Category Archives: Uncategorized

School funding and fundraising: your opportunity to weigh in!

Later this morning (Friday, February 14, 2014) I will be a guest on the Forum show on KQED radio (88.5 FM in the Bay Area). Do you have thoughts on school funding and fundraising? This is your chance to call in. The topic of the program is a recent series of articles by the SF Public Press on disparities in PTA fundraising in SFUSD. The series is extensive and worth reading, but the gist is that the paper’s analysis found that a handful of SFUSD schools more than made up for budget cuts through parent fundraising during the budget crisis over the past few years.

I don’t dispute that finding, generally, though I do have some issues with the analysis (it’s not clear, for example, whether the reporting took centrally-funded services like special education teachers and aides, social workers and nurses into account). I think the article is an important opportunity to look, in general, at education funding in California and to have a discussion about what educational elements are essential for every child in our community?

On February 14, 2014, you will be able to call in to the Forum program at 1.415.553.2227 or 1.866.SF.FORUM (1.866.733.6786) or email forum@kqed.org to have your thoughts registered in the discussion. You can listen live at 88.5 FM or at this link. After the program has aired, you will be able to listen to archived audio.

Proposed changes to the A-G graduation requirements

Tonight the Board had a good discussion on the Superintendent’s proposal to modify our A-G graduation requirements to address concerns that students in our Court/County or Continuation schools will not achieve a diploma under the new, more rigorous requirements.
Longtime readers of this blog will recall that in 2009, the Board voted unanimously to change the district’s graduation requirements, starting with the class of 2014, to align with the entry requirements for the UC/CSU system — known as the A-G course sequence.
Since that time, the Board has monitored the new policy with trepidation, noting that large numbers of African-American students, Latino students, students with disabilities and students who are English Learners were not on track to graduate.  Tonight, the Superintendent presented data on the progress of members of the class of 2014 towards graduating under the new requirements. Here’s a snapshot (complete data in this Excel spreadsheet):

2014 and 2015bwThe very good news is that 91 percent of the class is either fully on track, or on on track in credits but missing one or more required classes (Algebra 2 in many cases, or a semester of P.E., or for English Learners, a required additional English course).  Currently, 920 students at comprehensive high schools (e.g., Lowell, Washington, Lincoln, Balboa, etc) or continuation high schools (Ida B. Wells or Downtown) are OK with credits but missing a course, and that situation is fixable. Counselors have already met with each of these students and their families, and developed individual plans to make sure these students can make up the necessary courses and graduate on time or over the summer.

The bad news is that as you can see above, 262 are at least a semester off track, and 97 are severely off track — more than a year behind. Still, even as recently as last spring, the Board and staff thought we might be looking at numbers that are much worse.

So: what are we going to do about it? In addition to existing supports like improved communication of student-level data to sites (to identify and work with struggling students earlier), stepped up counseling, individual academic review plans, credit recovery options like summer/night school or Cyber High, the Superintendent tonight proposed the following important changes:

  • Presenting a “seal of College Readiness”  to each graduating high school student who completes the required A-G course sequence with a grade of “C” or higher; and
  • Create new graduation options for students in County/Court schools and Continuation schools.*

Essentially, the Superintendent’s proposal would allow students in County/Court or continuation schools to graduate with 220 rather than 230 credits, and waive one year of world language as well as the requirement for Algebra 2. Commissioners had a lot of issues with that recommendation tonight, noting that a good number of our students in these schools — despite being our most disadvantaged in many cases — have managed to meet the requirements up to now.  The counter argument is that under the current policy, there are a lot of students in the class of 2014 who would qualify for a diploma under the previous requirements (which didn’t include Algebra 2, for example) but not under the new A-G requirements.

San Francisco USD is unique because it is both a county system and a unified school district — no other district in the state has that dual role. And so we are also the only county school system that is currently requiring all students to graduate having passed the A-G course sequence. Other unified school districts require A-G for graduation — San Jose, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Diego, to name a few — but they also can refer students to separate county systems with less rigorous graduation requirements. Under our current policy, San Francisco does not have that “loophole” or “escape valve” (what you call it depends on your point of view).

Based on tonight’s discussion, it appears that the Board would rather see a one-year waiver of the requirements for members of the class of 2014 who attend Court/County or continuation schools (so that they could graduate with the previous graduation requirements if necessary), and for the district to continue to push for universal A-G completion in future years.

A final vote on the proposal is scheduled for Dec. 10.

*(County/Court schools serve students who are incarcerated, on probation or otherwise involved in the juvenile justice system, as well as students who have been expelled or had other disciplinary issues. The county also maintains Hilltop HS, a school for pregnant or parenting teens.  The school district’s continuation high schools serve students who are age 16 and over and severely behind in credits).

