Monthly Archives: June 2009

Recap: Joint SFUSD-City College committee

Tonight was the inaugural meeting of the new joint committee comprised of representatives from SFUSD and the City College District. Much of the two-plus-hourlong meeting was consumed by a discussion of the plan to locate a new Gateway to College program at the college district’s Southeast campus. Though City College will administer and house the program, it will serve students who have dropped out of SFUSD programs and assist them in earning a high school diploma, concurrent with college credit. Our participation is required because we must apply for waivers from the state allowing “our” students to attend City College; the waivers allow the average daily attendance money generated by these returning students to be passed through to City College to help fund the program.

There has been some opposition to the plan over the issue of the location — some advocates feel there are not enough supports and services in place at the Southeast campus to fully support this group of students, who have, we all agree, been failed again and again. Tonight Chancellor Don Griffin assured the committee that the necessary supports will be in place, and pledged to move the program to another site if it is not successful at the Southeast campus. In addition, representatives of the Mayor’s Communities of Opportunity program have pledged to provide bridge funding and other supports to make sure the program is ready and welcoming to students when they arrive August 15. Many community representatives were also on hand to advocate in favor of the plan.

In the end, members of both Boards agreed this plan should go forward at the Southeast campus, but pledged to hold the program accountable for keeping promises to this vulnerable group.

The next meeting of the new committee will occur in September.

First joint City College-SFUSD meeting tonight

The first meeting of the joint SFUSD – City College committee will be held tonight at 5 p.m., in the auditorium of the City College admininstrative offices at 33 Gough St. The meeting is open to the public. On the agenda:

  • Setting rules of the Committee and basic structure/operation, including schedule setting, permanent commissioners/trustees, rotation of terms;
  • Discussion of Gateway to College Inaugural San Francisco Location for Program (Choices: Southeast Campus, Mission Campus, Chinatown Campus, Phelan Campus).

The committee was established earlier this month through legislation I sponsored with Commissioner Fewer; current members of the joint committee are, from the SFUSD Board of Education, Commissioner Fewer and myself as well as President Maufas; from the City College Board of Trustees, Board President Milton Marks and Trustees Jackson and Grier.  The goal of the committee, as established in the legislation, will be to:

discuss issues of mutual interest and cooperation, including but not limited to curriculum, facilities, staff development, support of students and sharing of resources and data.

The Vallas Prescription: Notes from CUBE

This morning was the final keynote of the CUBE summer issues forum, delivered by Paul Vallas, the head of New Orleans’ Recovery School District and former Superintendent of the Chicago and Philadelphia public schools. There are strong feelings about Mr. Vallas — either he is the savior of urban public education or a self-promoting privatizing windbag — and though I haven’t decided whether he is either or both I will say he is an engaging and energetic speaker with many interesting observations; I was glad to have an opportunity to hear him.

His talk centered on the seven essential ingredients of school reform, based on his experiences in Chicago, Philadelphia and now New Orleans. Whether you buy into the necessity of any or all of these ingredients depends on whether you agree that Mr. Vallas brought true and lasting reform to any of these cities. And with respect to New Orleans, well, what can you say? New Orleans, pre-Katrina, was easily the nation’s lowest-performing and most dysfunctional school system. Mr. Vallas is starting with a clean slate (a fact he readily acknowledges),  and intense interest, support and financial investment from school reformers all over the country (something he doesn’t as readily acknowledge, at least in today’s talk).

Continue reading

Notes from the CUBE Issues Seminar

small_chicagoI’ve been in Chicago this weekend attending the Council of Urban Boards of Education (CUBE)  summer issues seminar.  It’s gorgeously clear and balmy outside (rare for Chicago in June!) but I have stayed indoors to attend all of the various sessions, because they are jam-packed with interesting and useful information.

I heard a presentation from Greg Darnieder, special assistant on college access to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Mr. Darnieder outlined various initiatives the Obama administration is starting up to improve access to college, and highlighted the urgency of the task. What stuck with me was that high school graduation can no longer be our goal — the future is limited for people who get no further than a high school diploma (and even then, 1.2 million members of the Class of 2008 nationwide did not get even that far). We need to be urging students to “get one more piece of paper” after they graduate, whether that piece of paper is the completion of a certificate program, a two-year degree, or a four-year degree.

