Planning for the 2016 bond

The school district is planning to place a bond measure on the November 2016 ballot, and tonight the Board met as a Committee of the Whole to hear an update about the planning staff is doing for this bond measure and to give input into where we should make particular capital investments.

There is a lot of interesting information in the presentation, including:

  • A summary of enrollment projections for the next 20 years;
  • Long-range capital needs, both for the current bond and the next bond (the presentation says 2021, but according to one speaker there is no election that year);
  • The current plans for the 2016 bond — currently listing over $700 million in capital projects, including $80 million for up to two new schools and $100 million for the SFUSD Arts Center, the long-dreamed-of new home for Ruth Asawa School of the Arts and a district-wide professional development and performance space at 135 Van Ness Ave.

There is much more information on enrollment projections in a hefty new report available on the district’s web site (don’t download it on your phone – the PDF is over 100 pages). I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, so I have no reaction to it. But based on the summary from the presentation we heard tonight, we have to get busy building some schools!

enrollment chart

We are still in the early stages of bond planning (we have to vote to place a final version on the ballot by early August, but due to the annual board recess in July a vote might happen in late June). We’re hearing from a lot of people urging us to build a school in Mission Bay; it also looks like there is huge growth coming to the Bayview and southeastern neighborhoods.

Family engagement update

We talk about family engagement a lot at the school district, and we put a lot of resources toward it. But are we getting results? Also at tonight’s Committee of the Whole we had a discussion with Kevin Truitt, Chief of Student, Family and Community Support, and Mele Lau-Smith, Executive Director of Family Engagement and School Partnerships. It’s become increasingly clear that while we have a large number of family engagement initiatives, the work is disjointed and not focused enough.

A big part of our strategy continues to be Family Liaisons — people who are embedded at school sites and trained to support and engage families. Over the years many of these people have become essential community members, and their school sites can’t imagine life without them — most are bilingual and serve as a key communication point for parents who don’t speak English. (This handout shows sites with a Family Liaison and a summary job description for the role).  Still, it’s been challenging to make sure that every site adheres to the Family Liaison job description and that these employees are trained in all of what they might need to know — discipline policies, special education rights and procedures, academic standards, etc.

I would say that 90 percent of the issues that come to me from constituents are family engagement issues: questions or problems that for whatever reason don’t have an easy “just talk to your principal” solution. There really is no one place parents of any background can go to ask such a question — sort of a 311 for SFUSD. In an ideal world, we would have a help line staffed continuously from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.weekdays and 8 a.m. to noon on Saturdays, with bilingual operators who could answer basic questions and log more complicated ones for a response within 24 hours.

One of the SEIU 1021 unit leaders (the union that represents our school secretaries) was in the audience and he emailed me that my suggested solution is too complicated. Instead, he suggested, why not offer our school secretaries and front-line clerical staff professional development that would allow them to answer most inquiries and transfer those they aren’t able to answer to the correct department within one transfer. I still think families need a help line, but I agree that better customer service training for front-line clerical staff would pay huge dividends in families feeling like they know where to go and that someone at the district is listening.

Advertisements

2 responses to “Planning for the 2016 bond

  1. John Monson

    You may recall the presentation that the Daniel Webster community made three plus years ago in which we implored SFUSD to anticipate the increasing family population and therefore potential students south of Market. Glad to see that eyes are finally open to these trends and the need to address them.

    From our perspective there is still a somewhat urgent need for Middle School seats in the Mission Bay, Potrero area. And, it looks like there are facilities that could be used in the near term to meet that need. We will be interested observers at least.

  2. The school liaison, trained staff, and a help line would all be great to support families. Maybe start with training the front desk staff and then implement a help-line for Saturdays and from 4-8pm on weekdays. The key would be that all would have the same information. It seems that school liaisons serve a special role as they also engage with partners outside the school and could be used to enlist other resources with direct contact while front desk personnel could give contact information, help with forms, and then guide families to the school liaison if they needed further assistance. It’s great to build resources for families that are easy to access.
    Yes, building schools will be great but you will also need to building housing for teachers, principals, staff, and paraprofessionals and raise pay to living wages if you want to staff the buildings and maintain them. Part of the bond should go to an endowment to fund salaries and housing!