San Francisco Unified School District Board - Regular Meeting

who we could trust. She has supported my grandma, mom, my siblings and so many families at Drew. She made Drew feel safe, welcoming and full of love. Even after I left middle school, she still cared about how I was doing. That's the kind of principal she is, and she is someone who doesn't forget her students. Dr. Franklin has made a huge impact on our community, and losing her has hurt a lot of students and families. I'm standing up for her because she always stood up for us. Thank you.

Good evening, members of the board. And Dr. Sue, my name is Charles Gardner and I'm a fourth grader at Dr. Charles Drew Elementary School. Dr. Franklin should stay at Drew. We need her as our leader. First, she lifts us up with all her luck. This shows she's dedicated to helping us as people. Next, she protects us with all her heart and will never forget each one of us. She guides us through tough times. This shows she loves us. Then she stands up for us and takes care of us. Finally, without Dr. Franklin, our school won't stay great. Bayview needs Dr. Franklin.

Hello, I'm going to be reading 3 separate statements from Dr. Charles drew students. The 1st, 1 is from a million brown. Drew needs Dr. Franklin because she believes in us. For example, on Star Reading, 53% of my third grade class is at or above grade level. Under Dr. Franklin, we get a good education. She made the Drew Store for good behavior. For example, at the Drew Store, we can use Drew Dollars to buy squishies, slime, fidgets, and Stanley Cups. She cares about us being our best selves. She provides supplies to help us learn professionally. Please don't take our amazing leader away. We look up to her. Bayview needs Dr. Franklin. So that's from third grade, Emiliana Brown. Second grade, Kalia. Drew needs Dr. Franklin because she takes care of us. For example, she will fight for our rights. She created a school where I can be a scholar. This shows that she knows we are brilliant. She makes sure our teachers know how to teach and grow. This shows she only lets the best people work here. Please keep Dr. Franklin at Drew. And finally from Marlon areola third grade student drew is an important school because of Dr Franklin when we do the three B's be respectful responsible and safe. She rewards us with the drew store she made the drew store with false money or drew dollars and she sends she spends her money on us when we listen. She makes us laugh when we are sad Dr Franklin cares about our feelings without Dr Franklin, we will be depressed. And I would like to present to the board 12 other letters written by second and third grade students this summer.

Leo Nash, Liberty Harris, Tori Scales, Tyler Gatlin.

Hello, my name is Leo and I am a third grade student at the Lourdes Huerta Elementary School. My dad works as a garden teacher at Dr. Charles Drew. Dr. Franklin and my dad started a garden program for the students of the Bayview who don't have access to nature. The new garden helps students try new foods, touch insects, and relax at school. This is just one of the examples of love and care Dr. Franklin adds to the school. Now she is being forced to resign for her many successes, which others see as failures. Thank you. I hope you find the courage to correct this grave mistake.

I have recordings from three fifth grade teacher, I mean fifth grade students. This is Liberty Appendix.

My name is Liberty and I am a fifth grade student. I am writing to ask you to support due process for students, families, and teachers. Due process means that everyone gets a fair chance to share their side and be heard before decisions are made. It is important because it helps people feel respected and treated fairly. When people know that rules are followed fairly, they can trust the school system more. Our schools should be places where everyone feels safe, valued and respected due process help this helps this sure that decisions are based on facts and fairness not just opinions or assumptions for this reason i ask that dr franklin be given due process and fair opportunity to be heard before any file final decisions are made um

Sorry. Next, I have Tyler Gatlin.

My name is Tyler. I am a fifth grader at Charles Drew Elementary School. I would like to share why I think Dr. Franklin is a great principal. Dr. Franklin cares about all students and works hard to make our school a safe and welcoming place. She listens to students, teachers, and families and tries to help when there is a problem. She wants everyone to do their best and encourages us to work hard and be kind to others. Dr. Franklin helps create a positive school community where students feel supported and respected. She celebrates our success and reminds us that we Learning is important because of her leadership. Many students feel proud to be a part of our school.

And then last one, I have Tori.

Tori, I am a fifth grade student. I am writing to share why black leaders are important in our schools and communities. Black leaders help show students that people from all backgrounds can succeed and make a difference. They bring different experiences, ideas, and perspectives that help make schools stronger and more welcoming for everyone. When students see leaders who look like them, It can inspire them to believe in themselves and work hard and reach their goals. Black leaders also help teach us about fairness, respect, and the importance of understanding different cultures. Our schools are made up of many different people and having diverse leaders help everyone feel seen value and key and included. I hope our district continues to support and celebrate black leadership.

That concludes our students. Moving on to agenda items for the general public, Bernice Casey, uh hava kelly kim nancy parrot aaron lang

Hi, my name is Bernie's Casey. I'm a parent of currently 1 child at my oldest graduated. I'm here to speak on 3 issues, but 1st, I want to applaud the school board members who last meeting said they would not approve a budget that didn't clearly align with some of the recommendations. of bodies like the cac and the lcap and i hope you will actually do that i want to remind people for the selpa plan there is no dyslexic curriculum for middle school and high schoolers i don't know how the district can continue that you might want to turn the timer on um and then the other piece is there's so many other responses in here that i I want to be as professional as possible, so I'm not going to address all of them. But some of the things that the LCAP did is they took things from the African American Parent Advisory Committee, the DLAC, the CAC, so you would have a holistic request of what parents, community members, and students are looking for. And some of the most outrageous responses are when the LCAP said you should consult school sites before making site-based changes. the district said they can't do that. Really? You can't reach out to a school and say, hey, we're gonna cut your programs before you do it. Ensure that they have, students have access to bathrooms that are accessible. No, you can't do that. And I'm not gonna even talk about some of the pieces in section three when LCAP is asking you to make sure that you're listening to communities of color and multilingual learners. We've heard from Drew Sanchez, you're not doing it. So please make sure you read these responses from the school district and ask them why they can't follow the law.

Good evening, Dr. Sue and Board. My name is Kimberly Brown. Thank you for sharing your time. To this day, a decision that has had a significant impact on a beloved school community remains largely unexplained. This raises important questions about how community voice is incorporated into decisions that directly affect students, families, educators, and schools. I'm concerned not only about the forced resignation of our principal, but also about what this situation suggests regarding the relationship between our district, strong school leadership, and the communities they serve. When decisions of this magnitude are made without an explanation to students, staff, community members, Trust is weakened and opportunities for collaboration is lost. Dr. Franklin is a model educator. She is an excellent administrator. We need her. Please reopen her investigation and allow for necessary due process.

Hi, my name is Nancy parrot. I'm a school psychologist with and I, um. I'm fortunate enough to work at Dr Charles drew with Dr Franklin. Um, the treatment of Dr Franklin has been abusive, deceptive and blatantly racist. This is truly shameful behavior from a district that touts inclusion and equity as a badge of honor. Segregation is alive and well in SFUSD. I worked at a charter school for one year and was disgusted by the level of privilege I saw there. A small school like Drew pales in comparison to the resources and support I saw at another school in the exact same city. While non-black and brown students seem awarded every resource available, our students are getting scraps. It's not lost on me that I am a white person making these statements. And historically, all we have done is take from the black community, from slavery to land to redlining, prison labor and segregated schools. We take, take, take. And now we're going to take one of the greatest resources Drew has. If you want to promote anti-racism, here's your opportunity to prove it.

Good evening. As related to LCAP Goal 4, commitment to anti-racism, on June 17th, in regards to the removal of Dr. Franklin and mistreatment of Black leaders in SFUSD, Dr. Su, you stated, I am now responsible for all of this and I need to step up and make it better. Hold me accountable. Tonight, I'm asking to do that. Dr. Sue, in our meeting, you acknowledge that Dr. Franklin resigned under duress and the threat of termination, and since others have been allowed to rescind their resignations, then fairness requires that Dr. Franklin be given the same opportunity. We are also concerned about reports that serious allegations were discussed in closed session without proper notice or due process per the Ralph Brown Act. We demand a cure and correct. Dr. Sue, you have said you want Black leaders to feel welcomed, valued, and heard. Now is the time to show it. Reinstate Dr. Franklin immediately and reopen the investigation so that any procedural concerns can be fully reviewed with urgency. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Habba Kelly and I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the CAC and I wrote this down to try to get it right, which is not like me. So the CAC appreciates the decision to delay the final vote on the SOPA Local Plan. that additional time resulted in changes that addressed some of our concerns. Most notably, we have nine additional full-time psychologist staff as well as five additional to fulfill the assessment backlog. Sorry, I'm really exhausted. As a result, we will sign an agreement as long as this is reflected in the final budget before it's submitted to the CDE. In addition, we have raised concerns we'd like to see improvements moving forward. First off, I want to say that we have concerns about the decision or the proposal to move the fiscal and data team under finance. Oh, bummer. That's a concern and the other is for operational coherence. We need to have a process that is better moving forward. Please read our letter and get back to us. Sorry. I ran out of time.

Grace del Toro. Kate Weiss, Roberto Guzman-Rivera, Blanca Calan, Ashley Harmon.

Hello board members and Dr. Hsu. Thank you again for meeting with us the past week. I'm here today again demanding for due process and incurring correct. We will not be silenced and sit back while you create chaos and damage to our community. Dr. Hsu, in our last meeting, you stated and I quote, we should have put another leader to work with Dr. Franklin. My question is why is that too late? Why can't you hold yourself to that responsibility that you claimed? Does this have anything to do with how the district misused Title I money for social work? Does this have anything to do with closing emerging schools? Have you seen the investigation report?

It's always that.

Okay, hello board members and Dr. Sue. My name is Kate Weiss. I'm a repairer that works at Charles Drew. Thank you for all you do. I am here today demanding for due process and a cure and correct. We will not be silenced and sit back while you create chaos. and damage to our schools. Dr. Su, you stated, and I quote, we need to do better at recruiting and retaining more African American leaders into the district. How can you say that and then let go of our black and brown leaders? How can you say that you are for us and at the same time work against us?

Good evening board members.

My name is Blanca Catalan and I work in my daytime job as a community parent organizer with Coleman Advocates and in my volunteering job I serve as the chair of the Latinx Community Council. I'm here to urge all the board members to not approve the budget until the recommendation from the LCAP advisory committee and other parent advisory bodies are clearly reflected and funded. Families, students, and community members spend countless hours participating in this engagement process. These recommendations are not symbolic. They are the formal voice of the community. If the budget doesn't show how these recommendations will be implemented, then SFUSD is not honoring its own community engagement process. With $12.5 million in new funding available, this district has the opportunity to demonstrate that community voice matters. Before voting yes, we ask for transparency, accountability, and a clear commitment to funding the solutions families have already identified.

Thank you.

Good evening Board of Education. My name is Roberto Guzman Rivera, SFDSD parent. Year after year, the LCAP advisory committee submitted recommendations, grounded in the Board guardrails and informed by the voices of our communities. Yet, after years, after years, SFDSD falls short of fully implementing those recommendations. Every year, Black and Brown families ask for greater focus in our focal student groups. Every year, we hear about chronic absentism. Every year, district reports continue to show that many of our students, especially Latino, African American, and English learners, and students with disabilities are still five below grade level in reading and in other academic outcomes. We know what works. Stop laying bilingual teachers. Invest in engaging school-based programs and activities that make students want to come to school. Provide high-quality tutoring in small groups and one-on-one setting. Ensure that the service promised in the LCAP are actually delivered to students. Our students can now afford another year of plan without implementation. Thank you.

Good evening commissioners. Um, I'm incredibly confused by the priorities of this district last board meetings budget review was vague about how the budget money would actually carry out the key initiatives, removing Dr Franklin directly dismantle supports and progress for black and brown students in the Bay view a community that has repeatedly experienced this investment and institutional harm. it sends a painful message about which students are valued and invested in. Over and over again, SFUSD and San Francisco voters have stated that their top priority is improving academic outcomes for underprivileged students. Under Dr. Franklin, that's exactly what happened. Test scores for historically marginalized student groups at Drew improved dramatically. She achieved the exact goals that this board claims to care about. Yet she was forced out over administrative funding allegations. This tells the public that cares about rigid and equitable bureaucratic processes. You are sacrificing an effective educator on the altar of administrative paperwork.

Robert Schneider. Kirsten Sarah. Stephanie Balkenstein. Ashley Ahern.

Hi, everyone. I've been an educator in SF for 24 years, yet standing before you still brings me a little fear. I started teaching in the early aughts before smartphones were a thing. Notebooks and pencils are what our students would bring. Devices in schools have added extra distraction. I saw firsthand the decline of student social interaction. Attention spans are dwindling. Staying focused is harder than ever. How can we expect real attention when devices have students so tethered? Districts with bell-to-bell device policies in place all increase their learning through relationships face-to-face. We are Tech in Check. We're families and educators from 35 schools all over town. We'll be here each month. You'll see us around.

Good evening. My name is Robert Schneider. This is the second time I'm addressing the board. I'm here with Tech and Check. I'm a physical education teacher within this district, but I'm also here as someone who hopes to be a parent one day. And as we continue to discuss technology and AI in our schools, I continue to ask myself the same question. Given the opportunity, would I want to send my children to the school district? Given where we're at and wanting to attract and retain families, I think this is a question we should all be asking. Children need the opportunity to build relationships, learn, play. Technology should support this, not replace it.