Continue reading

Recap: June 23 board meeting

A quick and semi-coherent recap of tonight’s (or by now, last night’s) meeting — we passed the budget, slogged through a long consent calendar and introduced a resolution on student discipline and restorative justice that will be discussed by several committees when the board returns from its recess in August.

That’s right – recess! No board or committee meetings in July. I’ll continue to update the blog but posting will probably be less frequent.

Continue reading

Budget comments

I am experimenting with a different comments policy than I have had heretofore on this blog. For now, individual posts will not have comments enabled but I will periodically, at least every week or so, post a comments thread where people can respond to posts.  This post is  a “budget comments” thread for readers to respond to Part I or Part II of my posts on the 2009-10 proposed budget.

Continue reading

Combing through the budget, Part II

At tomorrow night’s meeting of the full Board, we’ll be asked to pass the Superintendent’s proposed budget for 2009-10. As I wrote in Part I of this post, the good news with this budget is that there are not draconian cuts. The bad news is that it is pretty bare bones, with little extra to put towards new priorities or the expansion of existing programs.

Continue reading

Combing through the budget

At next week’s Board meeting we will be asked to approve the district’s budget for the 2009-10 school year, so I’ve been spending a lot of time combing through the massive and complex document with the guidance of district staff. On June 16, the Budget and Business Services Committee met (joined by the rest of the Board) in order to hear a presentation from Deputy Superintendent Myong Leigh, Chief Financial Officer Joe Grazioli and Budget Director Reeta Madhavan. The next evening, Mr. Leigh and Ms. Madhavan hosted a Community Forum for members of the public to hear the details of the budget proposal and ask questions (perhaps 30 people attended).

Given the general budget horror show we’ve been watching for months, it’s somewhat strange that the budget the Board is considering for next year is not all that painful. This week, the Board for the San Jose Unified School District voted unanimously to raise K-2 class sizes to 30 and lay off almost 100 teachers. By comparison, we have rescinded every layoff notice issued earlier in the year; I would say authorizing an  increase in  K-1 class sizes from 20 to 22 is by far the most painful budget decision we have made since I came on the Board.

Continue reading

Recap: June 9 Board meeting

(Updated 6/11/09 to clarify several points and expand descriptions of board actions on June 9).

By now everyone pretty much knows the major news from last night’s meeting — the Board passed a resolution amending the district’s independent study policy to include students taking a JROTC course, allowing them to satisfy physical education requirements through independent study. I’ve posted thoughts about this issue here, and here, and here, so really — ’nuff said.  (For those completely new to this protracted policy fight, the district has helpfully posted a fact sheet).

In fact, the action item from last night that will affect FAR more students, staff and families is the approval of a new calendar for the 2010-11 school year and beyond.  I have received a lot of mail, mostly from elementary school parents, questioning this move — which basically starts school a week earlier, fixes spring break to occur always in the final week of March, and ends school just before Memorial Day weekend in May. Since I have two children in elementary school, I get the objections, but I need to point out that there are some real benefits for students in middle and high school — primarily because our calendar will now align with those of City College, where many high school students take additional courses, and because middle and high school students will now be able to complete their final exams before winter break. An additional benefit for all students (but not the reason the Superintendent recommended the change) is that more instruction will occur before the state testing in late April. Dennis Kelly, the President of United Educators of San Francisco, testified that 55 percent of his membership have also indicated a willingness to try out the new calendar proposal, which was also a persuasive fact for me.

My main ongoing concern is that community organizations which provide summer programming–like the YMCA, the JCC and many others–get enough notice and resources in order to completely realign their offerings to support families for whom summer camp is essential childcare. I have been assured that this is happening, and will be checking in on this over the next year.

