetings, perhaps Patricia
Robertson, to help identify these items?

Also, will you forward the appropriate items from below to Susan?

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

From: Sue Fluegel (Basecamp) [mailto:notifications@basecamp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, J anuary 22, 2014 11:42 AM
To: Sipe, Shawn L
Subject: (Program components/cost) Information needed from Top 4 for Round 2

Write ABOVE THIS LINE to post a reply or view this on Basecamp
Sue Fluegel posted this message on Basecamp.
Information needed from Top 4 for Round 2
As I reviewed the materials for the first round I came up with a few
questions/concerns that I hope will be addressed during round 2. Ideally, I'd like
the publishers to be made aware of the questions/concerns PRIOR to round 2 so
they are able to respond.
Go Math! - The on-line student book does not contain active hyperlinks. The error
message was "SmartLinks (Beta) are not available for this chapter." What is the
status of this functionality?
Go Math! - The program allows for creating customized tests and an online
assessment system that provides instant results and prescriptions for
interventions. Does Houghton Mifflin have a system loaded with fake data so we
can review this tool?
My Math - "My Math App" is available for iPad/iPod/iPhone. Will it be available for
Android?
My Math - "Question Item Analysis" is part of the "eAssessment" tool. Does
McGrawHill have a system loaded with fake data so we can review this tool?
enVision - Is "ExamView Assessment Suite" available via CD-ROM only? Or, is
there an on-line version where tests can be created and stored by teachers and
then accessed by students? Does Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley have a system
loaded with fake data that we can review?
enVision - If enVision is selected will "eText" and "eTools" and "Tools4Math" be
included in the package we purchase? Does Foresman-Wesley have an on-line
video demo for these tools we can review during round 2?
Math in Focus - Interactive Whiteboard lessons are available. Will Houghton Mifflin
provide assess to us to review these materials during round 2?
View this on Basecamp
This email was sent to: Adam Dysart, Martin Mcintosh, Martin McIntosh, Debbie Bermet,
lee.chanhom@seattleschools.org, Dao Mai, Diana Einmo, Paula Eisenrich, Damon Ellingston, Andrea Escame-
Hedger, cihenton@seattleschools.org, Kerim Aydin, Nancy Kiser, Sabrina KS, Lola Bradford, John Leahy, Tricia
Lewicki, Aschenaki Lulu, Mark Taylor, Morena Newton, Fred Ngobi, Sally Ngyen, Beth Orme, Patricia Robertson,
Phyllis Lewis, Rick Burke, Shawn Sipe, Matt Steml, Kristen Wagler, barbara@bgrantgroup.com, and Sue Fluegel.
Stop receiving emails when comments are posted about this message.
Subject: RFI10318 Go Math Questions/Clarification needed from T & L
Date: Tuesday, J anuary 21, 2014 4:04:43 PM
Importance: High

Hello,

Craig and I have evaluated the RFI submittal for Houghton Mifflin-Go Math and would like your
input. Vendor/Publisher Questionnaire. I have pasted a few of the questions we asked below
and ask that you answer/comment by typing in RED below my question to you.

a) In addition to first year adoption materials/services cost, please advise any
ongoing/future years costs associated with your offering.

H/Ms Response to our question above-
The only required cost for the district is for purchase of the student textbooks. There are
some consumables available with the program but these are optional resources.

Does T & L require referenced consumables?

2. TECHNOLOGY

b) Will staff and students be provided with unlimited access and capability to download and
print electronic versions of all offered hard copy instruction materials?
H/M response:
Our textbooks are available in online formats. Access is granted on a subscription basis
(see Cost Proposals).
We cannot grant unlimited access to download and print these items. Each copy is to be
accessed by one student/teacher via online registration. Our agreements with both
content and image rights holders do not allow us to give unlimited access to the
materials. Permission to reproduce our print and non-print materials can only be
granted on a case-by-case basis. Please submit your requests in writing to our Copyrights
and Permission Department at Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 9400 Southpark Center Loop,
Orlando, Florida 32819.