Hi, my name is Stephanie Falkenstein, and I'm a parent of a rising fifth grader at Yaquo Elementary School. I'm encouraged that SFUSD is finally making progress towards implementing a bell-to-bell phone policy and engaging parents in the process. This shouldn't be controversial. 88% of respondents to SFUSD's own survey supported a more restrictive policy, and schools as diverse as Roosevelt Middle School and Willie Brown Middle School already have successful policies in place. However, a lot of work still has to be done. To meet the July 1 deadline, SFUSD drafted a cell phone policy without site-to-site consistency with no plans for rollout and no plans for enforcement. It was also buried this policy along with 70 other items on the consent calendar. I'm asking that SF USD follow its proposed cell phone policy engagement plan starting with the outreach to over 400 plus parents who have already demanded a policy. I also ask that SF USD commit to fully rolling out this policy by the 2728 school year. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Karla Perisinotto. I am a father and also a research doctor who studies the effect of social connections on health and well-being. Mi familia escogió escuela pública en Junipero Serra no solo para la educación de mi hija Diana, sino también para la oportunidad de crecer, aprender y formar conexiones con otros niños. Nuestro cirujano general, Vivek Murthy, nos ha indicado que hay tremendas repercusiones acerca de la soledad y los efectos de la tecnología en la gente joven. Yo quería que la enseñanza de mi hija fuera con maestras y no con pantallas. Uno de los momentos más especiales para Gianna, mi hija de kinder, fue cuando recibió su premio de estudiante de la semana para ayudar a otros estudiantes a aprender a leer. Este tipo de aprendizaje uno a uno y no en una app debería de ser lo que fomenta el distrito. No se puede reemplazar la conexión humana con una app y con tecnología. Gracias.

Hi, I'm an educator and parent advocating for intentional technology in schools. Nationwide, school leaders and districts are decreasing screen time in the classroom and recalibrating one-to-one device models to support children's healthy development in our digital world. Baltimore City Public Schools is removing one-to-one devices for students in grades pre-K through two and providing screen time guidance for teachers. LAUSD's screen time policy includes removing YouTube from student devices and prohibiting recreational and passive screen use in schools. It is time for SFUSD to join this cultural shift. To start, seek out independent research before adopting student-facing digital products. give parents opt out and mandate only approved apps are used in classrooms. To quote Dr. Santa Lisa, Baltimore City Public Schools, we have to prioritize protecting the attention span and the brain development of our children to ignore this is akin to neglect.

I'm going to read my remarks in English. Good evening. My name is Carla Pericinotto. I'm a parent and a physician. I study social connection and its impact on health. I chose public school not only for my daughter's education, but for the opportunity to learn, grow, and connect with other children. Our Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has raised serious concerns about loneliness, social media, and the effects of technology on young people. I wanted my daughter to be taught by teachers and not by a screen. One of my proudest moments was when my daughter received a student of the week award for helping another child learn to read. That kind of peer to peer learning, mentorship and human connection is what schools should foster. I'm asking the board for greater transparency regarding how much time students spend on devices, why devices are being used instead of teacher-led instruction, and third, what guardrails we have in place to protect students from the risk of AI. Thanks for your time and consideration.

Carla Parasimo? Oh, that was you? Oh, okay. What's your name?

Ashley. Okay. Perfect. Hi, good evening. I'm Ashley. I am a parent of a rising 1st, greater and and I'm here tonight to 1st, thank this board for making a recent commitment to reviewing and updating the current policy around student use of cell phones and personal devices. We urge the district to follow the recent examples of and San Diego unified among many others. And please adopt a district-wide bell-to-bell policy requiring all personal devices, phones, earbuds, smartwatches, gaming consoles be turned off and stored out of sight for the entire school day with clear and consistent enforcement across all grade levels and all campuses. As it stands now, students at different schools experience inconsistent expectations around this, and therefore they experience unequal learning environments. Some students, excuse me, some schools already have and enforce a clear bell to bell policy that many others either do not have such a policy or are not consistently enforcing it. This is an equity issue. All of our students deserve access to a distraction free learning environment, not just those who are lucky enough to be enrolled at schools with a stricter enforcement. Thank you.

Okay, Abby Chow, Phil Lee, Yan Hong Wang, Maripa Kalave, Noah Marjavi,

Hi, my name is Abby Chow, and I'm here for the Mandarin Immersion School. I am the mom of three young kids, three and under, and I'm also an organizer of the Friends of the SF Mandarin School organization. We represent over 800 families and over a thousand students who really want this school. Dr. Su, thank you for the vision and commitment to open this school by next fall. However, we are alarmed that you recently told the board that you won't finalize a school site until spring 2027. That means that families will need to enter the lottery for this school and maybe even decide whether to accept admission into this school without knowing where it is. Not to mention this is, of course, way past the deadline of the October enrollment fair, which previously was when we were expecting that decision. I urge you to do this earlier. If you have a short list of schools, please share it, engage the community in the early fall, and then announce that temporary site before the holidays at the latest. Thank you.

Hi, I'm a parent speaking in support of the Mandarin school of a five year old, and he's entering kindergarten in two months prior to that. He was at a Mandarin preschool of all of his graduating friends. A few lucky ones got into public Mandarin. Of the rest, a few who could afford it went to private school in Mandarin. But even those who were in private school, who are going to private school, their parents tell me that if they ever get off the waitlist, they would go to public Mandarin and they would switch to public. It is very, very hard to get into public Mandarin school right now. There's a lot of demand. This is a solution for our declining enrollment. And we effectively only have one Mandarin school, two halves of two schools. And if this school open tomorrow, it will still be very hard to get in. But I'm here hoping that by the time the school opens, my son won't be too old. He will be in the first grade or second grade. So please don't delay. My family's actually at a giant scale right now, but I'm here. I hope that this works out. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Yehong Wang, founder and the director of Unity Mandarin Enrichment Center. Seeing the West Portal students grow in confidence and succeed in Mandarin year after year has been incredible, and we want to continue protecting the momentum When we learned that the previous Mandarin after-school program would not be able to continue in the fall, a dedicated group of our instructors came together to establish the non-perfect Unity Mandarin Enrichment Center to ensure that students' education could continue without disruption. We have officially secured our SFUSD vendor ID. More than 50 Westportal families have expressed their support for unity mentoring and wish to maintain the consistent familiar learning environment for their children. Thank you.

Oh, there we are.

Hi, my name is and I serve as the chair of the SEC at Drew and I'm a proud parent of a rising TK. Tonight I'm here to speak plainly about due process and the urgent need for a cure and correct. What has happened at Drew is not just a procedural failure. It is a breach of trust. Our community was told that the situation would be reviewed, assessed, and handled with integrity. Instead, decisions were made behind closed doors, without transparency, consultation, and without regard for the impact on our children. Dr. Sue, on Monday, May 4th, you told me and several of my colleagues that you did not want to take anything away from our students and families. Yet removing our principal without due process without evidence shared and without any meaningful follow up has taken far more than a leader has taken stability, safety and confidence from our school. We will not be silenced and sit back while harm is done to our community. The SSC is demanding a cure and correct because the process was flawed. The community was excluded and the consequences have been deeply damaging. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Noah. I'm a SFUSD alumni from every grade I've been in. A lifelong care of children from babysitting to child development and after school and now a garden educator at Drew. I have my own two students in the school district, a third grader and a kindergartner. And I'd like to frame this, what's been happening with our school and Dr. Franklin as an attack and a theft. An attack and theft. It doesn't add up. We're talking about candy money. We're talking about doing things the wrong way that wouldn't apply to any other neighborhood. It made me think there must be another agenda. Are you planning to gentrify our school with the right kind of students? Was Dr. Franklin just an obstacle in the way who needed to be removed? Our school site is beautiful. Now we get attention. Before, not a single person would talk to us or listen to us. But we have a lot of attention once it looks good. There's something else happening.

Jeremiah Jeffries, Phil Dacus, Tara Ramos, Megan Bloom, Shivangi.

Good evening. My name is Jeremiah Jeffries. I'm a first grade teacher in San Francisco at Reading Elementary School. I've been teaching in San Francisco for 27 years, and I've been at Reading for 18. I come to you as a member at SSC, as a member of the ELAC, and as a member of the UBC at my school site. Your budget process, did you know that San Francisco has two schools? One that serves, provides Vietnamese language to every student in the school. They have two teachers that provide Vietnamese language to everyone in the school at Tenderloin Elementary School. At Reading, we have two teachers that serve the entire school, and everyone learns Arabic. It's an amazing program. It's been going on since 2017, when the board unanimously approved it in 2015 for it to be implemented. It was implemented and we actually had a pathway from elementary school all the way through high school. There was a middle school program with one teacher serving Marina Middle School. There was one teacher in Mission High School serving Arabic, teaching Arabic to those students at Mission High School. However, now we've been given a budget that had those teachers removed, both programs. The Mission High teacher eliminated completely. The middle school teacher eliminated completely with no discussion with the school site. And you gave us a budget that we submitted that we had full of errors. You said there'd be corrections in the appeal process. We did that. We were told rather flippantly, or just not the community, just the principal, that changes were made, things were not approved, changes were not approved, errors were not corrected. And then we never received another final budget.

Thank you. Your time is up.

You are not following your guardrails. You have not followed your guardrails. What's the point of them other than to...

Good evening, Commissioners and Dr. Hsu. My name is Philip Dokas. I'm a parent and SSC member at Sanchez Elementary. Last meeting, we heard from the Marshall community about their concerns over losing their dedicated sub-allocation. Commissioner Alexander and others asked great questions about how choices like this weigh budget concerns against real-world outcomes and how they should be made clear in simple language. Transparency is a chief concern of our guardrails. At Sanchez, our budget for next year was updated over spring break, days before the SPSA was due. And it unexpectedly cut three classroom teachers. We've been asking since April for an explanation of these changes. And unfortunately, the most we've been told is that this change followed a consistent projection process. The reorg roadmap we'll hear about later aims for predictable, equitable, and stable resources for schools. The LCAP committee's first recommendation is about how consistent staffing leads to student success, how changes should involve staff and families, and how changes should be made early on. Sanchez is experiencing none of these, and no one can point to the strategy at play. Thank you.

Um, good evening board members. My name is Megan. I'm also a parent at Sanchez, uh, elementary, um, we, the parents of Sanchez elementary demand and deserve greater transparency from our district. I think that's a pretty common theme to all the comments you've heard tonight. We all understand that public education is at a crossroads. We understand that bureaucracy is long. Childhood is short and parenting is hard. We deserve to know what is behind the decisions that are affecting our children every day. And until we see a much more coherent, data-driven vision for our schools, the decision to cut funding presents as a strategic choice to send already struggling campuses into survival mode, thus weakening test scores and ultimately providing justification for future system-induced attrition. We ask that the district reconsider the concerns we have already raised, and we ask that reserve funding be released to maintain staff levels until the district can pass a budget that truly supports the best outcomes for all students. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Tara Ramos. I'm a teacher at Sanchez Elementary. The letter that Phil Dokas sent to Dr. Su, President Kim, and all of the board members on June 2nd clearly shows that what SFUSD is doing to Sanchez Elementary goes against our district vision, values, goals, and guardrails. You are shrinking our school, Sanchez Elementary, and have put the existence of our Spanish bilingual program in danger. In fact, entering kindergarteners and any future kindergarteners, all Latinos in the Spanish bilingual program may face being in combo classes their entire elementary school career. We have asked and asked for a meeting with Dr. Sue and have not gotten a response from her. We have sent letters to all of you and have not gotten a response from any of you. If you and this is our third time coming out to a board meeting to ask for a response, please read the letter and respond to us if you are goal, if you and the superintendent would be more responsive we won't have to come out a fourth time.

Hi, my name is Shivangi. I'm a Mira Loma parent. My kid goes to kindergarten there. He is a neurodivergent kid, almost non-verbal, and he's been targeted by bullies. And there has been incidents of hitting, teasing, making him say bad words like the F word. OK. And they also very recently, just before school closure, kids pull his pants down and, you know, they they laughed. They did their thing. OK. Mind you, all of these kids are six years old, just six year olds. The parents, not everybody apologized. The principal was on it, you know, and there was no way I would have known had one of the parents not told me. So the aftercare needs to be investigated. We need to see what the aftercare is doing if they're not letting parents know. Second is we also need to have investigation on all bullying at Miraloma, and there should be a policy to replace students who are attacking kids this severely. That's all I would say. Thank you.

This concludes our in person public comment. Moving to online. If there are any students on in the virtual please raise your hand if you're not a student, please drop your hand. Okay, I will call on you if you're not a student be aware that I will not allow you to speak until it's time for the adults to speak. Okay. Harlem Kelly. You can go ahead and talk.

Good evening, members of the board.

I'm a 9th grade student at KIPP, a former charge rule scholar and the daughter of my child, Franklin. Most people know Dr. Franklin as a principal. I know her as my mom. I have watched her spend countless hours supporting students, teachers, and families. Even at home, she was still thinking about how to make charge rule a better place for children. What has been the hardest is seeing the toll this situation has taken on her. I have watched someone who dedicated herself to school community experience stress, sadness, and doubt. She missed family time, worked late nights, and made sacrifices because she believed true students deserve the very best. As board members, you may be discussing policies and decisions, but for me, this is personal. The person you are talking about is my mother. She's someone who devoted years of her life to helping children succeed. I ask that you remember the human being behind this decision and consider the years of service, commitment, and care she gives to students and families of Charles Drew. Thank you for your time.

tell her to raise her hand and tell her to just read it harlem can you there you go omi

Hello, Uribe.

