Recap: National Board Certification, Edison, afterschool and the budget

Tonight’s regular Board meeting began on a high note with the public recognition of 33 teachers who have achieved National Board Certification this year — bringing the grand total of National Board Certified Teachers in SFUSD to 200, or about five percent of our teaching corps. This is second only to LAUSD in total numbers, but in percentage terms only about three percent of LAUSD teachers are National Board Certified. This is rightly a source of great pride for the district. Becoming a National Board Certified Teacher is a very rigorous process, and a tremendous achievement for an individual teacher.

The next major item on the agenda was the renewal of Edison Charter Academy’s charter. This charter has something of a tortured history in SFUSD — old timers might recall that the Board actually revoked Edison’s charter when it came up a decade ago. At that time, Edison was run by the for-profit chain Edison Schools Inc., which promptly appealed the revocation with the California State Board of Education. Their appeal was granted, so over the last eight or so years SFUSD has not had much of a relationship with Edison other than a facilities use agreement for the school’s large facility on 21st and Dolores (coincidentally the former Thomas Edison Elementary school). Last year, the Edison Charter Academy board formally severed its relationship with the for-profit Edison Schools, and came before the SFUSD Board as an independent community-based charter seeking renewal.

At the Curriculum Committee last week, Commissioner Maufas and I voted to give the Edison petition a positive recommendation to the full board, largely because of the school’s record of achievement (Commissioner Wynns voted against the recommendation). But at the Budget Committee, significant deficiencies were found with the petition, with the committee eventually voting to recommend denial. After reviewing the committees’ recommendations as well as the staff recommendation to deny the petition, the Board voted unanimously not to renew Edison’s charter — renewal would have given the school another five years of operation. The petitioners now have the option of resubmitting their petition as a new petition, or appealing the decision to the State Board. In the past the State Board has been very quick to grant charters, but the composition has changed since Gov. Brown appointed new members last month, so a charter appeal may no longer be a slam dunk.

We heard a presentation on 2011-12 budget development from Deputy Superintendent Myong Leigh, with the upshot being that there is still a great deal of uncertainty for K-12 education. The Governor has proposed a “best case” scenario budget that would involve cuts of perhaps $19 per ADA, or about $1 million, for SFUSD (remember that our staff salaries and benefit costs are increasing every year, so the failure to keep track with those costs will require additional cuts on top of that $1 million just to stay in place).  The “best case” assumes that the voters will pass a package of tax increases and extensions on June 7, but that’s a big IF — to even put the measures on the ballot, two-thirds of the Legislature would have to agree. Then, of course, a majority of voters would have to actually vote yes.  The “worst case” could require additional cuts of $330 per ADA — or about $20 million all in.

As district staff prepare for either scenario, they are warning us to expect significant numbers of district staff to receive layoff notices this spring. Hopefully we will be able to rescind most of those, but things are just too uncertain to know right now. Deputy Superintendent Leigh said the staff will be looking at ways to mitigate the effects of layoffs on particular schools or communities — a recent ACLU lawsuit against LAUSD may have given the school district some additional flexibility in this area.

We heard an informational presentation on out-of-school  programming and planning for increasing capacity and quality of afterschool options for public school students; also a short update on the district’s plan to create a K-8 program at the Horace Mann Academic Middle School site by bringing Buena Vista Elementary to the school and combining it with the existing middle school program. The school will retain the Horace Mann name, but discussions are underway about how to integrate the Buena Vista name into the school somehow.

Public comment:

We heard from a number of current parents at Fairmount Elementary who do not support the newest middle school feeder plan announced on Feb. 1, which would feed Fairmount into Everett Middle School.  Parents argued that Lick MS — where Fairmount would have fed based on the original plan unveiled by the district last August — makes much more sense geographically; also, they said many Fairmount students currently attend Lick and the two schools share a community connection.

We also heard from several teachers and parents at Bret Harte Elementary, who are alarmed by unspecified rumors about their school’s future. The teachers and parents were particularly critical of communication and community engagement in the Superintendent’s Zone, complaining that decision-making has been top-down and that the district has failed to reach out to parents as part of its effort to improve educational options in the Bayview.

Advertisements

2 responses to “Recap: National Board Certification, Edison, afterschool and the budget

  1. special ed parent

    Rachel — I am concerned that, by eliminating Edison, one more small public K through 8 option for special education has been lost. We met with Edison management and they were very open to having our special ed child at their school for middle school. Now, yet another small K8 option for special ed kids has been lost. And with Horace Mann being turned into a K8 immersion-only, that eliminates yet another K8 for special ed kids. Let’s face it — few, if any, special ed kids function well in the immersion setting. I was glad to see that you supported Gateway’s middle school charter application, but, at this point, that is the ONLY viable option for a small middle school setting for special kids. There are so few slots at Rooftop, SF Community, and Claire Lillienthal available that those schools are just not a realistic option. Where is a family that wants a small school option for middle school going to turn now?

  2. I am confused as to why the Fairmount folks contested their feeder school and not the entire feeder plan. The district can keep shuffling the cards and arrive at new feeders.. there will always be winners and losers (or perceived winners and losers).

    Seems more effective to me for constituants to oppose the feeder system in its entirety.

    Besides – would Fairmount really want to feed to Lick if Alvarado fed somewhere else?

    Anyway – I’d love to see the Fairmount energy directed towards preserving choice at the middle school level. The reason that community has been able to develop between Fairmount and Lick is because there has a been a choice system in place, enabling families to choose to invest in Lick. Families, rightfully so, do not want to be pushed into middle schools.

    The district should listen to parents. Parents have VERY diverse interests. They want:
    1. Immersion options
    2. GATE options
    3. Art/Music options

    So – Take the money and establish these programs at the middle schools, and then let the parents decide!