Note: to T & L
Purchasing seems to recall from previous adoptions that we were able to negotiate a scenario
something like the following
1) A one to one ratio of hard copy book and electronic copy access. If Jane is assigned a hard
copy book she also gets full/unlimited access to the electronic version for whatever period
of time she is in the class.
2) If Jane moves out of town and now John gets Janes returned hard copy book, then John
should also have unlimited access to Janes unused electronic copy as well (with no
penalty/extra fee to be paid)
3) If the District wants to teach 100 new students (not planned for in the adoption) would
T&Ls plan be to buy them each a new book (and hopefully receive unlimited online access
on a per book sold basis) or would T & L ever attempt to instruct by using only stand
alone electronic access?
4) Does T & L desire unlimited electronic access without a corresponding book being
purchased? If so, is the stand alone electronic access expected/desired to be at no charge
thru the life of the adoption?

e) Please advise any costs associated with supplying audio, e-book, etc.

To T & L: Is the audio content described the e-STUDENT EDITION bundle acceptable for
you?

3. HARDCOVER VS. SOFTCOVER CURRICULUM MATERIALS

a) Our District prefers Hardcover versions of all textual materials. Please advise if any
textual materials you are quoting are other than hard-cover version. If you desire to
offer soft-cover pricing in addition to hard-cover pricing, please clearly indicate on the
attached Request for Quotation form.

Go Math! worktext are soft cover consumables and will be renewed yearly as specified on
the attached Cost Proposals. The only required cost for the district is for purchase of the
student textbooks. There are some consumables available with the program but these
are optional resources

T & L questionPurchasing could not locate an item referred to as worktext soft cover
consumable on publisher cost proposal. Please confirm if this worktext/consumable item(s) is a
required component for you. According to H & Ms previous statement.(pasted here) the
consumables are options and not required.

Thanks, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Susan Johnston
Buyer
206-252-0569 Phone
206-252-0505 Fax

Cc: Caldwell, Eric; Sipe, Shawn L
Subject: RE: RFI10318 K-5 Core Math Adoption-Pearson enVision questions for T & L
Date: Friday, J anuary 17, 2014 1:10:21 PM
Responses are below in Red, as requested. I have added some questions that I would like
answered prior to responding to the publisher.
Eric, please confirm this all falls within typical bounds of purchasing license or access to materials.
Can we negotiate a potential future cost adjustment depending on the degree of access needed or
requested?

Sent: Friday, J anuary 17, 2014 9:31 AM
Subject: RFI10318 K-5 Core Math Adoption-Pearson enVision questions for T & L
Importance: High

Good Morning All,

Craig and I are evaluating the RFI submittals and need your input regarding Pearsons response to
the Vendor/Publisher Questionnaire. I have highlighted the portion that I would like you to be
aware of and welcome your comments by typing in RED below my question to you.
Thank you,

2. Technology
Requirement
a) With technology constantly changing, please provide a brief description of current applications and those
planned for implementation over the next several years.
Response
Currently, enVisionMATH Common Core now has anywhere, anytime access to all instruction, resources, data, and
professional developmentdelivered instantly and easily at point-of-use through PearsonRealize.com (Realize).
The platform is SPS online destination for Common Core State Standards (CCSS) curriculum, flexible management
tools, and embedded assessments. SPS can access this brand-new platform with PC or Mac computers, laptops
and tablets.

The Realize platform provides the following benefits:
Resources at your fingertips to make planning, classroom management, and progress monitoring
easy
New TOCs that support the CCSS even more fully
Listen and Look For Videos for every lesson at every grade
Additional Visual Learning Animations to match every lesson
Game Center with fun games at every level that help develop math understanding
Full mobile access on any device
Eight Mathematical Practice Animations per grade

Requirement
b) Will staff and students be provided with unlimited access and capability to download and print electronic
versions of all offered hard copy instruction materials?
Response
Yes, with the purchase of materials for each student a license is provided for online access. Is this OK
with you? Yes; however do we want to ask about potentially having access to online access only with
the advent of tablets and not be restricted to pairing access with a printed booklet?
Requirement
c) Are there any hard or soft costs associated with unlimited access or printing rights?
Response
No; however, SPS cannot print complete student editions without purchase. This is against copyright law.
This is OK with Purchasing, any issues for T & L? This seems about right, but again makes me
wonder about access to some electronic resources without consumable purchase.