Good evening. My name is Uribe Batawi II, and I am a third grade student at Broad Harvest. I would like to talk about Dr. Franklin and how much she means to Drew, our community, and my family. Dr. Franklin cares about students and makes us feel important. She works hard every day to help Drew. be a safe, happy, successful place to learn. She listens to family support teachers and always wants the best for all of us. My family has seen how detective she is and we are thankful for everything she has done for our school community, her leadership, has made a positive difference in many lives. We are asking you to keep Dr. Franklin at Drew. She is a wonderful leader and over community is stronger because of her. Thank you for your time and for listening.

Hunter, Kelly?

Good evening, members of the board. I am a seventh grade student at KIPP, a former Charles Drew student and Dr. Franklin's daughter. Most people know Dr. Franklin as a principal. I know her as my mom. I have watched her spend long hours working, take cell phone calls late at night, and dedicate herself to supporting students, teachers, and families at Charles Drew. What has been hard is to see the impact the situation has had on her. I have watched someone who cared deeply about her school community experience stress and heartbreak. She missed family time, work weekends, and made sacrifices because she believed the students of Charles Drew deserve the best. As board members, you may be discussing policies and procedures. But for me, this is personal. The person you are talking about is my mother. She is someone who devoted herself to helping children succeed. I accept and consider not only the decision before you, but also the years of commitment, care, and service she gave to Charles Drew and his students. Thank you for listening.

Okay, as a reminder, this is the students section. Thank you, Justin Talbot. Oh, wait. Okay, thank you for dropping your hands. That concludes the students. And we will move on to general virtual. Again, you have one minute. Okay, we'll begin with Tylan Lewis.

Good evening. My name is Tylan Lewis. I'm here because the decision to remove Dr. Franklin is unfair for our Drew community. She has worked so hard to protect and serve our school. Dr. Franklin has dedicated herself to uplifting our black and brown babies, creating opportunities, building trust, and helping scholars succeed in this racist society. This decision is racially unjust. Dr. Franklin fights tirelessly for our underserved community. She is facing great scrutiny instead of support by the district. Removing a principal who has poured her heart into our children sends a wrong message. You say SFUSD values equity and putting students first. Those values should include supporting our leaders who makes a real difference in our community. Our scholars deserve stability. Our school community does.

Kristen Coleman.

Hi, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm a member of Tech in Check and I urge SFUSD to adopt a district-wide policy that prohibits AI-based instruction and eliminates screen time in elementary schools while significantly limiting it for older students. At last month's meeting, I spoke about the growing body of research showing the negative effects of screen use on children's development. And today, I want to share what this looks like for my children. My kindergarten daughter was taught reading through an AI program called Amira, which I found out about halfway through the school year. She told me she spent time alone with an iPad struggling to get it to hear her voice. The glitches left her frustrated and with headaches. When I spoke with her teacher about it, she told me she would much rather teach reading directly, but felt required by the district to use the program. My second grade son spent 30 minutes every Friday on Dojo Island, a gamified learning platform. He came home dysregulated and asking for more game time, something he had never done before, being introduced to it at school. Technology should not replace human teaching. Our schools should prioritize teaching critical thinking and relationship building skills, which are not developed on educational apps. The evidence is...

Erin Antcliffe.

Hi, my name is Erin Antcliffe. I am thrilled that there's so much excitement and demand for this new Mandarin school in SFUSD, but I was a bit disconcerted at the last board meeting about the lack of transparency and evidence of thoughtfulness around the process for deciding on a school site when we're going to effectively replace an existing SFUSD school. So I think probably what will end up happening is that we will displace a school that we're calling underperforming and we'll say it's in the best interest of those students. We should probably call that school under-resourced and segregated, but It's a different topic. I think if we're going to do this, we should actually follow it through. So if we're saying we're winding down a school because it's under-enrolled and under-performing, then we shouldn't just shift all of those students to another under-enrolled, under-performing school. We should actually find a place that is better, that has a better academic environment, some identity-affirming and welcoming culture, that is actually going to yield a higher rate of satisfaction by the families that are affected by this move. And when we talk about resources, I'm not just meaning dollars. I also mean if a school is mostly staffed by substitute teachers or has had open positions for support staff for many years or has no PTA because there isn't an abundance of parents with time, money and professional skills to lend to support that school, that's not going to show up in a budget. So when we talk about school quality, let's not just talk about dollars. Let's talk about all of those other intangible resources as well. And let's think about carrots and not just sticks. I think this will help the community process go a lot more smoothly in the next year as we're talking about finding a permanent school site for this new K-8 Mandarin school. Thank you.

Parents for public schools.

Good evening.

This is Dr. Marrero calling from PPSSF. I'm calling with a really profound concern regarding an unlawful and unjust action that was taken by the board on May 12th. regarding Principal Franklin. On that night, the board chose to act in secret, violating California's open meeting laws. You convened a closed session to review severe unfounded charges of embezzlement and fund misappropriation against Principal Franklin. Under Government Code 54957 , you have strict obligation to provide the principal with a written notice of those charges at least 24 hours before the meeting. Furthermore, you chose to force the resignation and termination of a dedicated administrator despite zero evidence of wrongdoing, completely bypassing the progressive discipline requirements explicitly written in the administrator's contract. We have served you with a cure and correct demand letter today.

Cheryl Thies. Cheryl, did you want to go ahead?

Okay. Sorry. I am. Sorry. Here I am.

Okay. Go for it.

All right. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Cheryl Theis, Director of Education at Support for Families of Children with Disabilities. I urge you not to place the SELPA director under leadership whose primary responsibility is fiscal oversight rather than educational outcomes. In 2024, a special education funding crisis left over 250 positions unfunded, students missed services, and family trust in the district was eroded. At the time, Superintendent Hsu later acknowledged that the district had, quote, prioritized balancing the budget over our students' needs, unquote. who helped uncover the reason for the fiscal crisis and harm. Much of that legwork was done by volunteers serving on the SELPA Community Advisory Committee. That's why independent special education oversight and accountability matter. Budgets matter. Learning matters. The promise of IDEA is increasingly under threat. We know all children can learn. Please make that your first priority. Keep the firewall intact between fiscal and educational focus. Thank you.

Raj Sharma.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Yes. Good evening, board members and Dr. Su. My name is Raj Sharma. I'm a principal at Guadalupe Elementary. And I want to speak from the heart about Dr. Franklin and the impact of her work with our students. I have been deeply inspired by her commitment to Black students and her leadership in implementing Tier 2 supports during a time when schools are being asked to do more with fewer resources. In her work, I see a simple but powerful belief that every child can grow when we refuse to give up on them. We are a district that has faced difficult moment and we have also extended grace to other situations involving leadership challenges. That reality calls us to reflect on whether our system are consistently fair and equitable for Black and Brown leaders who are doing the daily difficult work in our schools.

Justin Talbot.

Good evening, board members. My name is Justin Talbot, and I'm also here to demand accountability from SFUSD for Drew Elementary and Dr. Franklin. I grew up in SF and attended SFUSD all throughout. I now work at an immigration nonprofit in SF where many of my clients are unaccompanied minors here in San Francisco and SFUSD students, of course. I have seen firsthand just how neglected the schools in the Bayview are, and Drew Elementary is no exception. Yet Dr. Franklin worked hard to give her students and teachers the resources they need in spite of the lack of district support. Forcing her to resign for finding ways to use resources that she could not meaningfully access through SFUSD is spiteful and doesn't address any of the underlying issues facing Drew or the district as a whole. Now that this is all public, you have a choice. You could keep going down this road of sweeping the issues facing Black and Brown students in the Bayview under the rug. or you could work with passionate and creative individuals like Dr. Franklin and the teachers at Drew to build better lasting systems that work for our students. I urge you to do the latter for the sake of all those at Drew.

Thank you. That concludes public comment at this time. I am going to request SEIU and UESF to come forward for their comment.

Um, President came if I may. Um, so we're gonna, we're gonna call you an order if that's okay. Um, spirulina Mason from USF 1st, Jennifer pawn from and then, um. Uh, and Josh.

Thank you. Hello, Board of Education members and Dr. Su. My name is Spirulina Mason and I'm an Access Transition Paraeducator. And as a paraeducator, I'm very well aware that we have a lot of problems retaining paraeducators. There are a lot of unfilled paraeducator positions. And what I'm here to speak about right now are payroll issues that are still happening a year after a $2 million Red Rover system was implemented, and we are still having problems with it. I just got my notification about my pay stub from the last five days, and they're missing. They're not on it. And I know that there are many, many other paraeducators that were paid incorrectly for the last five days of school. I thank you very much for getting the problem fixed with the Summer Saver program effectively, and I would like to see other problems get fixed that fast. I don't understand why they're still happening. Please do the minimum expected of any employer and pay us correctly and pay us on time. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Jennifer Pohn and I am the SEIU SFUSD vice vice president and a clerk over at Santiago in special education. I'm here because the district sent out a last minute notice about a delay in the summer assistance payout program. um basically our members are some of the lowest paid staff in the district and uh and missing a paycheck is our payment is is catastrophic for them um in some cases and so we were told that this is a payroll issue or that this is an HR issue because they're understaffed um When we fail to invest in the infrastructure for our staff and break promises to them, the effects just don't end. Hiring morale and retention impact student services and safety. So please do what is needed to make sure that staff are paid on time and correctly. yeah i mean just the i think that taking a shady to staff at some point um we're stressed so thin that it's just not operationally functional for this and we need staff to support our staff as well so and then to help us support the kids thank you

Good evening, Board and Superintendent Hsu. I'm Josh Davidson. I come to you tonight for the very last time as the chef of San Francisco Public Schools. Sorry, I'm having some feelings about that. It's really important that we pay people on time, that we pay them correctly. It's the least, literally the least we can do to retain staff. It's also really important to understand the context in which like, okay, dollars follow the students. Spending on classrooms comes first. We all understand that. We all agree about that. But there are infrastructure needs in the district that must be filled for everyone else to get their job done. We have to have staff in payroll. We have to have staff in human resources. We have to be able to keep our schools clean. We have to be able to feed the kids. Right. We have to be able to make sure that the environmental safety story is taken care of in schools, that we have ventilation and no lead in the water and no asbestos in the walls and those sorts of things. By the way, did you know that we used to have a fully staffed environmental health department? Every one of those people retired and we did not replace a single one of them. They're all gone. infrastructure is important for the future of the school district. We must invest in making sure we can maintain operations over the long term. Some of it is expensive. Sometimes it's inconvenient. Sometimes it's hard to hire people. We have to do it. The school district has been around for over 170 years. I think we intend to go on for the foreseeable future. And so please think about the infrastructure needs of the schools and how those things impact student services. Think about how a new student coming into a school perceives Dirty bathrooms, trash in the hallways, doors that don't open correctly, food served out of small plastic packages. These are things that make people feel unwelcome. They make people feel like they don't belong and that we don't want to see them and that we don't care about them. I know that's not how you feel. That's not how we feel. But as a child, You know what you're given, you know how you're treated, and you learn from those experiences. They're very important experiences, and we don't get a second chance. It's really crucial that we take care of our kids from the moment they step in the door. So thank you for the honor of serving the students of San Francisco for the last 17 years.

Please do better.

Thank you.

We cook it. We clean it. We secure it. We teach, we care, we are classified. You literally couldn't even get in this building without us. It is necessary. Anyway, good afternoon, commissioners, superintendents, to district leadership, and most of all, to all of you. I'm Tiana Tillery, the vice president of the United Educators, or paraeducators with the United Educators of San Francisco. I want to start by acknowledging two positive developments. First, I want to thank the district for rescinding the layoff notices that were scheduled to go out earlier this semester to about approximately 45 paraeducators. I came here tonight expecting to spend my time expressing gratitude for that decision because it's lifted an enormous burden off the shoulders of employees and families who have spent months wondering whether they would have a job next year. Second, I want to acknowledge the district, that the district was able to develop, or excuse me, was able to resolve the summer savers, as we call it, payment issue this afternoon. I appreciate everyone in benefits, payroll, labor relations, and district leadership, including those of you who are sitting in front of me, who worked to make this happen. The employees who participated in this program are counting on those funds to get through the summer and I'm grateful that the solution was found. But while I appreciate both of these outcomes, I cannot ignore how we got here. This year has been one of the most frustrating years that I've experienced as a union leader. I think I say that every time I get up here. Not because people were unwilling to meet, not because people were unwilling to have conversations. In fact, I spent this year being incredibly collaborative with department after department throughout SFUSD. I've met with human resources. I've met with payroll. I've met with benefits. I've met with labor relations. I've even met with the cabinet, including you, Dr. Sue. I answered countless emails, attended countless meetings, and spent countless hours helping solve problems that were never mine to solve. And through it all, I have asked our members to be patient. When Frontline and Red Rover were rolled out and problems occurred, I asked our members to be patient. When vacation accruals were wrong, I asked our members to be patient. When sick leave balances were inaccurate, I asked them to be patient. When payroll tickets went unanswered, I asked our members to be patient. I hear you over there, Katie. When communication broke down, I asked members to be patient, and our members were patient. But patience doesn't erase harm. The reality is paraeducators have experienced significant harm this year. We started this year fighting for employees to have access to their vacation time that they had already earned. Think about that. Employees had to fight to use benefits that they had already earned through their labor. Then we spent months dealing with payroll issues, accrual errors, communication failures, and system implementation. And just as we were preparing to close out the school year, we found ourselves fighting over our summer assistance payments. Money that employees voluntarily set aside from their own paychecks throughout the year so that they can survive the summer months. For many of our members, this is rent money, grocery money, child care. This is not extra money. This is survival. What was perhaps the most frustrating part about the summer assistance issue was not the delay itself. It was the fact that employees learned about it through their union rather than through their employer, again. That has become a recurring theme this year. Far too often, UESF has been the communication plan. Far too often our members have learned critical information from us because information was not communicated clearly, directly, or in a timely manner by the district. And while I appreciate that the issues were ultimately resolved, it should not require public pressure and emergency action plans before employees receive answers about their own money. There is another example that illustrates what has happened this year. For years, the Paraeducator Institute has provided professional development opportunities for nearly 1,100 paraeducators. It has equipped both new and veteran paraeducators tools, strategies, and best practices that directly benefit students. This year, the district was not going to offer the Para Institute Many paraeducators didn't even know that because, once again, there was no communication. but here comes UESF once again, and we stepped up. We took the responsibility on of continuing with the institute ourselves. We're organizing it, we're recruiting the presenters, we're building the workshops, we're ensuring that paraeducators continue to access the meaningful professional development that we know is important for our student success. We stepped up because our students deserve it. But I have to ask, why does it keep falling on the educators and the union members to fill in the gaps? Why does it feel like every time something breaks down, employees are expected to carry the burden? We will always step up for our students. We'll always step up for our members. But partnership cannot mean that labor is consistently cleaning up preventable problems. Partnership requires communication. It requires accountability. Partnership requires acknowledging when harm has occurred. And that is what has been missing. Not solutions, because eventually solutions are found. Not meetings, because we have plenty of those. What has been missing is acknowledgement of the impact these issues have had on real people because behind every payroll error is a worker. Behind every delay, payment is a family. Behind every communication failure is a person left wondering how they're going to pay their bills. Tonight, I am asking the board and district leadership to do more than resolve problems after they occur. I'm asking for you to build systems that prevent them from happening in the first place. I'm asking you to communicate with employees before a crisis develops. And I'm asking for you to recognize told that this year has taken on our employees. Because despite everything, paraeducators, they continue to show up and they continue to be patient. They have continued to support their students. They have continued to do their jobs with professionalism and dedication. They deserve systems at work. They deserve communication. They can trust. They deserve accountability. And they deserve a district that values them as much as they value the students that they serve. Thank you.

