Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 25, 2013 10:30pm-11:01pm PDT

10:30 pm
cost us $163 per a d.a.? that seems low to me. >> to know what the cost is we have to look at the total district wide ada including charter schools and we have to look at the total net cost to the district after accounting for state and federal funds. that probably would be over $500 per ada. i'm pretty sure it would be. we had in the past limit it to $500 but we are still losing the charters to the el dorado and we looked at the revenue we bring inverses -- versus what we lose. >> i would like to see that cost analysis and would like to request it in the future. i understand we can't anticipate when we consider charter proposals what the charter might do about contracting with
10:31 pm
others like the el dorado county. however, i think we based on passed practices we ought to be able to consent to present to the board the likely loss of revenue and also to, i would like us to have the opportunity to actual analyze the whole issue of the general fund support for special education on the impact of the loss of charter on students through charter. it seems very clear to me that this using is a way to doing that when they agreed to this was only fair. also there are plenty other areas where we have in our agreements with charters sort of taking that into account when we were presuming that there was a kind of agreement
10:32 pm
whether in writing or simply the discussion that we had about trying to treat each other fairly. i would make reference to our inclusion in our set aside revenue. all of those things that are based on the presumptions with our community partner that it was a different class of san francisco schools that were our charters and that we had collective responsibilities to each other and seems to me that what we are seeing is the development that you have a responsibility to us to fundus, but we have no responsibility to the rest of the city. i would like to actually have the board of access to the actual financial analysis at the very least. >> okay. so perhaps, as part of the larger discussion about the charter mou's and the rules committee we can look at that fiscal analysis because that
10:33 pm
does come under what our agreements with them are. the other issue that i was interested in came up recently in the high school because the high school began to accept applications for the fall 2014-semester october 4th which is early. and it's in my opinion a way to whether they intended it or not it's the way to cherry pick students. i'm just wondering first of all if this is anything in the mou right no you that talks about them adhering to the same deadlines that we do and when we would be able to insert that in this year or in the future years mou? >> the mou does not require that in its current form.
10:34 pm
>> and we can't amend it now because? >> i would refer that for general council. >> it's a complicated issue but i will give the quick discussion of it. until board approves the mou's they are not in existence. they are subject to the board approval. should the board choose not to approve the mou's it would force to renegotiation. if that was being renegotiated was one that the district could not legally compel the charter school to do, then we would be faced with two possible situations. a, the mou just wouldn't ge signed and we have been in that position before for all or most of the
10:35 pm
school year. the only user not sign both parties pretty much appear to the mou's but the issue would not get resolved. the other people if the charter school refused to sign the mou, the real only solution the board has with the charter school is a vote to revoke the charter and the authority under which to do that, the grounds for revocation of a charter -- >> i'm trying to concentrate on what legal council is saying and there is a lot of chitchat. >> the ground are very specific and the charter school lacked was originally designed and continues to exist which gives charter school a great deal of latitude in how they run their
10:36 pm
operations and how they run their admissions and with a few enumerated exceptions. they have pretty wide latitude in that regard. they can't refuse to admit other san francisco unified students, they have to oipt open it up to all comers. in a situation like this i would be very guarded to recommend to the board to not agree with these mou's for this year and we could have more at the rules committee and then put it for next year and whether they are successful or not and if not, with the same board that i have just discussed.
10:37 pm
>> every charter that we have says that the charter school will sign a memorandum up of understanding with the school district. so, they can't, even though we might have let them in the past, legally speaking they are not allowed to operate without the mo u. >> i agree. we have not forced that in the past. the reason we do not sign this mou is because of this provision that the district is on thin legal ice to enforce then we get to the dilemma where the district might get into something and i would never recommend that situation. >> i guess my judgment on this situation is to have an agreement that has been fully negotiated with at least one substantive change and brought to the board to vote on and we
10:38 pm
are told, i mean, i have no, i accepted your advice, but we are told that you have to vote on it pause if you don't vote on it you are operating against legal council. why are we here anyway? go about your business. >> i just want to be clear when i said there are no mou's unless board approves them. that's your legal council advice. the second issue might be ill advised. >> i'm being a little bit facetious. maybe not. i'm trying to make a point if we are entering into an agreement with charter schools and if the board has enough specific ways ways of doing business i think we need a little bit of a heads up at least to say we are embarking on the negotiation with the charter schools of the
10:39 pm
operations, the mou's the facility ace use agreement and do you have any thoughts so it doesn't come to us already negotiated and everybody signed off and our option is to start a war ora prove what you have already negotiated and that doesn't seem like a good option. >> i would want to point this out first of all, this is is sort of at the very least uncomfortable but an actual fact puts us at a disadvantage. we are required to discuss this in public. as supervisor norton points out a negotiation on our behalf that is already concluded without us knowing anything about it until this we get this on friday or thursday.