An interesting day

I had the opportunity to attend President Obama’s speech on immigration reform this morning — here is the most exciting moment of the day, when a young man interrupted the President to remind him of the plight of families who have been separated due to deportations. (I am in the back on the left).

Why I support the sugary beverage tax

Last week, you might have read that Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced a proposal to tax sugary beverages (defined as drinks with 25 or more calories that have added sugary sweeteners and are less than 50 percent fruit or vegetable juice) sold in the City and County of San Francisco.  If approved by a majority of Supervisors, the proposal will go to the voters in November 2014, and since it is a new tax, it will require a two-thirds vote to pass.

Supervisors Eric Mar, Malia Cohen and John Avalos have also been working on similar measures, and they are working with Supervisor Wiener to craft a joint proposal that all of their colleagues will support. Because the stakes are so high — both in terms of the support needed and because of the public health crisis represented by over-consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages –I’ve decided it’s important to pledge my personal support for their efforts NOW, even before a final proposal is approved for the ballot. Two other California cities, Richmond and El Monte, have tried and failed to enact similar measures — amid an onslaught of money spent by beverage manufacturers to defeat them. And New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s attempt at an outright ban on the sale of sugar-sweetened beverages larger than 16 ounces has been blocked in the courts.

Consider these facts:

  • Since 1980, obesity among children and adolescents has tripled nationwide. As recently as 2010, nearly a third of children and adolescents in San Francisco were obese or overweight.
  • Sugary foods are bad enough for health, but sugary beverages are even more extreme in their health effects when consumed regularly. These beverages, though they can contain hundreds of calories in a serving, do not signal “fullness” to the brain. Studies show that they flood the liver with high amounts of sugar in a short amount of time. This “sugar rush” over time leads to fat deposits that cause diabetes, cardiovascular disease and other serious health problems.
  • Sugary beverages represent, on average, 11 percent of daily calories consumed by children in the U.S. A recent survey found that California teenagers are consuming more sugary beverages
  • One in three children born today will develop Type II diabetes in their lifetime if sugary beverage consumption does not decline.
  • Diseases connected to sugary beverages disproportionately impact minorities and low-income communities. According to Head Start of San Francisco, 18 percent of 3-4 year olds enrolled in its programs are obese.
  • UCSF researcher Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo has calculated that even a one-cent per ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages could cut sugary beverage consumption by 10 percent — with corresponding reductions in future cases of diabetes , obesity and heart disease, as well as the cost of treating them. Other research has established that spending $1 on nutrition education saves $10 in future health care costs.

I have two teens, and I know how hard it is to control teenage eating habits once they have a little independence and spending money. Eating habits and tastes are formed at a young age, and I’m forever grateful to my mother for setting a nutrition-conscious example I’ve been able to (more or less) follow with my own children. I also know, as a school board member, how important it is for kids to have enough healthy food so that they can learn at their highest potential.

Supervisor Scott Wiener’s proposal for the November 2014 ballot would create a two-penny per ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, with the proceeds dedicated to nutrition, physical activity, and health programs in public schools, parks, and elsewhere.

I fully support the tax as an effective strategy to drive down consumption of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages, increase access to and expand physical activity programs, and expand health nutrition education.  Much like cigarette taxes did to drive down rates of smoking and increase public awareness of the dire health consequences, a soda tax will help reduce consumption and increase the growing public awareness of the negative health impact sodas have on growing and adult bodies.

We will be reading and hearing much more about the sugary beverage tax in the months to come. I hope I can count on other parents and child advocates to support this measure — it’s time for San Francisco to take a strong stand and create disincentives to purchasing and consuming a product that represents a serious health challenge for our children.

P.S. I know it’s been quite a while since I blogged — working full time has really cut into the amount of time I have available late at night to write and post updates from the Board meetings. After tomorrow’s Board meeting I will have some breathing room to catch up. As always, there has been a lot happening! 

Clarification to the Ruth Asawa SOTA community

It’s come to my attention that members of the Ruth Asawa SOTA community are planning to come to the Oct. 8 Board meeting this Tuesday out of the mistaken idea that the Board has made changes to the school’s Artist-in-Residence program (working artists are paid as consultants to work with students in their artistic disciplines as part of the school’s arts-focused program). I’m asking members of the Ruth Asawa SOTA community to share this widely to correct this misapprehension:

To: Members of the Ruth Asawa SOTA community

From: Rachel Norton, Board President

I want to reassure you that the Board of Education is not interested in curtailing or reducing the Artist-in-Residence program at the Ruth Asawa School of the Arts, nor have we taken any actions to change the program. In fact, on September 24 the Board unanimously approved the Superintendent’s request for Artist-in-Residence funding.