Thank you to our labor partners and members of the public, especially our students for joining us tonight. Um, as a reminder board rules in California law, don't allow us to respond to comments or attempt to answer questions during this time. But we appreciate you being with us here today in person and virtually. The super superintendent and our team are tasked with providing a draft of each agenda 12 days in advance for board members to review. Once that draft agenda is made public on our website board members have made a commitment to submit clarifying tactical questions. And staff have made a commitment to respond to those questions in advance of each meeting today's Q amp a document is linked into into board docs in item E two. Moving to item D. reconvening to open session. Close session readout. For items to the DS versus a few st the board by by a vote of six eyes and commissioners one voting nay. The board authorizes. The general counsel on one matter to initiate litigation based on. Facts and circumstances not yet known to the opposing party, I believe that naval was commissioner fisher. For existing litigation, student GB, student MJ. Oh, I think I need to read the whole thing. Student GB versus SFUSD, OAH case number 2026031089. Student MJ versus SFUSD, OAH case number 2026031261. Student MM versus SFUSD, OAH case number 2026040101. Student HB vs SFUSD OAH case number 2026040257 and student SH vs SFUSD OAH case number 2026040888. The board by a vote of seven ayes gives direction to the general counsel. In one matter regarding student matters the board by a vote of seven ayes voted to continue the item. Moving to item E, opening items, line acknowledgement. We, the San Francisco Board of Education, acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramayut community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first people. I'll move to item five, superintendent's report. Dr. Su.

Great. Thank you, President Kim. I have a few slides. Great. First, I just want to congratulate all of our students who graduated this school year. So congratulations to the class of 2026. Yay. I want to recognize just the amazing work of all of our students. They put in the hours, they put in the energy, they put in the time, as well as our amazing educators and support staff and administrators who helped supported them through the process. And of course, their amazing families. So thank you, families. Thank you, aunties and uncles and brothers and sisters and grandparents and forever home folks, everyone for just coming in and supporting our students, because that is exactly what they needed. to be able to proudly walk across the stage in early June and move on to amazing plans. We've got lots of our students who are moving on to post-secondary schools, four-year colleges, two-year colleges, career tech pathways, and many of our students receive fantastic scholarships. So just thank you so much to all of our supporters of our students. And then again, just thank you to the mayor and the city for allowing us to use all of the beautiful outdoor spaces to host our wonderful graduation. So thank you to the mayor's office, to Rec and Park Department, as well as to the Department of Children, Youth and their Families. And for anyone who wants to watch any of those graduation ceremonies, please go to the district's YouTube channel and you can watch them all. And for the third year in a row, the district hosted Unity Day. It's a special event for students, staff, families, and community partners to celebrate peace, unity, and wellness together. This year's youth-centered Unity Day event was successfully held at Balboa, Barton, and SF International High School, as well as Everett and Willie Brown Middle School. Each event was created with the student in mind so that we can build connections among each other, build a stronger partnership and tribe of all of our students, as well as community members. So a heartfelt thank you to all of our schools, our students, our families, our educators, our school community leaders, as well as our community-based organizations who came together to really support our students to make this wonderful event happen. And I am really, really proud to share that since April, the Enrollment Center has made almost 2,500 offers from our waitlist. And it includes many of our most requested schools and programs throughout the district. About two thirds of waitlist offers have been accepted so far. So thank you so much to families and welcome to SFUSD. Just to put this into context, last year during the August waitlist pool, we were actually made fewer offers and fewer percentage of students accepted. We were able to bring in more students this year and I'm so excited to welcome all those families to schools that they wanted and will I know thrive in them. Thank you so much, and I look forward to welcoming you and seeing you on the first day of school soon. Um, and then just wanted to give a major shout out to our access SF USD. Uh, the arc hosted this year, another wonderful, um, art show at the act theater. This event, um, has taken place for over many, many decades now and celebrate not only visual arts, um, that our students have created, but also performing arts. And a special, special congratulations to my dear, dear buddy, Anthony Lee, for being named AAA's School Safety Patroller of the Year at the show. And that's a picture of Anthony being very, very proud of being given this amazing award. And of course, thank you so much to Commissioner Fisher for representing all of us there. And Commissioner Gupta and Commissioners, I'm so sorry. So we were well represented. So thank you so much. And moving right along. So throughout June and July SFUSD will continue. Student Nutrition Services will be offering meals to our students. So one breakfast and one lunch at no cost to any young person under the age of 18 at 40 schools that is currently hosting summer programs. You do not need to be enrolled in the summer program to access any of the meals at these sites. All meals must be eaten at the school site. So unfortunately, there are no grab and goes. But please come if you need a meal to any of our school sites. And please take one and help yourself. To find a list of school sites offering free breakfast and lunch during the summer, please go onto our website sfusd.edu slash school food. I also want to highlight another big celebration that we supported. Students, families, alumni, staff, and neighbors celebrated 100 years of friendship and community at LMO Elementary School's centennial celebration. They turned 23rd Avenue between Clement and California into a vibrant gathering space of local food, school history, student performances, children activities, music, and really, really highlighted the vibrantness of our Richmond district community, but then also just the amazing Alamo community. So just congratulations to the school and look forward to another 100 years there. And then June is so exciting so SF USD community is invited to celebrate our is invited to celebrate love diversity and equality at the annual San Francisco pride parade yes. The district will have our fifth annual contingent of volunteers walking in the parade. This event is open to all members of the SFUSD community. Our district has been a leader in providing LGBTQ plus services to our students, families, and staff. And we have been promoting inclusive practices for the past It says here 35 years, but I assume many, many more years before that.

The parade takes place on Sunday, June 28th.

So for those of you interested in participating, please sign up before June 26th. You can sign up by filling out the form in the most recent FAB, so the Family Announcement Bulletin. And in the link you'll see on the website, you'll click on the link and it takes you to the website. around public announcements to learn how to register, or you can just email lgbtq at sfusd.edu. I also want to highlight our transportation provider, Zoom, who celebrated phase one of their electrification efforts. and held a groundbreaking event attended by several of our commissioners here and also local and state leaders. They will be transitioning to an all electric school bus fleet this fall. It's amazing. Yes. It's because we know that when students are sitting on the school bus and it's loud and it's draining. When students are now riding full electric school buses, it's quieter, it's calmer for our students. This new fleet will be the largest electric school bus deployment in the country with 104 buses. As part of this new fleet for SF USD this investment reflects the district's commitment to improving the daily experiences of our students and families by providing safer quieter cleaner buses for all of our students. And then finally, SFUSD schools and offices will be closed on Friday, July 3rd in observance of Independence Day. And I know it seems like a long time away, but wanted to remind everyone that the first day of school for the 26-27 school year is Monday, August 17th. Monday, but a month away, a month away. So not this Monday, it's a month away. I'll get 17 actually more than a month away 2 months. Okay. And, uh, President Kim, that concludes my presentation.

Thank you Dr. Sue moving to item F action items. Commissioners in front of us, we have 5 action items, uh, each with their own. opportunity to comment from the board. It is 818pm. I will do my due diligence and trying to keep us focused on the items. I ask that you comment and ask questions that may directly influence the outcome of your decision here. Or if you would like to just make a provide a statement, please do so briefly so that we may move on. We'll start with item this is a statement for all commissioners equally no one person to point out commissioner fisher item one two six six six dash two three sp five adoption of the sub a local plan in the annual budget and annual service plan for special education for the san francisco unified school district and county office of education can i have a motion and second

I move item 266 dash 23 SP five. Seconded.

It has been properly moved and seconded the board approve item 266 dash 23 SP five. I will ask Dr. Sue to bring this item forward.

Thank you, President Kim. And thank you to the special education CAC for your input, and for working with our amazing staff. Jenny, Julia and to help us refine and enhance and make sure that the plan truly reflects the needs of our students as a district. We are committed to meeting our obligations to providing a free and appropriate public education to all of our students. Most importantly, special education is at the heart of what we do. We are working on implementing key recommendations from FIGMAT. I am excited to launch the new county program at the Ed and Anita Lee school next year. I look forward to working with our entire special ed community to implement this plan next year, but then also to make sure that we continue to strengthen the work of the district around special education. I will note that if there is a delay or failure to adopt the SELPA local plan, this would significantly impact the timeliness of the district receiving SELPA funds and it will impact the SELPA's ability to apply for state and federal funding opportunities. So with that, I'm going to hand it over to Julia Martin, our wonderful ombudsman, who is going to go quickly through the presentation. Thank you.

And before you begin, I just want to acknowledge, if the content is similar from last time, there's no need to represent that material. Just if there's any changes or any adjustments made since the last, that would be great.

Yep, I am not going to read through the entire presentation because much of the slides are the same. Um, the only update that we do want to give is that we have been working closely and moving forward on our self goals. So, um, all of these things remain the same. Um, if you would move us through to the next slide, we are going to go and jump right to slide 6. what we, um. Thank you. Thank you. So actually, if you could step back one second. There we go. So the one thing that we have been working on diligently is implementing our FICMET recommendations as well as aligning what was recommended through the LCAP advisory and the CAC and so our biggest task over the summer is really reaching out and developing our scope and sequence around professional development and making sure that we are holding true to all of the things that we have committed to. And one of the ways that we do that is through professional development. The other is structural changes that come through our budget and making sure we have sufficient staff. So I'm going to pass to Jenny Payne, who will pass over to Niru. So if you go to the next slide, please. There we go. So we are at slide six.

Thank you, Julia. So after the last board meeting, the special education team met with Nehru and the fiscal team to refine our budget, which meant that we look very closely at our needs and our assessment needs of our students. We have updated our full-time positions for our psychologist by additional nine FTE and pending July one that when we can open the budget, we are going to add five non public agency psychologists Because it's a short term need to support our backlog. Um, so those are the key changes in our budget plan and we are in agreement with that. Um, we know that we are doing this in service of our students. I'll pass it to Nero.

So, um, the budget, so we just want to remind everyone, the plan that is submitted is a projection as of May 31st, the plan needs to also tie back directly to our adopted budget. Um, so. Um, we are committing, we've opened the 9 positions, um, and we're also committing to update the budget again in July to based on student needs. So we also just want to remind everyone. The subtle budget is not locked in stone, right? The needs come in throughout the year. We also have staffing needs. So we have to continuously update. increase where it makes sense um to meet need so um that is something that we are very much committed to doing and we just want to remind everyone 352 is not a ceiling it is a starting point for the year thank you thank you um before I open up for comment I just want to acknowledge the

Intent of continuing the item to today was to allow for there to be greater collaboration, communication and increased alignment between folks internally. And I'm pleased to hear from CAC. I think the board received a letter earlier today, acknowledging that that progress had been made. So I just want to thank staff for that collaboration. I also it's my understanding that Elliot is on and would like to provide a quick comment before we turn it over to additional comments from the board. Elliot.

Thank you. President Kim. Can you hear me?

very loud and clear.

Okay, just wanted to make sure. I'm very happy to hear that there have been meetings between staff and the CAC, and I'm hoping resolved to the point where the board feels comfortable passing the SELPA plan. I want to reiterate what Superintendent Hsu said, that there is a consequence in that it can delay SELPA funding, which would in fact impair the district's ability to really take care of the IEPs and serve the students during that time. So just, I wanna make it very clear how important it is. And I'll also be commenting on other items. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioners, questions?