4. Adoption Materials Delivery Schedule
Requirement
a) If the District places an order with your firm by the first week of June 2014, are there any offered materials
(tangible, web based or otherwise) that would not arrive at the District the first week of August 2014?
Response
All English and Spanish print materials will be ready for delivery the first week of August 2014. The English Digital
Courseware (with the exception of the teachers Listen and Look For Videos for grades K2) will also be ready for
delivery the first week of August. We are currently finalizing schedules on the release dates for the Spanish Digital
Courseware. A final release schedule can be provided to SPS by February 1, 2014. See the requirement below for
additional details on our current plan for delivering digital content.
Is possible delay on Spanish Digital a problem for T & L? Not likely. Professional Development is
currently slated for August.

Requirement
b) Please list any items that would not be available by the first week of August 2014.
Response
Listen and Look For Videos for Grades K2. These teacher-facing professional development videos
are scheduled to be completed and live online by the first week of August. However, in the event that
these are delayed, we will execute a rolling deployment of these videos with earliest topics of the
program going live first and later topics following soon after. All videos should be live online by the
end of August 2014. Seems appropriate as long as some access is granted and roll-out coincides
with long term professional development agreement. That is, if follow-up is negotiated, all necessary
components will be made available according to this schedule. Especially if this is PD material, not
components necessary to daily instruction.
Spanish Digital Courseware. Due to the time needed to translate the English program into Spanish,
there may be a delay in pushing the entire courseware live by the first week of August for Spanish.
However, in the event that we are not able to provide the full courseware live by the first week of
August, we will focus on making the first four topics (two months worth of content) live by the first
week of August 2014. The remaining Spanish content will go live in a rolling, sequential process so
that the rest of the Spanish courseware will be completed by the end of September 2014.
Is this OK with T & L? Yes

Thanks, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Susan Johnston
Buyer
206-252-0569 Phone
206-252-0505 Fax

From: CTB_Smarterbalanced16/17
To: Farmer, Elissa; CTB_Smarterbalanced16/17
Subject: RE: Data Review Batch for Math Gr 9 - 11 batch 12_Farmer Complete
Date: Friday, December 20, 2013 10:28:55 AM
Thank you for your feedback, Elissa. It's very much appreciated. I'll pass this information along to the appropriate
people. Regarding your third bullet, we can certainly compensate you for the extra time that you spent reviewing
these items. Is it possible for you to please estimate and provide to me the amount of hours it took you to review
your batches?
Jana McCarty, Program Manager
CTB/McGraw-Hill Education | 20 Ryan Ranch Road | Monterey, CA 93940-5703
Ph: 831-393-6767 | C: 831-334-9062 | F: 831-393-7050 | E: jana_mccarty@ctb.com
From: Farmer, Elissa [mailto:erfarmer@seattleschools.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:57 PM
To: CTB_Smarterbalanced16/17
Subject: Data Review Batch for Math Gr 9 - 11 batch 12_Farmer Complete
Hello,
Here is the excel spreadsheet for my second batch of data review items. I had some questions that I was unsure
about:
1) I'm not sure any of my suggestions/questions/clarifications in the excel spreadsheet are going to make sense to
the person looking at them, so please let me know if I need to add more or different commentary.
2) I assumed that no problems in the batch had any calculator available. I couldn't tell from any of the
documentation, so I just went by what I saw on the web preview. Depending on whether students will have a
calculator available, some of my recommendations might have been different.
3) Not a complaint - just an observation. I did accessibility review and got $100 per batch of about 30 questions.
This review took me substantially longer (it required much more research and doing of mathematics) than any of
the accessibility reviews, yet the pay is $1.00 per item. I figure I made between $5 and $10 per hour for this work.
It was interesting and I'm glad I did it, but I'm not sure I would agree to it again given the large time investment for
relatively little pay. You may want to consider adjusting your pay rates to reflect this.
If there's anything more I can do to clarify my reviews, please let me know.
Best,
-Elissa Farmer
Elissa Farmer
Curriculum Specialist, Math
(206) 252-0166
erfarmer@seattleschools.org
The information contained in this message is intended only for the recipient, and may be a confidential attorney-
client communication or may otherwise be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, please be aware that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. McGraw-Hill Education reserves the right, subject to applicable local law, to
monitor, review and process the content of any electronic message or information sent to or from McGraw-Hill
Education e-mail addresses without informing the sender or recipient of the message. By sending electronic
message or information to McGraw-Hill Education e-mail addresses you, as the sender, are consenting to McGraw-
Hill Education processing any of your personal data therein.
To: DeBurle, Lisa
Cc: Sipe, Shawn L
Subject: RE: Math Adoption
Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:02:43 PM
So the process involves two stages of program review (by Board policy). For the 1
st
stage, which is
where were at, the purchasing and procurement dpt consults with the adoption coordinators to
conduct an RFI, or bid, for any program to submit. We do not solicit for submissions or in any way
contact publishers to request a submission. The RFI follows a very prescribed route and disperses
the bid as widely as possible.