No cuts to the Artist-in-Residence program have been made or will be made this year. The Artist-in- Residence program with its full annual funding is included in the district budget that the board passed in June of 2013 and no change to that budget has taken place.

In recent years, Friends of SOTA has served as the fiscal agent for the district in administering the Artist-in-Residence program. The agreement that the district has with FoSOTA has been under review because the Board is interested in making sure that the district improves its internal administrative functions; we also take seriously our fiduciary responsibility for the democratic oversight of the expenditure of all the public tax dollars that we spend on behalf of the citizens of San Francisco. The Board has asked the Superintendent to investigate the question of what is the best and most publicly-accountable  way to pay these school district contractors, since we have several parallel programs that are paid through district processes—not a fiscal agent–efficiently and accountably. 

The Board remains more committed than ever to the program at Ruth Asawa School of the Arts. We will make certain that there is no delay in the payments made for the artists as we are well aware of what an integral component of the school program they represent.

Gateway HS: Part Deux

So this morning I had a frank, productive and cordial talk with Gateway Public Schools Director Sharon Olken. I was again reminded how much I like Ms. Olken — I have in the past seen her as a “straight shooter” who tries every day to run a network of schools that are great for kids. I need to say first off that I apologized to her for casting aspersions against her character or questioning her integrity. I should not have done that and I was wrong to do that. I have been told in the past that sometimes I let my temper get in my own way and certainly being “livid” yesterday was part of that tendency.

Ms. Olken explained that the Gateway administration is saddened each year by families who *know* the school is right for their child, but are devastated when their child is not admitted. In addition, while application rates for the HS have remained steady, she has noted a gradually decreasing rate of matriculation — meaning that more students are being admitted off the wait list later in the spring when larger numbers of students who are admitted in the main lottery decide not to enroll.

She also reminded me — and I don’t dispute this — that while she has always understood my strong feelings that Gateway MS and Gateway HS are separate schools for the purposes of enrollment, she has always maintained that she would welcome the chance to work with kids from 6-12 grades. In the end, she said the decision to create a second early lottery was motivated by the school’s desire to work with students who are truly committed to Gateway and spare them the anxiety of going through a highly competitive lottery. As proof, she mentioned the school’s decision (despite some flak) not to participate in last weekend’s independent school fair — largely seen as a starting point for parents looking for options outside the regular SFUSD lottery.

I heard her out and I have no reason to believe–after talking to her– that Gateway made its decision with anything but the best of intentions, even if I continue to think they are seriously misguided.  I told her — half joking but with a big grain of truth too — that if there is one thing we know at SFUSD, it’s all the ways an assignment system can lead to unintended consequences.  “Learn from us,” I pleaded. What Gateway wants to accomplish–as stated by Ms. Olken–is laudable but it will not happen with their current policy. (Or really, any policy. In an environment where seats are in such high demand, it’s impossible to devise a way of allocating those seats that makes everyone happy if the only tool you have is a lottery or multiple lotteries).

I have two chief objections: first, setting an early deadline will just make in-the-know families apply earlier. What’s to stop them, since it’s obvious that odds will be better in the early round? I commended Gateway for making its application simpler — another long overdue improvement — but now it’s easier than ever to apply to Gateway, hold on to a spot, and wait to see how one does in the SFUSD and independent school lotteries. I’m glad Gateway isn’t touting itself to the independent school audience so far, but I am also certain it won’t take long for anyone who is interested and motivated to find out and utilize the early deadline if they have even the slightest inkling that Gateway might be a good fit for their child (and by inkling, I mean even something as flimsy as overhearing other parents say that Gateway is a good HS).

My second objection is the delicate subject of the MS students. It’s just not credible that Gateway MS won’t have all the information they need about applying to Gateway HS for the early round. Of course they will — Gateway MS would be derelict to its own students if it didn’t make sure they know that IF Gateway HS seems to be a good option, they should apply in the early round.  Gateway has employed a full-time outreach coordinator, and Ms. Olken assured me today that they are being very thoughtful and purposeful in recruiting students in underserved schools. (We both laughed when I told her that the new Gateway deadline had gone out on at least one middle school’s SchoolLoop site yesterday–some of my colleagues at SFUSD do not want any charter school recruiting at district schools.) But reaching parents who are not connected to the Internet or to parent networks, and/or who don’t speak English is not an easy thing to do. Most organizations that are doing this work successfully have coordinators who speak multiple languages and maintain extensive community partnerships — and even then, the outreach work is very hard.