I appreciate the CAC and districts collaborative work since our last meeting and I had a question about the letter that the CAC sent the board today. The CAC says that it will sign an agreement that the development process of the SELPA plan complied with the district's legal obligations provided certain changes are reflected in the final budget prior to the submission to the CDE. I just want to ask from the CAC's perspective and from the district's perspective, have those changes been reflected in the version of the budget that is coming before us for a vote tonight?

So, unfortunately, due to, uh, timing, uh, we received some updates, uh, Thursday, we need to tie the, the subtle plan directly to our adopted budget. Right? Which involves hundreds of sex forms. So we. I did check with Elliot to make sure is this okay that we are opening positions, not reflecting it here. He said, yes, that is generally expected. So the positions are open. They're available to fill unfortunately, due to timing and the short turnaround time of the information. We, the are not set up for us to be able to do those live updates in real time. Within minutes or hours of documents being due. So we are committed to updating this budget in July. 1st. We've said that many times that that is those updates will happen due to timing. We cannot we couldn't feasibly do it right before submitting to the board.

Would the board have a role in. Providing accountability to ensure that that is actually entered in July when it comes back to the board for August or what is the mechanism there?

Yeah, we're more than happy to do that. We've also promised the CAC that we'll give regular updates on the budget as soon as the budget reopens that we're more than happy to provide those numerical updates. We're looking at a 2Million dollar variance out of 352Million. So, from a financial reporting perspective, it's less than 1% variance at this time.

Okay, so there's no obstacle or impediment to coming into compliance in our budget documents with what is asking for by the board voting tonight. That's kind of what I want to make sure that there's nothing we're setting in stone that you want changed.

Yeah, so as far as process, the next step, if, and when the board approves the budget, then what will happen and. As it will come to the board president to sign off on the approved budget, and that typically happens on June 30th. Um, it also goes to the superintendent to the CAC and, um, to the separate director this year. We are very, very lucky, and that the has a new system they're using for us to upload the budget, and they've given districts an extension on that date. So if it's amenable to all of you, we can work with to have that updated budget given to you so that you're assigning the updated budget document. If that works instead of sending you something next week waiting for an update so it's up to you on when you would like to sign.

What's the extent?

I appreciate it. I just want to make sure that there's no issue where we approve one budget and then have a problem submitting a modified budget.

The answer to your question is no, right? You approve a budget for what it is today. We make updates every single day all the way between July 1 and the first interim, which we then aggregate into the first interim. So what you are proving is inclusive of the intent of the SELPA, and it will be changed on July 1st as stated. All those changes will come back to you in December for your first interim update. It's just the way that it literally happens.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Seeing none. Just checking. Making sure everyone's awake. Commissioner Fisher?

Yes, I just very much want to thank the CAC for their continued advocacy. Thank our budget team and our SELPA team, excuse me, for the collaboration. And I look forward to seeing much more continued collaboration throughout the upcoming year. So thank you. And thank you, Niru and Daniel in particular for answering all my questions. I appreciate it. Amazing.

Seeing no other comments or questions. Debate is now closed on the motion to approve item 266266 dash 23 SP three superintendents proposal. Annual update. Oh, nope. I lied. Debate is now closed on the motion to approve item 266 dash 23 SP five adoption of the SELPA local plan and the annual budget and annual service plan for special education for the same screen by school district and county office of education roll call vote please.

Commissioner Alexander?

Yes.

Commissioner Fisher? Yes. Commissioner Gupta?

Yes.

Vice President Hewling? Yes. Commissioner Ray? Yes. Commissioner Weisman-Ward? Yes. President Kim?

Yes. Thank you very much CAC and special education team. and the finance team. I think moving to item 2266 dash 23 SP three numbering right?

SP five SP five SP three.

Yep.

superintendents proposal annual update to the 2024 to 2027 local control and accountability plan and LCAP federal addendum for the San Francisco Unified San Francisco County Office of Education and San Francisco Unified School District can have a motion and a second.

I move item F 2, 2, 6, 6 dash 23 SP 3.

I'll 2nd.

And just to clarify, I brought both items forward.

Right 1, 2nd, 1, 2nd, you just said the county office of it and the school district are both under item F 2. yes. That's what you bought brought forward and that's what I motioned.

Correct.

For the LCAP.

For the LCAP. Correct. Okay. Dr. Soom?

Thank you, President Kim. Before I start, I just want to thank the LCAP Advisory Committee for all of their support, the amazing parent volunteers, the students, educators, and staff for their year-long work to help us create, well, to help us inform and create the LCAP. I also want to thank our amazing staff, Christina Wong, and our newest member of the LCAP team, Aurora Moore, for your leadership and in creating this big document. I know it's not easy, but the LCAP hopefully is a true reflection of our values and continued commitment to provide academic rigor and support to each and every student so that we are setting them up for success. The LCAP is one of the ways that we are held accountable as a district to our community's values and goals. And we are required by state law to submit an annual LCAP by July 1st. I recognize that the board has raised many questions about how we are aligning our resources with our educational strategies at the last board meeting. And I know that staff has worked over the last week or so to put together a crosswalk to really map out how we are allocating resources within the LCAP to our current goals and guardrails within our strategic framework of student outcomes focused governance framework. So I certainly hope that that crosswalk has helped allay the worries and concerns of how we are allocating resources in alignment to our educational outcomes. So as a reminder, we last year stabilized this district's budget by cutting $114 million from our budget. We separated with 375 employees. We closed over 150 positions. Actually, you heard some of those comments today in public comments of there were strategic decisions that we made so that we could prioritize having instructional leaders in our classroom, having teachers in our classroom, because we knew that was what was going to help us move the needle for our students. Throughout this process, we did not lay off an educator. We have held key strategy allocations to support and continue to support our goals one, two, and three within the vision, values, goals, and guardrails, which is the LCAP goal one. Um, and we, we committed to holding the funding for goals 1, 2 and 3 harmless because we knew as we were cutting around the edges of our school district, we wanted to ensure that we protected. The things that were happening for our students in the classroom, and we knew that that was really, really important. We adopted high potential plus schools to make sure that our classrooms are schools that were allocated as high potential schools. got first dibs to hire high-quality educators into their classrooms. And I know that there were concerns about the designation this current year, and I commit to working with schools around that concern so that we can resolve some of those issues. I want to be clear that what we have done is enough to get us to a place of great stability. This is where we want to be because in the next item, you're going to hear about a three-year balanced budget. However, the LCAP has to be adopted by July 1st because if we don't adopt the LCAP, we will, as a district, incur financial penalties for not adopting an LCAP. My latest projection of the penalty will be upwards of $62.9 million if we don't adopt the LCAP. For every additional business day where we don't adopt the LCAP, we will incur a 1% penalty, which translates out to around a $3 million additional penalty. And if the LCAP is not adopted, a budget cannot be adopted and vice versa, which means that the state is then required to come in and continue to oversee our budget which we've worked so hard to get out of state oversight so i certainly hope that the work that the staff has done over the last week and a half has helped allay the concerns that this board has had and has also helped the board see how we have made a lot of strategic decisions to abandon certain things which clearly has hurt and is very difficult to do but we did it to prioritize making sure that we had those educators, we had the new curriculums in our classrooms, we had the trainings and professional development for our educators so that we can move the needle for our students. So again, I certainly hope that we were able to convince the board of that. And I certainly hope that the board will be able to approve the LCAP and then in the next item, the budget. So with that, I'm going to hand this over to Christina to highlight any questions changes to the presentation.

Thank you, Superintendent. Good evening, Commissioners. I also wanted to formally introduce our new LCAP manager, Dr. Aurora Moore. She joined us 20, 15, 20 days ago. And so she certainly has gotten her feet wet. And then I'm also joined by our colleagues from both Ed Services and Business Services that are sitting behind me, just in case there are any questions related to any of the goals or guardrails. So I will in to expedite and just go to the highlights. If we can go to slide five. So I wanted to just highlight how the LCAP, the 26-27 LCAP update development process that included the LCAP advisory committee recommendations. It also included the district department updates and reflections and also our community partners' feedback. And with that came the 26-27 LCAP update, as the superintendent has mentioned, needs to be approved by the board by July 1st. Next slide, please. So, I want to again also really appreciate the LCAP advisory committee. They worked year long and then within each of the committee members, there were also delegates from all of our parent advisory committees. Their recommendations were carefully considered. We reviewed each recommendation and checked if the LCAP already included similar language that could be updated. The appropriate department also reviewed the recommendation, determined its feasibility, and included additional language in the LCAP as appropriate. We also attempted to cost each recommendation. Sorry, we also considered the recommendation cost. Some recommendations were cost neutral. While some were considered as additional funds, we want to be able to consider as additional funds become available. Next slide, please. This is a summary of staff responses, just to kind of give almost like a dashboard effect of like how many were included in the LCAP, how many that we would really need further consideration needed, and also some that were perhaps not appropriate to include in the LCAP. This is an ongoing process for us. We are getting a lot of feedback already from the different responses and wanna be able to adjust, to have conversations with the LCAP Advisory Committee, to be able to continue to listen and learn from them. And I mean, we see that this is actually just the first step and that we will continue to adjust and respond and figure out ways to be able to respond to their particular recommendation. Next slide, please. And then also just to point out that in the materials for LCAP, we have the strategic actions companion document to accompany both the LCAP and the budget for 26-27. The initiatives of each of our interim goals and guardrails that directly impact student outcomes are included. So that includes goals one through three and guardrails two and four. An overview of what we are continuing, adapting, and abandoning for each initiative is included. In some cases, if we're not abandoning, then we've actually highlighted a focal area for us to move forward in 26-27. There is also a comparison of the investments for each initiative, comparing the investments for 26 to 27. Just wanted to note that the budget comparison includes the cost specific to each initiative. Items that do not directly tie to initiative were not included. Next slide, please. Okay, so these are just the next couple of slides are just examples. So we can just, this is one example. Next slide. And this is the other example. This is the comparison from 26-27. Next slide. This is a new slide that just adds up, sums up all of the different within each of the goals, the investment that we're making. Next slide. And the next two slides are the budget overview for parents at the bottom is a link to the CDE template some of the these are some of the graphics that we just wanted to pull out so that for clarity, so this is for SF USD and then next slide please. This is for SF, this is for the county office of education for San Francisco next slide. And lastly, we have the LCAP federal addendum. This is the link to the document. Next slide, please. So the LCAP federal addendum needs to be completed, approved by the school board, and submitted to the California Department of Education so that we are in a position to be able to apply for ESA funding by June 30th of each year. So this is important so that we can apply for titles one, two, three, and four. Next slide. So this is just an overview of the different investments or entitlements, I should say, for each of the title grants that's covered under the federal addendum.

Next slide.

And lastly, many, many appreciations to all those who contributed to the LCAP update. Of course, the LCAP Advisory Committee, our community partners, Budget Office, Curriculum Instruction, Human Resources, all these wonderful people that are sitting behind me, LEAD, RPA, Special Ed, and then also our SFSD Division. And that concludes my presentation.

um thank you very much i'll open it up for questions and comments from commissioners uh commissioner gupta

So, you know, I love the team's efforts and putting together a strategic framework for the investments that are being prescribed in the student outcome focused governance framework in the school district. This is great. This is, I think a great 1st step and Christina, I really appreciate your efforts. I know this is 1 of the many things that you do for the school district. So I also really appreciate your reference those of our parents and putting all of this together. Um. That having been said, this is a good start to the conversation that the board has been asking for for at least a quarter, uh, superintendent, um, you know, if not longer, and it still does not have the goals for the 2027 school year. So, what I would have hoped to have seen is. What is it that we expect to do with the investment from the cap for the student outcome focused goals that we seek so we can understand if those are the correct. Amount of investment to be able to reach those figures without that figure of, you know, what it is that we strive to seek. What is the percentage or the target change? We expect to seek. It's impossible to determine whether those are the right level investments to reach those targets for goals. 1, 2, and 3. Um, and superintendent, I mean, you, you indicated in the briefing that staff have all been trained 2 to 3 times on our student outcome, focus governance. So. You know, I'm, I'm trying to figure out why we couldn't get this document earlier because I understand we're running up against that deadline, but it's our job again to make sure that we're holding. We're holding the, the entire school district accountable to reach the goals that we seek to reach, especially for our focal populations. So do you believe we can increase student outcomes? Say, you know, if I look at our goals one, two, and three, you know, if we were to just take it on a year by year basis, you know, can we increase a goal one by three percentage points between October 26 to 27? Is the goal for two to increase by 3.8 percentage points in that same period of time or goal three by 1.6 percentage points from June 20, June 2026 to June 2027? Can you share target target numbers?

So I believe that the crosswalk showed our allocations by the goals. However, staff can speak more about this, but we did share in the crosswalk. Am I correct that we shared in the crosswalk the allocation of goals by goals? And we are in the middle of processing how our students are performing for this year. with all the investments that we have done, right? So the investments of new curriculum, the investments of additional trainings for our educators, the investment of having educators in our classrooms. And we're looking at some very promising results from our students. And so we're hoping that we'll be able to share with the community soon the results of those test scores soon.

team can you tell can you help me answer um commissioner gupta's question here good evening commissioners uh thank you commissioner group dog for your question uh you all might recall from last summer that the process of us setting annual targets numerical targets for the interim goals actually happens in about july because that's when we get the mostly completed aspect results for which we rely on to determine our progress on Goal 1 and Goal 2. So once we receive almost official data from the state, that's what we use to determine our accomplishment and the outcome for this school year that we're closing out. And the process that we have gone through in the past is that once we have that data, we can determine the amount of progress that we have made and based on that set next year, next school year's target for district wide. And once we have the district wide target, then we try to calculate a kind of backward backwards planning to try to use the same approach, similar approach to develop site level targets. So that. As we have previously discussed the model such that if every school meets the school level target, and the district wide, we'll be able to meet that target and all that work actually happens. In about mid July, I know the timing is not quite aligned with the planning process that we'd like to engage in. Um. We're hopeful that as a state continues to push up the timeline by which they return the aspect results back to the school districts that we'd be able to do this a little bit earlier. But that is the time constraint and the data constraint that we're currently working with.