Second stage follows a similar script, excepting for it is now an RFP with more defined language
around cost, etc. This will go out to the 2-3 finalists that emerge from stage 1.

I do know that Bridges contacted our purchasing and procurement folks during the RFI. As to why
they did not submit, I can only speculate. Could have been an alignment issue, production on their
end, cost per pupil, or any number of other reasons.

It is unfortunate. We were hoping for as wide and deep a pool of candidate programs as possible.

From: DeBurle, Lisa
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:07 AM
To: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: Math Adoption

Adam,

Thank you for keeping us all in the loop with the math adoption. I was surprised to not see Bridges
to Mathematics on the list of curriculums being looked at. Im a 3
rd
grade teacher, and Ive used
some of the Bridges online materials. Its really great stuff thats hands-on and asks the kids to do
deep thinking about concepts. I know they presently only have K-2 curriculum aligned with
Common Core but that 3
rd
5
th
grade is supposed to be completed this year. Could you let me
know how the seven curriculums were chosen and why Bridges is not on the list?

Thank you,
Lisa

Lisa DeBurle
Pathfinder K-8
Room 307

From: Sloane, Valerie C
To: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: RE: Math Learning Center
Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 1:16:12 PM
Well darn They are a small non-profit doing amazing things.

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 1:15 PM
To: Sloane, Valerie C

Yes, unfortunately. I do know they were aware of the opportunity, so it is hard to say why they
declined to submit could have been for other reasons. (like cost)

To: Dysart, Adam W

Is it too late?


Well then I dont know why they didnt submit.

To: Dysart, Adam W

The new second edition of Bridges is completely aligned with common core.
http://www.mathlearningcenter.org/bridges/overview


I believe they are not completely aligned yet.

Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 4:11 PM
To: Dysart, Adam W

Oh darn
I wonder why they didnt?


Yes, I followed up and apparently they contacted procurement with follow-up questions about the
RFI, but did not submit their program for review.

To: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: Math Learning Center

Hi Adam,

Were you able to contact the Math Learning Center about sharing Bridges, etc. adoption materials
up here?

I see its not on the list to review.

http://www.mathlearningcenter.org/

Thanks,
Valerie Sloane
K-5 STEM
From: Box, Anna M
To: Heath, Shauna L; Caldwell, Eric; Sipe, Shawn L; Dysart, Adam W
Subject: today"s conversation about the elem math adoption
Date: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:20:35 PM
Hi All,
Thanks for the time this morning. Heres what I think we said:

Lets have the committee move forward and carefully consider the texts that have been submitted.
The good news is that the number to consider is very manageable and can be done in the short
time frame we have.

Some additional next steps in general are:
Shawn and Adam will forward to Anna the emails they are getting from the larger public
about the adoption. Anna will create, post and regularly update an FAQ based on these.
The math department will listen and look for examples of schools and teachers that are
finding ways to adapt, extend and/or modify teaching materials as needed. They will try to
observe these practices and systems and look for ways to scale up the process to all
schools.
Shawn worked with Tracy Libros to produce an accurate estimate of the number of K-5
students we have in SPS. This number will help us estimate the cost of textbooks.
Adam will research states that have a short list of approved texts for adoption to see if
the texts that have been submitted to us are on these lists.

