Monthly Archives: March 2009

I read the news today . . .

The Chronicle is in high dudgeon over the school board’s slow pace in reinstating JROTC.  But the editorial says that our March 24 meeting adjourned without any action being taken on the controversial program. That’s essentially accurate, but not exactly true. The resolution to reinstate JROTC was introduced for first reading, and under school board rules, an item introduced for first reading receives minimal public comment (typically five minutes or less) and is referred to committee without the board taking any action.

This is what happened to the JROTC resolution co-sponsored by Commissioner Wynns and myself. The item was introduced, President Maufas allowed proponents and opponents each five minutes to offer comment on the item, then referred it to three committees: Personnel, Budget and Curriculum. I’m assuming the resolution will be considered at the next meeting of each committee and return to the full Board sometime in May.

* * *

It also appears that Berkeley Unified (my alma mater) will need to find a way to keep funding their nationally-recognized school lunch program now that they have exhausted their three-year grant from the Chez Panisse foundation. What has been done in Berkeley deserves accolades, no question, since it challenges all school districts to find ways to improve the nutritive value and overall appeal of meals served to students. But this is not easy stuff, as anyone who listened to the discussion of the “Feeding Every Hungry Child” resolution last Tuesday evening understands. And it should be noted that Berkeley Unified has a couple of advantages, financially, which have allowed it to move faster on improving quality than many other districts:

  • Berkeley charges more for lunches than San Francisco does;
  • They get more funding — prior to passage of Prop 13, Berkeley voters passed a parcel tax to help pay for better school food; and as a result, post-Prop 13, their school district is entitled to receive from the state an additional revenue stream called “Meals for Needy Pupils”, which increases each year and is expected to be about $1.33 for each meal served to low income students in 2008-09;
  • The Chez Panisse Foundation has provided significant subsidies — these have allowed Berkeley to spend more on developing local suppliers of fresh ingredients and organic produce and also to build a central kitchen where meals can be cooked from scratch;
  • Berkeley’s Board of Education has agreed to kick in significant funds to subsidize their student nutrition program this year — the Chronicle reports $250,000 – $350,000 in additional monies, for a district of 9,000 students. In San Francisco, that amount would be proportionately much higher.

* * *

Hat tip to Sweet Melissa for reporting that Fiona Ma has dropped the P.E. credit component of A.B. 223, the bill that would order us to reinstate JROTC. Instead, she’s become a co-author of A.B. 351, which expands the options school districts have for offering P.E. credit. (Or “dangerously waters down the P.E. standards,” depending on which of my emails you are reading).

Feeding every hungry child

Last night the Board also passed a resolution co-sponsored by Commissioner Wynns and I entitled “Feeding Every Hungry Child in SFUSD.” For years, we’ve had an unofficial policy of feeding any child who showed up in the lunch line, whether or not they had money to pay for a lunch and whether or not they had turned in an application qualifying them for a free- or reduced-price lunch.  This is a pragmatic as well as moral policy, since hungry children cannot learn. But it has turned into an increasingly expensive practice.

No one wants to stop feeding hungry children; nor do we want to offer  a highly stigmatizing “meal of shame” to children who cannot pay or those who have not turned in a meal application that qualifies them for a reimbursed meal.  But our “cash shortages”–the amount of money we should be able to collect either through cash payments or reimbursements but don’t –have more than doubled in the past five years. And when cash shortages rise, Student Nutrition Services has no choice but to cut back on the quality, quantity and variety of food served to our students.

Continue reading

JROTC: Is there anything left to say?

Judging from my email inbox and the crowds at the March 24 meeting, the answer to that question is — evidently yes.  Last night was my most difficult meeting yet, because it was the evening our resolution to reinstate JROTC hit the agenda. I knew it was coming, I knew a number of people would not be at all happy to see my name as a co-sponsor, but knowing ahead of time you are going to upset or disappoint someone –even if you believe in what you are doing — doesn’t make it any easier to see the disappointment and anger in their eyes when they confront you face to face.

Of course, last night was just the beginning – there are a number of long, angry meetings yet to come and I should get used to it. I am sorry this issue is so contentious, I’m sorry that it’s impossible to find a compromise, and yes, I’ve given up trying to find one. The only way out I see is forward — reinstating the program, calming the supporters down, and continuing to work on alternatives that will give kids who don’t care for the JROTC program and their parents a leadership training option that doesn’t have a military connection. In the end, I hope what will happen is that kids will truly have a choice.

Continue reading

I’m tired . . .