10:40 pm
we don't know anything about what has already been negotiated. i think it's a terrible problem for us. further, i think this situation with gateway is a perfect example of the dynamics of these negotiations. well, we found no matter how we operated, we can do whatever we want. our expectation that we have agreements not every specific point of which is outlined in the mou is, there is as i understand it, there is sort of a point of law of the expectation of practices will continue because after all, they were not the specificity of that process was not only not outlined for the school,
10:41 pm
but not outlined for us. i would like to know if there are things in the mou about the enrollment process where for instance they have access to the enrollment fair and there are things that we can negotiate here and i personally do not believe that we ought to agree to the at the very least to the mou with gateway tonight. i think that we should, if we've asked for this to be referred to the rules committee, my personal preference is that we postpone the whole thing. however at the very least, i'm requesting that we do this for the gateway mou. >> legal council, any ramifications to our postponing this and having a rules discussion and having a later meeting? >> as the academic year has already begun, postponing, i recommend if that's the action
10:42 pm
of the board that the rules committee meeting be sped expedited so these issues can be discussed and resolved. >> so expedite that we have a meeting sooner than october 15th? >> i didn't mean sooner than that, just the next scheduled one we'll certainly do. >> it's scheduled for october 16th which means it will not come back until the board meeting of october 24th. if you are saying there is no serious ramifications to doing that, i'm supportive of commissioner wynns proposal. >> how does everybody else feel? >> i guess, do i have to move that or just look for general
10:43 pm
consent? >> i was going to say that we have the facility's use agreement. i understand and heard everything that was said and if that's the will of the board, we'll get all the information to rules and go from this. on the facility's use agreement, the substantive change is that we have increase the square foot charge to the charter schools from $0.95 where it has been from 2007 to $1.87 so it increases the level to the school district to $600,000. so that's the substantive change there. >> we knew about that. we were very supportive of that. >> that's true. >> is it possible to acton them separately? >> it is possible.
10:44 pm
>> would you be willing to move the substantive agreement is the only change to move the charter schools from $0.95 and hold the memorandum of understanding? >> that would be fine with me. >> that would be fine with me as well. are we making a formal motion. >> i think we would have to do it formally unless the superintendant just says yes we'll postpone and takes it off and moves: we don't need a formal action. >> this is the superintendant's proposal and he will take it off. the memorandum of understanding. we will vote to move ahead on the facilities use agreement agreement for the various charter schools. i'm getting looks that i don't, okay. i'm getting nods.
10:45 pm
>> yes, let's move on. >> i got blank looks. >> we are now going to, are there any further comments by the board. we are moving forward and have a roll call on the facilities use agreements only. >> miss wei, mr. logan, fewer, mr. haney, mr. maufas votes yes, miss mcdonnell, murase, wynns and norton. 7 ayes. >> now we are going to move to our second order of business. the career educational advisory committee. may i have a reading of the recommendation please. i need a motion and a second. >> so moved. >> may have a reading of the
10:46 pm
recommendation please. i would like to ask lauren moran to do the reading, please. >> you have the reading prepared? >> good evening, board members. we are asking for membership appointment to the sfusd clear technical education advisory
10:47 pm
committee the requested action that the board of education to the advisory committee. tarn tad oh, gary frund, stephen curie, glen, eagle son, charles vez gnaw, kimberly will cough, >> thank you, no public speakers. any comments? >> yes, i think these appointments are fine. except i would like to see somebody from ucsf there and someone from city built considering we have a new round of internships. i believe i have spoken to staff about it. i just want to put it on the record. >> thank you. we'll be adding
10:48 pm
more members. there are other members and we'll be happy to add those. we can expand this committee. >> i want to be sure that the committee reflects our student body as well. i want to be sure that asian americans, african americans, latinos, pacific islanders are represented among the group. can you tell me that? >> we have some diversity on this group. as you see we've got more in particular asian americans, we've invited the dean of ucsf. if you want as a follow up, the new dean of education. i can send you the ethnic breakdown. >> thank you. commissioner mendoza mcdonnell? i
10:49 pm
>> i want to thank you for pull this together and you know the program is expanding and we've been working with a lot of industry. this will help to guide the work we want to do around our academies. even though it was difficult to get folks, this is definitely a lot of interest out this and people wanting to support our academies and in the coming months and in elk year we are going to see a lot of robust programming coming through because of this support. as a member of the larger community and in particular of this advisory committee will help us to formulate some really strong strands. >> any other comments from the board? commissioner maufas. >> i heard the comment about the dean of the sf, he has an amazing background in social
10:50 pm
justice. i'm happy to hear he's on this committee. >> okay. seeing no further comments from the board, roll call please. >> thank you, miss wei, mr. logan, miss fewer, mr. haney, miss maufas, miss mendoza mcdonnell, dr. murase, miss wynns, and miss norton. 7 ayes. >> thank you. all right. we will now move on to item millimeter -- m, discussion of other issues. we have three items. superintendant carranza. there is a presentation so we'll need to open up the wall and move to the side. >> thank you, present ez norton. i would like to call