Anna
From: Sipe, Shawn L
Cc: Dysart, Adam W
Subject: Go math spreadsheets
Date: Thursday, April 17, 2014 6:09:50 PM
Importance: High
Susan,

I compared the items on our original RFI with those on the RFQ(?) that Go Math supplied. The
items are all the same and the numbers of student and teacher materials are the same as we
requested and got from enVision. (5,000 students and 250 teachers per grade.)

However, their cost total at the end of year 1, before the extra years, does not match their cost at
the end of 7 years on the short emailed sheet that shows all three programs. They show
$2,734,588.04 as the total price on the short sheet, but the same price BEFORE the extra years on
the spreadsheet. The true total on the spreadsheet with only years 2 through 5 extra pricing
should be $3,956,136. And as we discussed before, this also doesnt include any PD costs.

I would also like to know what we are purchasing in years 2-7. Their text for each grade is a
paperback student book bundled with a practice workbook, both which can be written in by the
student. They price that at $91.50. The charges they list for years 2-5 come to $10.17 per
student. What are we receiving for that $10.17? Both? Or just the practice book? It seems like
there are hidden costs here!

I didnt get a chance to look at Math In Focus. Call me at home tomorrow if you have questions.
.

Shawn Eckman Sipe
(206)-252-0227
MS 22-636

RCW 42.56.250(3)
To: Heath, Shauna L
Subject: RE: Principal math comments
Hi Shauna,
Thanks for getting back to me, and I would appreciate the opportunity to talk this through. If it's
possible to give me a call at 6:30, my cell is
As you can imagine, Schmitz Park is in a different place than most other schools, having invested six
year of deep work with Singapore Math. I did review all the materials among the finalists, hoping that I
would like an alternative to Math in Focus, but unfortunately I walked away feeling emphatic that a
move to enVision would set our building back. That said, we desperately need to update our materials
and reinvigorate our math learning -- we've just hired too many new people in the last couple of years
who don't have as much invested in our practice (I wish we'd done better on this front, but it's pretty
limited when we're only allowed to hire the last week of August). I want to switch to Math in Focus, but
I cannot saddle parents with the cost of funding that separately. Schmitz Park is perceived as being far
more affluent than it is, and we asked for PTA coverage for math, that would come out of other critical
interventions that parents fund.
I absolutely respect the importance of system alignment and I respect the capacity challenge we face,
so we are in full agreement on this front and I will support it. For what it's worth, I wish we had had a
chance to talk about the concept of a dual-adoption first, however, before the memo from Michael
today. I think in many ways we could agree that a dual adoption might have better supported system
alignment and capacity issues in the long-run. That said, I recognize that I would not have been out in
front advocating for dual adoption if the decision had been for Math in Focus (but I would have
supported it if the idea had come from somebody else who supported envision).
My inclination is always to talk about system solutions, not to single out Schmitz Park for special
treatment. That's not good for the system, and it's not very interesting to think about:) At this point,
however, I would appreciate your help thinking about how to support Schmitz Park in this situation.
Our teachers, parents and students have invested too much time and energy into making our Singapore
Math program work, and I owe it to them to keep the momentum going.
Thanks,
Gerrit
Gerrit,
I apologize that I didn't get to this sooner. I might have time on my way to a meeting at 6:30 tonight
to chat. In case that doesn't work I will offer my initial response.
As I said before we do not have the funds and/or the capacity to support two programs. In addition to
the fact that I believe that this would continue to divide the system. Again, the waiver process, although
not guaranteed, is a way that schools can utilize other programs.
I am not sure if you have review envisions, but it offers a reading component as well as a differentiation
RCW 42.56.250(3)
component. In other words, the text can be read electronically for those students who struggle with
reading. I would really like to have you talk to Adam about the benefits of this program.
Please let me know if 6:30 works and where to call.
Best,
Shauna
To: Heath, Shauna L
Hi Shauna,
I'd love to talk to you sometime Thursday. I'd love to explore with you the possibility of doing a dual-
adoption that would give buildings a choice between enVision and Math in Focus. I can see that this
would be more complicated/expensive on the management end, but I think it would be the way to
ensure effective buy-in at the building level and avoid making people feel boxed into a one-size-fits-all
corner. There are many reasons why a high ELL school, for example, might really prefer a less
language-intensive program like Math in Focus.
Thanks,
Gerrit
To: Kischner, Gerrit; Anderson, Eric M; Box, Anna M
Cc: Tolley, Michael F; Block, Kae H
Gerrit,
We will find a time to meet with you about the data. I am letting Eric respond to what we can and
cannot do with the data. I know that policy says peer schools with standardized tests. It does not go
into detail about the perimeters around the metrics.
As far as applying for a waiver, I would say since Math In Focus is not the same as Singapore Math you
could apply for a new waiver. I agree that we want to encourage innovation, but with a new adopted
material that is more consistently aligned with CCSS I would encourage that the innovation focus at a