Last night’s meeting didn’t adjourn till 1 a.m., but less than 12 hours later wild rumors are circling about what we did or did not do. Don’t have time for the full roundup or a fuller discussion of the JROTC issue at the moment but here are the key points:

  • The resolution to reinstate JROTC was introduced for first reading and referred to the Curriculum, Budget and Personnel committees. It will be considered at the next meeting of each of those committees and then forwarded back to the full board for second reading and a vote. Don’t hold your breath on this happening before May — the Ex is wrong about it being scheduled for a vote on April 14.
  • We did NOT eliminate language immersion at the new DeAvila program. I am not sure where this rumor is coming from, but I’ve already heard it from two separate people. What we did is discuss the fact that there was not an optimal amount of time to discuss, weigh in and evaluate this decision before it was announced and kids were assigned to the program. There are lots of reasons for that, which the Superintendent explained in detail. There are some questions about whether dual-immersion Cantonese is the best model to align with our strategic plan goals and the needs of the students who will ultimately enroll at DeAvila (we’ll know who they are after Round II), but the Board voted to create a Chinese language program at DeAvila and children assigned to that program will receive a language immersion program. The debate is over whether that program, due to varying demand from English/Chinese speakers will offer Cantonese or Mandarin or a combination of both, and whether there will  be a dual-immersion strand or a one-way immersion strand. The public and especially the parents who have signed up at DeAvila will be given ample opportunity to discuss and participate in this decision, and Commissioner Fewer has called for a special augmented Curriculum committee meeting sometime in April to discuss and resolve these issues. I will be SURE the time and date of that meeting is publicized to families.

More later.

Ms. Norton goes to Washington

duncanUpdating any interested taxpayers on my trip: last week I attended the Legislation and Policy Conference of the Council of the Great City Schools, an advocacy organization of 67 urban school districts that works for equitable distribution of educational resources, conducts research on education issues and lobbies Washington on behalf of urban districts.

The highlight of the conference was the speech made by new U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, outlining President Obama’s major education priorities:

  • Establishing common career- and college-ready standards for all of the 50 states;
  • Moving towards a series of assessments that support those standards rather than one high-stakes test at the end of the year;
  • Better data collection and tracking;
  • Rewarding the “best and the brightest” in teaching;
  • Getting teaching talent where it is needed;
  • Improving the lowest-performing schools — many schools have improved greatly in recent years but the performance of the schools at the bottom has barely budged or even declined.

Over and over, speakers at the conference told us that the amount of Federal money on the table for education is unprecedented: not only have they allocated significant increases in funds for special education (IDEA) and for low-income children (Title I), the President has asked for $5 billion in a special competitive fund that will be awarded to school districts based on how well and how innovatively they respond to the administration’s priorities as outlined above.

Now, in our favor is that locally we have great relationships with Secretary Duncan. Not so much in our favor is the general disrepair of the educational system here in California. Since the state will get stimulus funds first, the worry here is that the Governor and the legislature will use our stimulus funds to backfill gaps rather than allow us some flexibility to show that we have the capacity to innovate. Secretary Duncan was very clear in pointing out that states and school districts that are innovative will have the ability to draw on far more money from the $5 billion than those that simply maintain the status quo.  We have a plan and momentum here in San Francisco — the question is, will the state support that or let us founder for lack of resources?

Counseling meeting at Sunnyside Elementary

On Saturday I stopped by the elementary school information session for parents seeking to participate in Round II of the assignment process.

combiwindowsSunnyside Elementary is incredibly welcoming, from the cheerful cutouts of flowers on the classroom windows to the friendly sight of my friend and Sunnyside ambassador Kari Gray, decked out in a bright yellow T-shirt emblazoned with the school logo, who was greeting parents as they arrived. I admired the information display and Kari’s pretty vase of flowers, then made my way into the auditorium, where Darlene Lim, Executive Director of the Educational Placement Center, was answering parents’ questions.

The session was calm and well-attended; the parents I spoke to seemed not happy, exactly, but resigned to the fact that they would participate in the process for Round II, and many were holding spots that, while not ideal, would work for them if they were not ultimately granted a higher choice. I was relieved to see that. There was a big group of Educational Placement staff members on hand, and while the acoustics weren’t perfect, it seemed to me that most people left with their questions answered.

hillcrest2-copyIt was also great to see my friend Stephanie Eldred, the parent liaison at Hillcrest Elementary.  Stephanie brought Hillcrest Kindergarten teachers Lisa Castellanos and Pameila Orgill, as well as Principal Richard Zapien with her to the counseling session. Hillcrest is one of those ‘hidden gem” schools I suspect will have a game-changing year this year — in Round I it received 21 first choice requests for 44 general education Kindergarten spots, and 108 requests for those spots overall. Judging from these two intelligent, caring and motivated Kindergarten teachers I met on Saturday (their day off!), more and more parents are going to be discovering this lovely school very soon.

Tomorrow night I’ll be attending the informational meeting about the district’s new dual immersion Cantonese school that will be located at DeAvila Elmentary. The meeting will be held at Grattan Elementary, 165 Grattan St. (De Avila Elementary is located at 1351 Haight St. but is not yet open for visitors).  The meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. — if you are one of the families offered a spot at the new DeAvila, or you are interested in our new Cantonese dual immersion program, this meeting is for you! Hope to see you there.