10:51 pm
for the investigation standards. ruth robsky is our coordinator of family partnerships and okay is here our director of services. >> we do not have a powerpoint. >> good evening, board commissioners, superintendant carranza, youth commissioners, this is the first time i'm meeting you. i'm a coordinator for family and partnerships with office of community engagement. >> gooeven, my name is kim director of community schools. and we are going to give you a pretty quick update on the
10:52 pm
status of the family engagement standards. we are going to talk a little bit about the standards themselves and how we are going to be expanding, how we are expanding our systems to support family engagement at schools across sfusd and conditions for implementing the standards. i know that most of you know about this amazing publication for folks in the audience. this is the district's updated strategic plan for 2013-15. it's a great publication and page 6, which i carry around with me a lot. this publication actually really talks a lot about our theory of action for supporting students and the structures and the commitment it takes to really make sure that every student can graduate ready for college, for career, for their life to come. one -- so in this strategic plan includes our
10:53 pm
strategies for success. one of those strategies is increase awareness and build the supports in necessary to fully support the engagement standards which i find very exciting. and those standards were just updated. i think that you are all aware that in 2009, the board of education passed the resolution calling on us to create a wide district family plan. there are quite a few staff changes in the district. there are a number of very different staff folks who led the process down a pretty bumpy road. starting last winter into the spring we brought together updating the standards. this included district staff and family members on the advisory committees and community organizations that work with parents and neighborhoods across the city. over the
10:54 pm
summer a really dedicated group of folks worked through a lot of wording divisions and struggled to define how do we want to express our values about family engagement and so this do -- document now lives on the district's website. you can find it in different languages. we are doing a lot to promote we are doing a lot to promote standards of awareness. these things on a page can be nice and our world is to make that live and breathe in our schools. he's going to talk about our strategies. >> hi, good evening. as ruth was saying the family
10:55 pm
engagement standards in order to support our staff and families, our teacher leaders and school leader to be successful we need to provide them with the support and the program k direction so this isn't just for a particular staff position but it's a shared responsibility across the entire school community. how do we start to structure the work so that we are actually supporting that philosophy and that vision so that family engagement isn't something we prioritize but should be our responsibility to do. we've done restructuring through family engagement, the
10:56 pm
first is that we are reinforcing the programmatic home for family engagement as the district role. that's in the family and community engagement to support building and correctly across the district. from teachers and community members is that we can't let family engagement not support any other schools.
10:57 pm
including district and partners and parent leaders and that's open to anybody that wants to participate. family liasons are expected to attend six of those trainings and they are to speak with their principals who are now sight supervisors in what are the workshops and the topics that are most appropriate for those schools instructional goals. having a professional development series that is centralized also allows is a centralized portal for our partnership for our partners, that includes coleman, so that they are now at helping support
10:58 pm
and administer workshops through professional development series and allows for a much more stream line and more ways to get those capacity buildings support out to a number of schools. the second is based on feedback and as well as many of our superintendants looking for support we have created new positions area family engagement coordinators to work with the district each member's team to support family engagement within those schools and that means being able to have conversations with principals and asking about their family engagement goals and being able to tailor the support that they need at the school site in order to be effective. we are currently about to go into an interview process. we have 5 positions
10:59 pm
open, there e to support the elementary superintendant and one for the schools and we have work in the thomson bay view providing support for our schools. who has really galvanized the family liaisons and we have the local capacity as well as the regional priorities that each assistant superintendant is working on with their schools. so we are super excited about that. the third is a part of a n partnership that we are going into in the huddle up initiative that is, oh my goodness. forgot the funder.
11:00 pm
the senior founs has allowed for this at some point for professional development. they are giving us access to the national network of partnership schools and many of you are that are familiar with family engagement with known with joyce epistein that runs the community of schools. she's the trainer. the work not only in our area team family engagement coordinate oris but also staff that will be around the family engagement tools and best practices of the natural network of schools. so we are excited about that. two additional pieces of work moving forward and really this is recognizing that this structural changes require attention and a lot of work to figure out what