We also received a report from the Bilingual Community Council (BCC), a Board-appointed committee that oversees the district’s services to English Learners. The BCC is mandated as part of the settlement of Lau v. Nichols, a 1974 Supreme Court decision that established certain guidelines for educating students with limited English skills; it is a separate body from the District’s English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC)–a district-level advisory committee. Basically, each school with 21 or more English Learners enrolled must have an ELAC; each ELAC must send a representative to the District ELAC, called DELAC. And under Lau, the Board must appoint, and listen to the recommendations of, a BCC.

Anyway, of primary concern to theBCC are procedures and services of the Educational Placement Center and support of ELACs.  Board members asked that the BCC provide a list of recommendations each year so that we can be held accountable on our progress toward implementing better supports and services for English Learners.

Also of note:

  • The Board unanimously passed a resolution authored by myself and Commissioner Fewer calling for the establishment of a joint committee with City College of San Francisco to discuss issues of mutual interest;
  • The 2009-10 district’s budget was introduced for first reading but due to the late hour we opted not to hear the full presentation until the augmented Budget Committee hearing on June 16. For interested community members, there will also be a workshop on the 2009-10 budget on June 17, from 6:30 to 8 p.m. at James Lick Middle School;
  • The Board unanimously passed a resolution calling for the second annual Soda Free Summer.

Recap: Committee on Student Assignment

The Board met as a Committee of the Whole this evening to discuss progress towards the new student assignment policy. Tonight’s presentation focused on two issues: changes in the way we assign English learners and the programs we offer them, as well as a report from the Parent Advisory Council and PPS on the feedback they got from a series of community conversations with over 270 SFUSD parents over the past few months.

The changes to our English learner services and programs comply with our Lau Action Plan, and are designed to ensure:

  • Proper identification of a student’s language needs;
  • Appropriate placement of the student in a program designed to best serve those needs;
  • Access to pathways that serve the student’s needs from grade K-12.

To accomplish these goals, the district has already implemented a number of interim changes as of this past January, including: more comprehensive assessments of language proficiency in applicants to dual language immersion programs; increased focus on achieving a balance of target and non-target speakers in our dual language immersion programs; and improved counseling for English learners and their parents to include the benefits of language programs. Starting in the 2010-11 school year, the district is recommending these further changes:

  • Better train site administrators, teachers and other staff in program models and goals, assessment and placement guidelines, and effective instruction;
  • Transition to a new English Plus pathway that will be available at all schools, offering students who are English learners more intensive support in developing English language skills;
  • Increase capacity at schools that currently offer biliteracy and dual language immersion programs and add programs at additional schools;
  • Conduct English language and primary language assessments for all new students (K-12) who indicate that English is not their first language;
  • Better training for Educational Placement and Counseling personnel on appropriate English learner placement.

Members from the Parent Advisory Council and Parents for Public Schools then presented the findings from their community conversations, conducted with a diverse group of over 270 parents (I attended two of the conversations, one conducted entirely in Spanish and the other in Cantonese).  Some excerpts:

Most parents would like a good school that’s close to home or easy to get to — but the vast majority of the families we heard from feel that choosing a school that works for their children is more important than having a school in their neighborhood.

We found you can’t discuss student assignment without hearing concerns about access to good schools–schools that have talented and caring teachers and principals, solid academic programs, ample enrichment opportunities and a safe environment.

Most parents support the district’s goals for equity and ending the racial isolation of students, but also pointed out that the student assignment system itself is not going to close the achievement gap.

Parents agreed that the current assignment system is daunting. Even though 76% of the participants got a school of their choice, a common feeling expressed is that the system is broken and “no one gets their choice.”

Another major concern was lack of communication from the district — about their children’s schools, explaining changes to district policies, and how they can be involved. Parents who don’t speak English face significant additional challenges trying to learn about schools and how to support their children’s education.

Give parents, students and educators the opportunity to review and respond to specific proposals for a new student assignment system before making a final decision. Most people support the district’s goals for a more equitable enrollment process, and they have powerful insights into what works–and what doesn’t work–for families. Adopting a new policy without giving the community this opportunity would be a serious mistake.

A big thank you to the members of the PAC and the staff of Parents for Public Schools, who continually amaze me with their ability to reach out and engage a broad group of district parents, all on a budget of little to nothing.