supplemental level and professional development rather than shifts in adopted materials. That said, all
funds will be going toward the purchase of the new materials so there will be no monetary support for
waivers outside of the adoption.
Best,
Shauna
________________________________________
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 9:57 PM
To: Anderson, Eric M; Heath, Shauna L; Box, Anna M
Thanks all,
If you land on a good time to talk, let me know. With MSP, I'm not terribly flexible in the mornings, but
after lunch it's easier for me to get down or join a meeting by speaker phone.
Schmitz Park is going to be an interesting data study. On the face of it, our MSP scores do not look
super strong, although I believe a huge allowance has to be given for the amount of growth we have
had to manage. This has added a huge number of kids at very grade level -- it hasn't just been growth
entering at Kindergarten -- and it has meant that no grade level team of teachers has been stable for
two years running for three years until this year. Can we pull out students who are two or more years
in the building, and can we look at cohort growth rather than absolute scores? The SCI is a great way
to isolate peer comparison except for this growth factor (as I recall, it does preclude comparison to a
school like Lafayette that has Spectrum, am I right?).
Shauna, my other question is around what you see as our options at this stage. The edition of
Singapore Math that we are currently using is old, and we've held off changing it until we knew about
the District adoption. If the Board does not choose to adopt Math in Focus, is there anything to
preclude Schmitz Park for applying for a waiver to do Math in Focus, not Singapore per se? What is the
likelihood that there would be money available to pay for these materials?
Schmitz Park has a lot invested in its practice in Singapore Math, and as our enrollment stabilizes and
we move to a new building, I would love to see us stick with it and invest further in developing our
mathematical practice in this way. I think that the District has a great interest in developing this kind of
focused work and ongoing innovation, and that is the reason for the waiver process in the first place.
Thanks for your guidance on this.
Gerrit
________________________________________
From: Anderson, Eric M
To: Heath, Shauna L; Kischner, Gerrit; Box, Anna M
Yes, my calendar is up to date!
Eric
To: Anderson, Eric M; Kischner, Gerrit; Box, Anna M
Thanks Eric! If you have time next week to meet with Anna and I we can chat about how we can get
the information needed to evaluate the Schmitz Park waiver.
Best,
Shauna
From: Anderson, Eric M
To: Heath, Shauna L; Kischner, Gerrit; Box, Anna M
We have a method for identifying peer schools using a school characteristics index (SCI) generated from
a regression analysis of statewide data. We will be using this SCI method extensively next year in our
measurement and accountability work. Gerrit is aware of this since we have been discussing it in our
scorecard committee.
Eric
To: Kischner, Gerrit; Box, Anna M
Cc: Anderson, Eric M; Tolley, Michael F
Gerrit,
I know Anna answered your math questions. As far as the waiver we are in the process of creating a
superintendent procedure to define how we evaluate waivers after the three years. As you know your
scores are to be compared with peer schools, "Schools for which a waiver is granted must take all
relevant district and state assessments, and must, on average over the 3-year waiver period, meet or
exceed the gains demonstrated by peer schools that are using the district-adopted materials for all
segments of their population in order to continue using the alternative basic instructional materials."
We need to determine how we identify peer schools. Since your scores need to be greater on average
than your peer schools that will be the determining factor rather than the adoption. In other words,
even if we adopt a new resource you can still apply for a waiver again as long as your scores meet this
criteria. I will meet with the program managers and Eric Anderson in the next week or two to identify
how what criteria will be used to identify peer schools. Since you are the first in this process we will
draft something and make time to discuss with you as quickly as possible.
Hope this helps!
Shauna
________________________________________
To: Box, Anna M; Heath, Shauna L
Subject: Principal math comments
Hello Anna and Shauna,
I finally got down to view the math adoption materials today, and walked away feeling prett
emphatically in favor of one curriculum and pretty skeptical about the other two. What would you say
is the most appropriate way for principals to share their opinions of the curriculum options?
Also, something I found missing in the idea of aligning to the CCSS is a sense for how the curriculum
supports the "practice standards." These, I believe, are critical, especially in choosing one curriculum
over another. When practice standards are applied, I feel there is a clear winner.
Last question, not because I want to ask this but because I'm getting asked this a lot by Schmitz Park
parents because the SP waiver expires this year: if a school wants to apply for a waiver from whatever
curriculum is ultimately adopted, when would these applications be due following the adoption decision?
Thanks,
Gerrit
From: Murphy, Craig
To: Box, Anna M
Cc: Heath, Shauna L; J ohnston, Susan; Westgard, Bob
Subject: RFP0244 K-5 MATH PUBLISHER PRICE TABULATIONS
Attachments: RFP02440 K-5 MATH FINALISTS PRICE COMPARISON 25 APRIL 2014.xls
RFP02440 TABULATION GO MATH HOUGHTON MIFFLIN 4 24 14.xls
RFP02440 TABULATION FOR EN VISION PEARSON 4 24 14.xls
RFP02440 TABULATION MATH IN FOCUS HOUGHTON MIFFLIN 4 24 14.xls
25/April/2014