I mean, I, I appreciate that, but it's, you know, that it's impossible for me to do my job in terms of actually saying this is the right level of allocation because, you know, and we did set the goals, say, 5 for 5 years. So, you know, I'm trying to figure out how do we square that circle? Um, and I understand that your perspective, but. At the same time, I mean, you know, again, this is why this conversation would have been great to have a few months ago, because now it's sort of gun to the head kind of, you know, you need to get this approved or we lose this money. But our, our concern is, I don't know what I'm approving for, you know, if you tell me. Tomorrow, for example, you know, superintendent here to say, well, we're just going to hold steady because that's all we can do. I would actually vote no on this because that's not good enough. Our students deserve more than just saying we're going to hold our goals steady or we're just going to continue to kind of languish where we are, right? I mean, so I don't know how you can vote yes on this if we don't have some sort of goals that we are measuring ourselves against in terms of why we're making the investments that we're making.

So again, I just want to reiterate what Dr. Kim just shared, that we won't have the final public results of SBAC scores until mid-July. However, I will say that we do have a confidential email that we sent to board members to share confidentially what we are seeing in our SBAC scores. So we are using some of that knowledge to help us and help guide us in the allocation of the LCAP as well as the budget later.

Dr. Kim, I appreciate your logic, and I think it's the exact opposite of what we on the board and Dr. Sue. I think this is the exact opposite of what we're asking for. We don't want you to take the existing test scores, the existing data, and backwards map what are appropriate interim goals. What we want to see is if we expect better than what we're seeing now, if we want to expect different, what resources do we think need to be put in place in order to get there? I think that's the continued disconnect we see. None of us want more of the same. None of us want more of the same. We want to take the data and we want to understand how do we accelerate it. And frankly, looking at the recommendation tracker and the response tracker, as a former advisory committee member opening that, I had visceral PTSD. I mean, seeing that, like sitting in a QTPAC meeting where their top priority is safe bathrooms, and then to read in here that the recommendation is not feasible and it's not even being considered by staff, I think that is not only disrespectful to the work of the QTPAC, but it's also an absolute disaster. dishonoring of guardrail one and the same thing like and i so christina i really appreciate how you framed it as this is the starting but what we're putting on paper is not the word that doesn't match the words you're telling us here tonight um and what we're approving here are the words I'm angry to see some of the things, you know, like research base, we see all the research, the shows that if we want to improve student outcomes and if we want to teach kids how to read and our curriculum isn't doing it, then high dosage tutoring, that's one of the most consistently research backed practices. And it's what we've been hearing from multiple advisory committees, yet we're saying it's not feasible. Like these are the disconnects that I am really, really angry about still continuing to see after so many different conversations that we've been having month after month, week after week, year after year. So I need to calm down because like I said, PTSD. But I think that's the disconnect. dr kim i really appreciate your expertise and the work that you and your team are doing but i i feel like the tail is wagging the dog here and so how do we how do we flip to the strategic conversation of here's where we want to go what resources are we aligning i think that's the continued ask that is still missing here um so i'd i'd love some clarification um and frankly to see our documentation match our words

James Heiting.

Um, yeah, maybe building on my colleagues comments. I I, too, like, uh, commissioner group. I'm really grateful for the changes in format since the last meeting, and that's actually a huge help, because we can really see particularly the um interim goals and guard rails budget alignment document. um but like he said when i look at it what it shows me is for goals one two and three relatively level funding from year over year from this school your next school year so that implies not that there aren't some great things in there i mean there's there's curriculum implementation there's instructional coaches but it implies that we're sort of continuing with the same strategies and we haven't changed anything more or less. I mean, there's some slight changes, but it's very slight around the edges. But otherwise, we're just staying with the status quo. And I think that's sort of the concern, because we have not seen dramatic increases in student outcomes. And we're going to fall farther and farther behind our goals. I mean, even if we have slight increases, it's not going to be enough. So I think the board has been saying over and over again, we want some dramatic changes in practices and adult practices in order to change student outcomes and that requires moving resources around and we've said over and over again we're willing to make hard decisions about cutting but there's not even anything on the table to cut so i mean the to give the example of high-dose tutoring i had the same reaction you know the the the lcap committee recommended it there's a sort of rough costing of eight to forty million dollars but it sort of says well it's not feasible well why not eight to forty million dollars we've got twelve and a half million dollars of new money We also could cut, you know, another 10 million, that's 20 $25 million worth of high dosage tutoring, what would that do? And again, I don't know if that's the answer. But to me to just say, we're not even considering it, it hasn't been put on the table. It's not feasible. That's my concern, right? So I don't think it's not our job to say what the answer should be. But it is our job to sort of demand of staff that you engage in that rigorous analysis, and then make it transparent to the public. And I think that's the part that's also quite important or to use another example from the from the um the the lcap committee also recommend the first recommendation was on staffing stability right so everyone agrees we need that improved student outcomes if you have more experienced stable staff so on guardrail 4 on the resource allocation interim goals and guardrails slide it says know we're spending 3.4 million dollars on ensuring students have qualified staff this year which is the credentials and staffing team next year the proposed budget is and stir students have qualified staff credentials and staffing team 3.5 million so it's a slight increase but there's no change in strategy it's just the same team in hr there's no additional investment there's no shift to improve stability of staffing so i guess i don't To me, it seems like the the recommendations from the committee were very consistent with what we've heard from the Community and then, but what I don't see is the strategic allocation of resources in order to to meet those.

Commissioner right.

Good evening everyone. I want to thank everyone very much for creating this crosswalk. I made some requests or suggestions in the questions that I submitted asking for additional information, which staff indicated they would provide going forward. I really appreciate that. I wish we had it now, but I'm glad that we are going to have that information going forward. I wanted to follow up on some of my colleagues' comments by in some sense doubling down, if you want to put it that way, on the concept of looking for where we can make cuts. I have seen very little here in terms of abandonment, and it seems to me like maybe Superintendent and her team are thinking that we have to look within a narrower window. One of the things that I had asked about is saying, like, you know, look, if we need to reduce or abandon policies or programs or strategies or whatever you know even outside of what's specifically tied to our goals we could look at those things we don't just have to look at like money that's somehow currently being spent related to goal one goal two or go three we can go elsewhere in our budget and look for you know look for things that we can pare down or get rid of entirely even if that's a loss if we feel it can do greater good if we allocated those resources towards our goals, which are the thing that the school district exists for, to help our students read and do math and be ready for college and career. So from the staff responses, it just seemed to me that folks weren't necessarily considering the broader view of our budget, which is that I think we can and should look at whatever we need to, to figure out options for better resourcing our goals. So I wanted to just to raise that to thanks folks for their willingness to add various data going forward. And also to note with regard to abandonment, nobody likes to lose things, but we make choices all the time. And when we continue to resource some things, it means we're not resourcing other things. Like I wish there was an infinite pie, but there isn't. And as folks have said, I think that we are, many of us have said that we're willing to make the tough decisions. So please take us, you know, take us at our word for what we say. And that's what I wanted to comment for this. Thank you.

I'd echo what my fellow Commissioners have said. We appreciate the, you know, the beginnings of of this crosswalk. But and I I do think it's a useful exercise. I think to me it was a useful exercise in in some ways confirming some things that I was concerned about confirming that I don't see new strategies for instruction being resourced and developed. It does seem like we are in large parts cutting and pasting from the strategies that we have started with that have gotten us this far, but I don't hear from anyone, including the superintendent, a belief that those strategies are enough to get us to meet our student outcome goals. I am hearing a very unified board that is ready to make really big changes to lead SFUSD into its next phase to bring us up in terms of our student outcomes, to become a world-class district that is serving the world-class students we have here, that is investing in schools, I think earlier described as under-resourced and segregated, where we, you know, we've heard from the superintendent that well there's additional money from lcff for student success fund that goes to some of these schools but that has always been the case and that has not been enough to make those schools provide the opportunities that students have in other neighborhoods And so we need to do things differently if we want different results. And I'm very disappointed that I think despite having very clearly defined goals, very unified board on this, it seems that There is a lack of instructional leadership around how to get us to where we as a board. And I think as a city and a community want our students to be. Um, so I, I feel like it's good that we're looking at things this way. I think we're finally starting to look at things from a student outcomes lens, but that is intended to create change. It's not enough to just say we did this exercise, the point of the exercise is to actually help push the district into a new way of resourcing schools into a new way of prioritizing so that our student outcomes come first.

I just want to again say we are waiting for the results of the SBAC scores for this school year. Short of violating any type of state rules here, I want to say that I think the strategies that we have used over this past year is yielding the results that we're hoping for. I want I fully recognize that our students and our educators cannot turn on a dime, we have to invest in stability, we have to invest for the long run, we have to make sure that we are not just constantly changing the rules changing the programs changing. things within classrooms year to year. Our teachers need stability. Our teachers need to be able to know that this is the curriculum they're teaching. These are the types of trainings and professional development that they're going to receive. And we're going to work with our educators so that they can have the tools and the resources and the confidence necessary to be able to implement the curriculum to fidelity. that all takes time. The first step of us getting here was that we went from a 70 to a 75% fill rate of teachers at the start of every school year over the last several school years to this school year starting with 95% fill rate of teachers in our classrooms. That is a huge strategic step. That also required us to figure out where else we could cut instead of cutting in the classroom. That takes time to demonstrate impact and outcomes. I wish I can share the data in a few more weeks. We will know in a while. We will be able to share. the result of these efforts, the result of us staying focused, of us creating stability in this district. For the first time in 18 months, we're not talking about state takeover. We're not talking about people losing jobs everywhere. We're actually saying we're staying focused on what matters most, goals one, two, and three, making sure that our teachers have the resources they need, To be successful in the classroom making sure that there are teachers in the classroom making sure that we stay focused on stability in the classroom. And so I understand and i'm hearing the frustration of the board in their desire to say well where else can we cut we just heard from public comments about how. we're not actually prioritizing infrastructure within the district. You're asking about how can the district do more buildings or grounds, respond faster to our building issues. Well, that's because unfortunately poor Katie has lost a lot of staff in her department because we wanted to make sure that we prioritize the funds to pay for a teacher in a classroom. You know, Devon, like you lost a whole bunch of staff in CNI because we wanted to make sure we had all of those instructional coaches back in the classroom. We moved hundreds of people back into the classroom. And we did that because we knew that that was the right thing to do. So I don't know anything else to say about the strategies in here that is not moving the needle for our students. Except I just firmly believe that we need to stay the course that it isn't just a year to year constant change. We have to wait and see how the, how the results will yield and. And stop there, because they're giving me.

Commissioner.

Thank you. Um, I'm on the East coast, so it's past midnight. So I'm going to try to stay coherent. Um. Thanks to the LCAP team for the additional information shared in the most recent presentation. I want to make clear I have some serious concerns and to not hide the ball, I intend to vote for the LCAP because I'm more concerned about the negative fallout on the district globally and in our classrooms if we don't approve it. That being said, and so I'll just put that out there. I also want to note that, I mean, this is the first time that I can remember that we are seeing a document start to look more like what I think the board has been asking for. Is there progress is there room to grow? Absolutely a lot. Um, but I do want to acknowledge that. We are seeing initiatives with a column that says strategies that we're continuing strategies that we're adopting. I know commissioner Ray noted that we didn't see the strategic abandonment category, which I feel like I saw in a briefing at some point, but don't see it on. in this slide deck. So I think that's important and I would say where sort of I remain concerned and where I would want more is understanding the why and the rationale. So for example, on slide 9 for 1.2, for example, it says what strategies are we adopting? Shifting focus from curriculum implementation to enabling conditions. I think more of a discussion about what is, where are the data points? What are the sources that tell us that this is what we, this is why we should be adopting this strategy. This is why we should be investing here. I believe it to be true. It makes sense. But if we're passing a budget and if we're passing an LCAP, I think we need to know more about the why. And then moving to slide 10, for example, if we look here at goal 1.3. And for example, under fiscal year 27 initiative D, measures and analysis. What is that? I mean, I know I've asked in sort of briefings and other sessions I've asked what this is, but I don't think that just measures and analysis is clear what that initiative is and why we should be investing in it. Investing 20K more and why, for example, the professional learnings and school support Why is it the recommendation that that say the same? So I think having more of that data and understanding the why and rationale is going to be really, really, really important moving forward. And I think at least speaking for myself, what will help sort of allow me to feel confident that the initiative, that there is in fact real alignment and intentional alignment that folks know about it and can articulate with these initiatives.