Tidbits from Round I data

It’s now been a week since the Round I assignment letters went out, and depending on where you look, parents of students applying for 2009-10 are either happier or more furious than their counterparts a year ago. I have been mining some of the data we’ve been given on Round I application patterns, and thought I’d share some interesting tidbits:

  • A significant number of people still list far fewer than seven school choices. For Kindergarten: 1 choice — 17 percent; 2 choices –8 percent; 3 choices — 9 percent; 4 choices — 7 percent; 5 choices — 6 percent; 6 choices — 5 percent; 7 choices — 47 percent. Overall, just 23 percent of applicants for grades K, 6 or 9 took advantage of their ability to list 7 school choices.
  • Applicant pools are less diverse than ever. At 47 schools, applicants for K, 6th or 9th grades were more than 45% of a single race or ethnicity:   African American — 4 schools; Chinese — 16 schools; Spanish speaking — 15 schools; Other White — 12 schools.
  • Enrollment will almost certainly go up between now and the first day of school, even though almost 3,100 students district-wide did not receive an assignment to a school of their choice in Round I. Last year, the number of students actually showing up in the first 10 days of school was 103% of the number of applicants for seats in Round I.  This means our schools will actually be a bit fuller come September than they are right now. That’s a striking piece of data when you consider the numbers of students “designated” (i.e., assigned without choosing) underenrolled schools.
  • Underenrolled schools are not so underenrolled, at least at the moment. Virtually every seat in the district is full, except for a handful of classrooms. In fact, based on historical enrollment patterns (e.g., the “yield” of students who actually enroll after being assigned to a particular school), some of the less popular schools have been significantly overenrolled because the district expects a certain amount of attrition as families exercise their right to seek other options.  One of these schools has 44 Kindergarten seats and currently has 122 students assigned to it — 116 of whom did not request the school. If, as expected, we continue to get more applicants who didn’t apply in Round I, this year could be the “game changer” for many schools that have been spurned by families in previous years.
  • Formerly “hidden” gems continue to pick up applicants. Elementary schools to watch: Cobb, Garfield, George Moscone, Rosa Parks (general ed or JBBP), Paul Revere (a K-8! Spanish Immersion!), Sanchez, and Daniel Webster.

I was in D.C. this week learning all about the stimulus package and the unprecedented amounts of Federal money on the table for innovative educational programs — I’ll post about that tomorrow.

March 10 – a looooong meeting

Heres’s a somewhat condensed update of tonight’s regularly scheduled Board meeting. I’ll flesh it out tomorrow when I’m more awake:

  • The good news: The Mayor will release the district’s full share of $23 million from the Rainy Day Fund this year!!!
  • The not so good news: Due to the budget situation and rising demand for kindergarten, the district plans to increase kindergarten class sizes to 22. I know this will cause anxiety on the part of parents, but I hope you will trust me when I say that it is probably the best step we could take at this moment. Class size is important, but not as important as retaining and training teachers and keeping classrooms well-supplied in this year of very tough choices.

Continue reading

Upcoming student assignment meetings

It was pretty late last night when I finished posting and I neglected to list two upcoming student assignment meeting dates:

  • Monday, April 13 – Washington HS, 600 32nd Ave., 6 p.m.
  • Monday May 11 – Denman MS, 241 Oneida Ave., 6 p.m.

Commissioner Kim announced that she will arrive at both meetings an hour early to talk to parents who may not be comfortable sharing their views during public comment.

Student Assignment update – March 9

At this month’s meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Assignment, we kicked things off with a presentation by Orla O’Keeffe and Ritu Khanna on the challenges of the current plan, the correlation between school composition and indicators of school quality, and the priorities of a new assignment system:

  • The achievement gap for African American, Latino and Samoan students has widened since 2001, even though all groups have made progress;
  • Schools have re-segregated since the total choice/diversity index system was put in place — in 1999, there was one school with more than 60 percent of a single ethnic group; in 2008, there were 26 such schools.
  • Under the choice system, high-demand schools generally fill up in Round I, while schools that are under-requested get assigned students throughout the year. As a result, late applicants, transfer students and families in transition have less oppportunity for choice and become over-represented in low-demand schools. Further, there are clear patterns of Round I participation for different racial groups: 84 percent of whites and 88 percent of Asians apply on time, while only 50 percent of African Americans and 65 percent of Latinos do.
  • Indicators of school quality like API score, teacher satisfaction and turnover, suspension rate, attendance and teachers’ average years of service are closely linked to school composition — in other words, schools with increasing concentrations of African American, Latino and Samoan students or underperforming students are more likely to have a low API score, low teacher satisfaction and high turnover, a higher suspension rate and lower attendance. They tend to have newer (i.e., less experienced) teachers.

Continue reading