Finally, this decision sets a precedent, as I told Jill Tucker of the Chronicle yesterday. There is nothing, now that Gateway has thought of it and actually implemented it, for other charter schools to simply set multiple lotteries and publicize them to different preferred constituencies. The genie is out of the bottle, whether Gateway intended to set a precedent or not.

In the end, we agreed to disagree, and Ms. Olken said she would consider making changes either this year or in subsequent years. She also agreed to share with me the outcomes from this year’s lottery — whatever they are.

Happy Spring Break!

No meeting this week, due to the spring recess. Have a great break — the next Board meeting will take place April 9.

A revolution in SFUSD school food

If you live in San Francisco, a revolution is coming to a school cafeteria near you  . . .  Revolution Foods, that is.   Tonight, the Board voted unanimously (6-0, with Commissioner Mendoza absent) to award Oakland-based Revolution Foods with an 18-month contract worth $13.5 million  to provide pre-cooked, pre-plated fresh meals (mostly breakfasts and lunches) to students in SFUSD.

This is big news for so many reasons:

  • The contract represents a shift in attitude towards student nutrition. It calls for fresh, not frozen entrees, and specifies that meals must be served to students within 24 hours of being prepared.  If you accept (which I do) that fresh food = higher quality, then this requirement should bring about a huge improvement in the appeal of meals served to students. In many districts, improving the quality of meals has led to modest improvements in participation. What I hope is that this step will begin a “virtuous cycle” of  increasing participation leading to better financial stability for the food program leading to better quality leading to even higher participation.
  •  The contract also represents an increased financial commitment to school meals in San Francisco. District officials told the Board that the school district is paying its current vendor $1.79 per lunch for elementary school students (up from the $1.59 per elementary lunch the district paid in 2011-12). Revolution’s bid for the new contract came to $1.95 per elementary lunch. Revolution was also the lowest bidder. The current vendor, Preferred Meal Systems of Illinois, bid $2.26 per elementary lunch for the same terms. Still,  the bottom line is that the district will now be paying more per meal than it has in the past. In my reasoning (and one of the reasons I supported the new contract), we also will get more for our money.
  • Finally, the contract also represents a huge increase in Revolution’s daily meal production in Northern California — according to co-founder and Chief Innovation Officer Kirsten Tobey, the company is currently producing 33,000 lunches a day in its Oakland kitchens; with the addition of the San Francisco Unified account, it will have to produce at least 22,000 more lunches each day.  Even for one of the nation’s fastest-growing companies, this will be a big lift for Revolution, but Ms. Tobey assured the Board the company can handle it. She said Revolution has already begun increasing refrigeration capacity and is alerting suppliers that their orders will be increasing as well.

Revolution’s foods will start appearing in SFUSD cafeterias on Monday, Jan. 7, the first day of school following the Winter break (and it’s a good thing, too, as sources tell me there was no backup plan if the Board had turned down the contract).  Talk about working without a (hair)net.  Once they’ve had a week or so to settle in, let me know what you think!

Gearing up for a new school year

Over the weekend, the Board and the district’s new leadership team met in retreat to set our priorities for the new school year (the first day of school is just about three weeks away!). Though most people know our new Superintendent Richard Carranza, you may not know our new Deputy Superintendent Guadalupe Guerrero (until recently the Assistant Superintendent in charge of the Mission Superintendent’s Zone schools).  With his promotion, Guadalupe will now oversee all of the Area teams supervising school sites, Academics and Professional Development  (APD), Special Education, Early Education and Student Support Services. We have also hired Luis Valentino, a LAUSD veteran, to run APD as our Chief Academic Officer (DeeDee Desmond, who has been the interim CAO for the past two years, will now be running the Bayview Superintendent’s Zone schools — Dr. Patricia Gray retired from that position in June). General Counsel Don Davis is also newish — he joined the school district in January.

At the retreat, Luis, Guadalupe and Richard told the Board that all of the work this year will emphasize strengthening what they call the “instructional core” — the three interdependent components of teachers, content and students — to expand teachers’ knowledge and skill, provide academically challenging content, and fostering highly-engaged and joyful learners. To do this, they will focus on a group of interdependent, high-priority actions:

  • Beginning to implement the Common Core state standards in English/Language Arts and Math;
  • Building teachers’ and administrators’ capacity to access and use student learning data to better inform instruction and meet each student’s individual needs;
  • Build professional learning systems to expand the capacity of all staff;
  • Provide tiered levels of support and intervention to support all students;
  • Provide students with disabilities specially designed instruction in the least restrictive environment;
  • Create a coherent and cohesive alignment between preschool and elementary school.