um i intend to vote yes i'll say my same thing that i plan on saying during the budget conversation i i want to vote no i would like to vote no i will vote yes in part because of the consequences that i do believe are very real that come from voting this down i think part of the the feeling that i am in experiencing right now is That we have been consistently asking for materials for quite some time and it's and it's not until there's this threat of something not passing that we then start to see documents that start to align and that's just it from a process standpoint just very frustrating of an experience. and And and here's what I would say right like I appreciate all the work that's going in, I want to recognize that this again is. The fact that we are able to have a conversation today about how we are strategically using our resources that we have instead of talking about cuts represents a huge amount of progress that we've made as a district. But I also want to be really clear that any sort of change in student outcomes really should not be tied to just happenstance because we're just continuing what we're doing. But we really want to see rationale tied to the strategies that then lead to those outcomes, right? And last week, I asked two documents get attached to our board meeting, one of them called effective budget alignment. And i'm just going to read what it says here for budget adoption part three once the superintendent has drafted the budget, they are now responsible for persuading the board that the first priority or resource allocation is accomplishment of the goals. And that the budget accomplishes this while honoring the guardrails to be clear it's the superintendent's job to convince the board, it is not the board's job to be easily convinced. Because the budget must be a direct reflection of the community's vision and values as revealed by the board adopted goals and guardrails, the budget must make accomplishment of the goals the first priority for resource allocation by honoring the guardrails. In general, a status quo approach to budgeting is unlikely to accomplish this. After the Board has set goals and guardrails, a subsequent budget would benefit from a zero or near zero-based budgeting approach to ensure maximum alignment. After the calibration year budget to initiate the goals, a normal budgetary process is reasonable. Board members should be suspicious of budget processes that haven't taken a zero or near zero-based budgeting approach in decades. Alignment is highly unlikely in this scenario. And I just want to reiterate, I think what we've been asking for is not just that we want to better internalize and have clarity around the strategies that are being used, but to be convinced that those are the right strategies. And if necessary, to actually shift resources to meet different strategies. And I think that's the challenge I think that we're in. And I want to, again, acknowledge that the LCAP is a legal document that we need to formally submit to the state. My actual concern is actually not really with the LCAP, nor is it with the SACS forms that need to be submitted to Sacramento. What I do think we're we're challenged with is internalizing our resource allocation, not just money, but our people, which is why I think our staffing model is a huge part of this conversation too. To be able to actually build confidence around what we're doing as a district and that that to me is our biggest challenge right now. Um, that being said, um, I know that there's a lot of comments. What I would suggest is that we. we're going to have another part of this conversation again when the budget comes around. And so if it's appropriate and if folks know where they stand with this vote, I would encourage us to actually just go ahead to a vote. And again, we're going to have another round of conversations when the budget item comes up right next. So if there are questions, not comments.

if there are questions that will help to clarify or change something please let me know commissioner fisher and then commissioner alexander yeah i appreciate the opportunity for clarifying question because like again i there are huge ramifications for not passing this and i really do want to honor the huge amount of work that's been done by staff right like amazing work right we've come a very long way but i so i guess like what's next if if we do pass this recognizing that we're not where we need to be from the showing the resource allocation like i'm not comfortable just i do recognize the need to pass this and i'm still not comfortable passing something that completely ignores lcap

advisory recommendations and doesn't show the resource allocation in the like how how do we reconcile those two things as a board like what what are our next steps then unless the superintendent staff want to respond to that i mean what i would say is it's everything that we have in front of us arguably is a living document and i think part of i think what commissioner gupta was naming at the beginning here It feels like we're backed up to a wall right now because we have no wiggle room here but to vote. And this is, I think, inherently part of the challenge with the timing of this conversation. And I feel the same way about our major decisions conversations that we're about to have today is that whether we like to or not, we are forced to have a vote right now. So that needs to happen. This is for a formal approval of the LCAP. and and so that is that right um I don't think we can change that we we have to vote um I think the conversation may continue we're going to have a conversation around the governance calendar as well I there are some considerations here for the governance calendar and how we agendize certain discussions and topics all of that is real but I do think we have to vote on this document yes uh Commissioner Alexander and then Commissioner Ray

I have a couple questions that sort of overlap between El Cap and budget. So if it's okay, I'll just ask them now and I won't ask them in the next round. So they're really around the David Carrico- equity strategy to ensure that students who need the most support get get the support they need to actually meet the goals. David Carrico- And this came up a lot at the last meeting, too, so I just want to know if there have been changes to address them, you know one there was some discussion about the. group of high potential plus schools. There were a bunch of public commenters from Marshall Elementary who said that their core sub was cut after the budget process with no opportunity for appeals. And so I'm trying to find out if there's been any changes around that. We heard something similar from Sanchez. um about revisions after the budget process we heard about tonight about reading and perhaps there being the arabic program being closed without an appeals process so i guess i'm just trying to understand around some of those specific points like have those been addressed is there and and or what is the sort of equity

what is the the the approach to addressing some of those equity-based concerns that were brought up at the last meeting um yes thank you and as I shared um during my opening comments um we we did wanted to make sure that we prioritize having a qualified teacher in every classroom because we knew that that was going to move towards achieving goals one, two, and three, which are the goals that the board has laid out for us as a school district to try to achieve. Um, we've talked many times about how hard it is to get to a third grade reading level of 70%, um, and that we need to focus a lot of our energy, a lot of our resources on trying to get and achieve those goals. Um, so again, that, that is where we, uh, we're trying to move towards, um, in this budget. And part of the strategy was for us to make sure that we identify some schools that needed additional resources, additional supports, which is why we created the High Potential Plus schools. albeit we should have used a different word, a different nomenclature here, but it was identifying schools that have historically been really hard to staff for a number of reasons, have historically struggled with student academic success. So we wanted to make sure that those schools had access to be able to hire the high quality teachers first. So that was one direct example of what we have done. We've also, in the last round of budget development, we worked with each of our school community and really heard them out about their appeals for additional staffing. We used certain data points within the district like unduplicated pupil counts. So there are some schools that have very high populations of our focal student population. And so for all of those schools that requested additional staffing, we approved those requests. We looked at certain demographics like the sense of safety in certain schools. So we were able to approve additional perhaps T10s or additional counselors or additional social workers. So we did take into consideration student needs, community needs, as well as the school community as a whole. So again, I acknowledge that I did not put that onto a piece of paper somewhere. Um, but we did use that, those lens, uh, that lens, um, during the budget development process.

So just to clarify, so, so like, for example, the Marshall core sub position is being restored or some version of it.

We were in conversation with the budget team and the HR team. What we believe the Marshalls community is looking for is an intervention teacher, because that is how they're using this particular person. And quite frankly, to call the person a core sub doesn't really point to the real work that they are doing. So we are going to have a conversation with that school community about that.

And then the other examples like Sanchez and Redding, were those resolved in some way?

So the Sanchez and Redding situation, well, the Redding situation, we're not cutting the Arabic teacher. So that's, I don't know, maybe there's a misunderstanding. I do know that we struggle to find a certificated Arabic instructor, similar to we struggle to find a Spanish teacher. educator, a certificated Spanish educator. So a lot of times we can't fill those positions because we can't find the certificated teacher for it. But we are, you know, I know that Amy Bear, our associate superintendent of HR and I have been in conversations about how do we provide supports to those school communities. My understanding is that for a lot of our bilingual educators, they are sitting on or they are in our classrooms because of emergency credentialing and some of those emergency credentialing have expired. So we're going to work with those communities to figure out how we can, I don't know how we can extend, but how we can support those educators to fast track their credentialing.

I would encourage commissioners to ask your teacher questions.

I understand to clarify. Thank you, President Kim, for that reminder. And just to be clear, I was using those as specific examples to try to understand that equity, because what I've heard from staff is that there are limited equity factors in the formula and the way they're addressing equity issues is through appeals. And so that's why I was asking about these appeals. So I hope that next year we'll have a more strategic formula around equity so that it doesn't have to be these one off. So that's I was just kind of asking because those are the ones we had heard about. But I totally agree with you. And I actually think Part of my frustration was that it wasn't, to me, it didn't seem super strategic. And then Marshall was coming after the fact and saying, well, our sub got brought in late and all these things. So I'm glad they're being addressed. And I hope that next year that there can be a more strategic focus on these equity strategies as well.

Yes. And I just, again, want to acknowledge that, yes, we should, we should write these things down. We should have them at the beginning of the process to say, this is how we're going to look at the allocation. We're going to prioritize schools with high Title I populations. We're going to, you know, so I think we will be able to, we're starting sooner. And our new Deputy Superintendent of Ed Services have already told me that he's going to want to even start sooner. So in conversations with our Deputy Superintendent of Business Services, they are in agreement that we have to start the budget process sooner. And as we are doing that sooner, meaning we will then have to articulate how we're going to prioritize the allocations, how we're going to ensure that we are meeting the the the the equity allocation that this board is prioritizing.

Mr. Ray.

Thank you. I didn't actually use all my time in the 1st round, but we're getting some additional time. So I appreciate that. Um, I have a couple of clarifying questions about and the question about a new document that we just received today. So, my questions about are. Is the staff response on our new system of supports, which says it's a whole child operational system. Do the three different things, the three levels of intervention correspond essentially to tiers one, two, and three as we had previously? Are they essentially the same tiers? And does MTSS beyond tier one only address students with IEPs, or does it cover all students? That's my first question. Thanks.

In answer to the first question, MTSS is a system that describes supports for some, few, or all students. In the past, a few years back, the district applied that to schools. So they had supports for all schools, some schools, and a few schools. This MTSS is referring to students within schools. So just to clarify that. And so that is what we're building out now.

Okay, so they'll continue to be tier 1 tier 2 and tier 3 is before, but can you just also clarify. Does tier 2 and tier 3, does that apply could that apply potentially to all to all students or just to students with that's right?

It's for all students. And it also depends on what you're looking at, right? A student might be tier 3 because of their attendance. But, um, at grade level, so it really depends on individual students.

Commissioner Ray, if you have clarifying questions, oh, is that it?

Now, my questions are about the new document. So, I was doing clarifying questions on this and then new questions.

If there's strategic questions, I would encourage you to bring those forward. If there's clarifying questions to 1 and 1 more, I would encourage you to just submit those to RFI.

Okay, so my non clarifying questions are to the new document to the superintendent that we received today that we received a CD wrote a letter the, uh, previously, but we only received that today and it included a listing of consequences.

I'm about to have Elliot speak if that addresses your question.

Okay, so part of my question was why we didn't get this until today, which Elliot probably can't answer. So I wanted to know why this wasn't sent to us earlier. I've been asking about consequences continuously for the last several weeks. And the second question was about the in the CDE letter, there's a reference to outstanding unresolved federal program monitoring findings, which will impact our consolidated application, our ability to receive and expend various title federal title funds. So I'm wondering what those findings are and what's being done to address this. Thank you.

If I could actually bring that again I don't know if that has a direct relationship to the El cap, so I would encourage us to bring that question to our through the rfi process. Unless there is a direct relationship here that. yeah. What I am going to do is is well, would you like to respond to that or.

No, I just apologize that it's taken so long to get their consequences of not approving the.

The and the budget, um, and then commissioner, I would encourage you to kind of submit that clarifying question. But if there is 1, that's related to your decision on the cap, please do ask that right now. And then I'm going to bring it over to Elliot.

Can I just know if the unresolved federal program things does that relate to the cap in some way or not?

I can quickly address that. That's great. Okay, so the federal monitoring process, we had two federal audits basically this past year. Our second one with county actually cleared completely. We are working on the remaining findings for our our district federal progress monitoring so we're in progress we're working closely with our reviewers we've cleared almost every one of them with with the hopes in mind that knowing that we are going to about to apply for our application for our title funding okay thank you elliot

Thank you, President Kim. A couple of things I'd like to say. First of all, the LCAP is a very specifically designed document. It was developed by the state to show how the district was increasing and improving services to your focal students. Nothing more and really nothing less. It does not encompass everything you are doing. your VVGGs are much bigger than the LCAP. They're aspirational, intentional. The LCAP is a tracking document. This is actually the third year of your LCAP. And I recognize that you all have seen the letter. Part of the reason it came late to the district because CDE as well as myself were not anticipating that the budget may not be passed. or the LCAP may not be passed so there's some research needed to be done. So it, you know, and In the past, you as board members, as district staff have asked, what are the consequences? And I've said, we don't deal with hypotheticals, but so this is basically the law. The law is if you don't pass the LCAP and Dr. Hsu really said it very eloquently, there is a penalty and it would be assessed. And then you cannot pass the budget. So not only would you be assessed the penalty, you may not get your apportionment at all. And to Commissioner Gupta specifically, I know this feels like a gun to your head. This is what every single district in the state has to do. And the LCAP really is and should be an iterative process, didn't get the whole word in, where you have exactly the kind of dialogue that you're having tonight. And it's well within the role of the board to set up accountability to reach both the LCAP goals as well as your VVGGs. So again, not this board, but in the past, um cde as well as the your advisors now experts have been also asked why we didn't make it clear what the consequences were so that's one of the reasons i feel compelled to speak so that there is absolutely no ambiguity in terms of of what the actions of the board will result in um i i'll just

Restate what I shared earlier. I think this was in the last meeting. I agree with you. I don't know if this is even an L cap or a budget. Issue directly per se. What I will say is that we are a student outcomes focused aligned. District. our own training, the governance efforts, documents that we have been trained on ourselves are very clear about the work that we should be doing and the questions that we should be asking. And whether that shows up in the LCAP or the budget, I think is somewhat besides the point. The bigger question is, are we able to be Do we have we internalize ourselves as Commissioners and I think Commission Alexander you phrase this, I think, in the last meeting I thought quite well. Frankly, anyone in the district should be people should be asked the question of do we know what we're investing in and what our major strategies are. And there should be consistency in that response and. And so I think that's what we're aspiring towards, right? And I think the, again, I'll just name the frustration that I feel is, again, in the 11th hour seeing kind of movement happen. And again, deeply appreciate that movement. Very grateful for staff for putting together resources that I think what I shared in the briefing was it felt like y'all were starting to meet us where we were and I appreciated that deeply. And... uh it's weeks before we're voting on a budget we've been asking for this for some time and so I think there's that disconnect there with what's being received and what and so I just want to name that here um I'm gonna move us forward uh once I find the script um And make sure I have the right thing up. Debate is now closed on the motion to approve item 266 dash 23 SP three, the superintendent's proposal annual update to the 2427 local control accountability plan, and I'll cap federal addendum the San Francisco County Office of Education and San Francisco Unified School District roll call vote please.