Hi Anna,
.
Sorry for delay.
.
Yes, you may share the 24 April e-mail as you see fit.
.
We are also including here, the price tabulations/comparison for RFP. You are welcome to consider
the pricing information and share with appropriate stakeholders within your established
processes/timelines.
.
Wed like to have a separate conversation with you/Shauna regarding phone interviews we had
with finalists.
.
Im headed out for the day but you are welcome to contact me on my personal cell..
if you have questions.
.
Thanks,

Phone: 206-252-0570
Fax: 206-252-0505

From: Box, Anna M
To: Murphy, Craig
Subject: RE: DRAFT FOR YOUR REVIEW RFP0244 K-5 MATH RE: Request for information pertaining to
math adoption costs

Hi Craig, May I share this with the adoption coordinators, Adam Dysart and Shawn Sipe? Thanks

From: Murphy, Craig
To: Wiley, Delinda
RCW 42.56.250(3)
math adoption costs

24/April/2014

Hi Delinda,
.
.
.
.
.
th
e-mail.
.
others.
.

Thanks,

Phone: 206-252-0570
Fax: 206-252-0505


Financial information will be separately analyzed and presented to the Board, along with
your recommendation
Warmest regards,
Michael F. Tolley

To: Murphy, Craig

Hi Craig,


Thank you.

DeLinda

From: Murphy, Craig
To: Wiley, Delinda

Hi Delinda,
.
.
.
Thanks,

Phone: 206-252-0570
Fax: 206-252-0505

To: Murphy, Craig
Importance: High

Hi Craig,


Thank you.

DeLinda


Craig and Susan,


Shauna

To: Peters, Susan M

Director Peters,

these questions.

Thank you.

Michael Tolley

Cc: Banda, J ose L

surprised by the discrepancy and would like to be certain that the vendors' quotes accurately
correspond to the district's request (i.e .that we are looking at apples to apples comparisons in what the
vendors would provide the district by way of materials and support).
complete documentation of the RFP for the K-5 math adoption and any related documentation
pertaining to costs, from both the district and the vendors. Please share this information with the board.
Regards,

Sue Peters
206-252-0040 / Fax 206-252-0101

1314-246 Emails Redacted

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1314-246 Emails Redacted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From: Sipe, Shawn L

To: Heath, Shauna L; Barbello, J ulie A; English, Ron; Tolley, Michael F

Initial Program Overview for 1800 educators before mid-August 2014

Four Parent University Nights in year one

Initial Program Overview for 1800 educators before mid-August 2014

Four Parent University Nights in year one

You might also like