Richard told the Board that he has several longer-term priorities, including trying to advance the long-discussed plan to move Ruth Asawa School of the Arts closer to the City’s cultural and arts hub at Civic Center, as well as transforming our student nutrition program.  Finally, Board members discussed communication protocols with Richard — how do we want the Superintendent to communicate with us, how does he want us to communicate with staff, and what in general are the “ground rules” for the Board-Superintendent-Leadership relationship.  One thing I’m very pleased about is that our new Superintendent is  open to experimenting with social media and will be tweeting using the handle @SFUSD_Supe.  This will get the  Superintendent out of the central office “bubble” a bit, and will  help build his relationship with the broader district and City residents. 

For anyone interested in the learning more about the district’s progress on various initiatives, I highly recommend downloading the latest strategic plan progress report, “Walking the Talk,” which was released in June. It’s a very comprehensive overview of where the district is today and where we seek to go next.

Finally, tomorrow (August 1)  is another big day: administrators report back to work for the 2012-13 school year, beginning with the two-day Administrator Institute. It’s a professional development extravaganza that seeks to set the tone and frame the work for the coming year; it’s sometimes tough to strike the right tone between being honest about the many challenges the district faces (budget, gaps in achievement between groups, etc.) and getting people “pumped” for the work ahead.

They’re out! School Assignment Letters 2012

Today’s post is being written by Michelle Parker, President of the 2nd District(SFUSD) PTA. I am out of the country and Michelle graciously agreed to pinch-hit in my absence and report on the outcome of the first round.

P.S.: I am getting some email from a few families who did not receive spots at their attendance area schools but know of families who received spots at those schools, even if they don’t live in the attendance area. The explanation for how this can happen, according to EPC, is the trading cycles algorithm (AKA the swap). Let’s say you submit a list with Schools A, B, and C listed in order of preference. You are assigned to School B. Let’s say I submit a list with Schools B, A, C listed in order of preference, and am assigned to School A. AFTER all seats are filled, the algorithm looks for someone who is willing to trade School A for School B, and another person who is willing to trade School B for School A. It matches us, re-assigning you to your higher choice of School A and me to my higher choice of School B. At that point, attendance area doesn’t come into play because all seats have already been filled.

They’re out! 13,919 school assignment offers were mailed to families last Friday. And, in typical fashion, I saw a line outside the Educational Placement Center (EPC) at  555 Franklin Monday which reached out and around, all the way to the corner of Franklin and McAllister for most of the day- people standing in line to file medical or family hardship appeals, or to submit an ammended school request list.

The official Press Release from SFUSD came out late Monday- a few highlights: The number of overall applications was down. This was as expected due to the State’s eligibility age for Kindergarten moving back from Dec 1 to Nov 1, therefore impacting the number of applicants eligible to begin transitional kindergarten, as well as the predicted decrease in high school enrollment (number of eighth graders entering high school is lower than last year).

There was a slight increase in the percentage of applicants receiving one of their choices, though it is difficult to draw many conclusions from this data. There are a few things I am curious about, some of which we will learn more about as detailed data comes in. This was the first year that elementary schools feeding into a designated middle received a priority assignment. Of the 85% of 6th grade applicants who received one of their choices, how many applied to their feeder school, versus not, and did they receive that school? How many siblings, whose feeder school is different from an older brother/sister’s took advantage of the sibling priority vs. attend their feeder school? On the elementary school side- but still related to the feeder patterns, did people choose their requested elementary schools dependant on the middle school they fed into? Of course the data won’t be able to answer this question, so speculation is all we’ve got. This year the 15 most requested elementary schools were: Clarendon GE, Rooftop, West Portal, Lawton, Grattan, Lilienthal, Alica Fong Yu, Sunset, Miraloma, Jefferson, Feinstein, Sherman, Clarendon JBBP, Alamo, and Argonne. Last year the schools with highest number of first choice requests were Clarendon, Alice Fong Yu, Lilienthal, Alvarado, West Portal, Rooftop, Sherman, Taylor, Buena Vista Horace Mann, Lawton, Miraloma, Monroe, Alamo and Dianne Feinstein. This is not exactly an apples to apples list, since the first is total requests and not just first choice requests like the second.

If you are received a placement offer here is what you need to know: Register at your designated school to secure enrollment by April 13. It is recommended you do this, even if you want another school, should a spot open up. Accepting a placement offer still allows you to choose to seek a higher choice school during the May Placement Period. There is no priority given in any rounds to students who have not registered at any school. If you do NOT register your child at the designated school by April 13, your placement will be cancelled.

The EPC’s webpage describes the process in detail.