Commissioner Alexander.

A reluctant yes.

Commissioner Fisher? Yes. Commissioner Gupta?

No.

Vice President Hewling? No. Commissioner Wray? Yes. Commissioner Weissman-Ward? Yes. President Kim?

Yes. Thank you to the LCAP team. Appreciate your presentation. Thank you again for all the work that you do. Christopher McConkey, Moving to item three to six success to three SP for superintendents proposal fiscal year 2627 recommended budget adoption can have emotion and a second, please.

Christopher McConkey, I moved to approve item at 3266 dash 23 SP for.

Christopher McConkey, has been properly moved and seconded the board approve this item, Dr suit.

Thank you President Kim as the team is making their way to the dais. I'm very pleased to present the proposed fiscal year 2627 budget for the board's adoption over the last 18 months. We have as a community come together to address a serious fiscal crisis in our district. As if USD was on the brink of fiscal insolvency and we, as a team worked really, really hard to. to ensure that we fought that and addressed it head on due to the hard work of the staff and bold actions by this governance team. And in partnership with CDE, thank you, Elliot, and our labor partners and families, we were able to turn the corner to stabilize the district. This proposed budget includes for the first time a three-year balanced budget. This means that our finances are stable for the next three years. We have moved from a negative certification by the state to a self-certified as being positive. We have since established and implemented important recommendations from FGMAT, such as position control. Daniel is here. to ensure that we are able to sustain the progress that we have made. I want to thank Deputy Superintendent of Business Services, Chris Mountbenitez, our CFO, Neeru Jayaraman, God dang it, I will get this right, Jennifer Schuster, and of course, Daniel Munoz, as well as the entire fiscal and budget team for their hard work on the budget this year. Lastly, again, I want to acknowledge the partnership that we continue to have with Elliott Dushan and Tina from CDE for their continued partnership. As I stated in the previous item for LCAB, I again want to Um, ask that the board please adopt this budget because if we do not adopt the budget, there are serious financial consequences. Um, the district would not have the resources, um, and the funds to operate and we would have to operate under the last approved budget. Um, so. it is really important for us to adopt this budget. If the budget is not adopted and is not submitted within the 14 days after July 1st, the state has the authority to withhold stipends, salaries, benefits, and other expenses of the district from reimbursement. So again, I certainly hope that the staff has again shared and has been able to convince the board that this budget is the appropriate budget that the budget is moving the needle towards our student outcomes. And that we certainly hope that you will be able to pass this budget. So with that, I'm going to hand it over to Chris and Niru to run through presentation quickly.

I'm going to take my cue from President Kim, and he can correct me, Superintendent, or you can, if you'd like to, that the presentation remains the same. The SACS forms remain the same. They are reflective of the LCAP that was reviewed this evening, which the Board just approved, as well as the SELPA, which was approved prior to that, as well as all the other Budgeting exercises that we went on earlier this year. Um, I would like to reflect back to the board. Um, I do listen to lots of your conversations, uh, and have lots of conversations with all of you and something that the superintendent and a number of you pointed out. to see the type of endemic change that you're looking for has to start much earlier in the year than when we are getting ready to pass required governance documents for the state so for example if you want to see something significant and we do have a new partner coming in on the ed services side which i'm excited for those changes need to be contemplated in the first six months of the fiscal year right from july 1 through december 31st to make those changes the statutory deadlines that districts have to make changes because of course big budgetary changes have to happen before the end of january and have to be projected out and so you're correct in saying that that type of change needs to be planned far in advance to be reflected in the budget but also remember that we're talking about a relatively narrow portion of your budget Right over 85 roughly in this district around 87% to 89%, depending upon which argument you follow of our budget actually goes to statutorily required expenses. Right? So we're talking about a very narrow portion and much of it on the restricted side. So, just some, some perspective, but you are right that that process has to happen far in advance. Of the end of the year, uh, which is when change actually is, is, is not taking place. It's just, we are actually, uh, contemplating and encapsulating all of the discussions of the year into a, into a budget and document. Um, so so you have that timeline correct? Um, but we're happy to answer any questions about the budget, uh, or or questions that you've asked us. To review in public, thank you commissioners.

Uh, commissioner Alexander.

so last at the last meeting we had a some conversation about the um commitment of 12.5 million to support strategies for student and staff there's a list of possibilities there i'm curious why that hasn't we don't even have why haven't we invested that money what's stopping us from using that No cuts. It's sitting there. Why haven't we made a plan aligned to the investments around the goals for that?

As you've heard staff say, the budget is a living, breathing document. So we will continue to work on enhancing our budget and adding. And unfortunately, sometimes we'll have to take away. We still have to wait for the state to finalize the budget. Um, so number one, we cannot be building anything on monies that has not been confirmed. Um, uh, but, but having said that we are very excited. We don't particularly foresee that, um, there'll be significant changes. At least we hope not. Um, I have already been in conversations with our new deputy superintendent of ed services. around how we could prioritize the full $12.5 million to support moving the needle for ed services. There are already significant ideas that John Davis has already shared with me, like deeper additional support staff in terms of identifying where additional support staff could be. But more importantly, ensuring that we have more professional development and trainings for our teachers. So those are some of the ideas that John has shared with me. But in a few, literally a few more weeks, we will know for sure that we have this in our budget. And by that time, John Davis will be here and we will work very closely with the executive team to then allocate those funds.

Just to clarify, this $12.5 million is no more or less certain than all of the rest of the budget. So I mean, it's not there's nothing that could have would have stopped us from planning already. I guess I'm not understanding why it's a commitment and not just budgeted for initiatives and investments to support the goals.

So it is. But remember, it's iterative. So when we got the May revise and we ended up with some more money, you'll notice that the LCAP document in the way that it was laid out tonight did have additional investments. I think the total net difference was around The biggest category that went up was about $12,000,000. So that had been had been conceived of and added to the budget sax documents. But at some point we have to stop changing the sax documents so that we can have time to submit them to the State. But we don't also want to add things haphazardly. So the the delta of what's left to invest rather than being haphazard about it, we put aside as a commitment, knowing that we want to invest that for student achievement. And things are iterative. So, for example, I just worked with HR when we were talking about hard to staff positions, and we've actually found a solid partner in the J visa category to help us recruit for shortage positions in the state, specifically in special education positions. and a couple of others so we've we found a partner that we are allowed to then recruit uh through jvisa which is going to be very helpful particularly to potentially our special education program that's a two-year commitment of between two and 2.5 million dollars a year we now have a place to take that from but but the sax documents are so detailed and cumbersome that we can't just change them with a drop of a hat so at some point we have to stop adding we set it aside and we have a place to draw from which is what all of our commitments are

So maybe this is a technical question for you then. If we then budget that money and then end up with, I mean, just how does that impact the reserve cap requirement?

So right now the commitments are in excess of a reserve cap requirement. It is the vehicle to do that. But for example, what does that look like between now and December? It means that anything that comes in additional investments, as long as we don't go over $12.5 million, we have a place to then budget them between now and December, right, when we do the next iteration of the SACS form. So I just shared with you that in my work with HR just this last week, we spent $5 million of that to start doing recruitment of those hard to fill positions, which also is aligned with our new UE bargaining agreement and the goals of the district. And so it gives me a place to put that. Now, let's say that we end up investing $17 million. Then we'll burn through that whole commitment and a little bit more, and it will show up in the next iteration of the SAC stocks. We have to do it that way because, like I said, it's a fairly complex system. And so we just do it iteratively throughout the year.

So the intention is to spend these, which I guess is yes, that is the point also of of the reserve. I mean, of of the reserve cap. We are meeting the reserve cap as long as we, in fact, budget and spend these.

Yeah, is that just that's kind of what I was that's that's correct. And and those commitments are all those that are called out. Not the twelve point five. That was the extra that I said. in my conversation with maria can we do we have anything else we can put towards this i said yeah we still have 12.5 the other commitments were those called out by the state as being likely liabilities this year that they didn't they can't direct us to put it in there but they were telling us you really need to put it there because these things might materialize that was the pregnancy leave requirement as well as the federal protections

City Council Chambers, Thank you. City Council Chambers, Okay well i'll just say I remain with I sort of maybe my final comment is just. City Council Chambers, Similar concerns as with the El cap and. City Council Chambers, yeah I don't. City Council Chambers, These are really tough votes, because it does put us we're sort of back against the wall, and I think it's it's frustrating to hear. Honestly, all the consequences of not approving the budget when, as several of my colleagues have mentioned, the board has been asking for a strategic budget for a long time and we've been using student outcomes focused governance and we knew last fall that this was that we needed to start early, as you said. I mean, it's not a secret that to be strategic, you have to plan far in advance. And I've been in this position now for five years on the board of being asked to approve budgets, which aren't particularly strategic. So I'm still not sure how I'm going to vote on this. But it's very frustrating to be to have the only point of leverage be the budget vote. And as I think President Kim said, it's then it's like we have to, you know, the board that then we see the action at the very last minute. It's like, OK, let's let's try to make sure the board is happy with this. But that's not That's not strategic, and that's not how to run a school district. We're trying to be clear as a board with our intentions so that we can all work together to be strategic to serve our kids. And so I just want to, however we all vote, I just want to be clear to staff and everybody that I think there's a lot of unity on the board around that.

Commissioner Fischer?

I think we're all very unified. I also think we need to give the superintendent and our leadership team props for, I don't think things were necessarily outlined as strategy, but the fact that we've had multiple, in some cases they were, multiple curricula adoptions, you know, huge budget cuts to get us to positive fiscal certification in December, position control. i appreciate the the naming of the the high classroom staffing rates you know getting us to places we haven't been you know the the work you did to create high potential schools and all this with There's a lot of bumps and hurdles along the way. You know, I mean, it hasn't been the easiest year. And when we talk about strategic abandonment, frankly, the fiscal stabilization plans that we have put together over the past couple years, those have been our strategic abandonment, right? So, for example, you know, when you're pushed towards making sure that classrooms are fully staffed, one of the strategic things that you abandoned was our RTIFs, which frankly was Tier 2 interventions. Right, environmental science. There have been a lot of very, very, very, very hard cuts that we've made. We've done a lot of strategic abandonment. So I think my question moving forward in the allocation process and the resource alignment process that we're talking about, you know, I mentioned this in a briefing last week. I feel like we're in a, if you give a mouse a cookie territory, right? You know, you give us this and we're always going to ask and we're always going to push for more and that's our job as commissioners um i think we need to do it in a way that honors the work of staff the lcap folks who are here all the folks who are sitting at the table in front of us before as well thank you for the work i think my questions are aligned in in the equity resource allocation, right? Like I just mentioned, you know, strategic abandonment was tier two, right? Now we're hearing that's a huge priority to bring back. So I think that's where I would love to see some more analysis here in alignment with the advisory committee recommendations. And how how do we marry all of this into one more cohesive thought process I think that's that's really what i'm because again back to the wall, I will vote for this, but I really, really, really starting July 1 want to see more of how this is aligned and how we're going to be moving forward in a way that is equity focused aligned with Community input and and takes us to the next level. Now it's more of a comment than a question, but just putting it out there.

Any other comments or questions?

I want to acknowledge that there's kind of a tension in the conversation that the board is having around the budget because this is a compliance document and it's a legal document. And I think from a compliance perspective, this is a wonderful budget. This is a much improved budget from last year and none of the folks sitting at this dais were sitting in their positions last year when we adopted the budget and so a lot of progress has been made by this team to get us to this point to get us to a balanced budget to get us to a positive positively certified budget and through our student outcomes focused governance lens we also as president kim read you know it is the superintendent's job to convince the board on the budget and not our job to be easily convinced around whether it is student outcomes focused And Mr. I think you said it exactly right if we want to see something significant, that type of change needs to be planned for earlier in the year. And we did plan for it, not just earlier in this year, but even going back to last year, we had a. training in January of 2025 on student outcomes focused governance that the superintendent and her top staff attended. We had our governance consultant come out in May of 2025 to specifically train on student outcomes focused governance training. The board deadline for the superintendent announcing major initiatives that were aligned to student outcomes focused governance for the coming year was June of 2025. In the fall, budget outreach started, and the Board charged the Superintendent with major decisions of merging schools and getting rid of the school lottery. In April, at a progress monitoring meeting where it looked like our plan to address chronic absenteeism under Guardrail 2 was to rely on an outside grant, J. I said, I would not vote for this budget if we were relying on philanthropy for meeting our highest priority goals, and the superintendent said, Well, we'll have to go back to the drawing board on that, and in May We requested a budget study session on LCAP in June. I notified the superintendent multiple times that I thought that there was the potential for the budget not to pass and encouraged her to reach out to the board. And to discuss, and I do agree with Commissioner group that it does feel like a gun to the head I those conversations have not happened for me that outright reach has not happened for me. request for my vote has not happened for me and superintendent confirm that we are still relying on outside funds to fund. central office position for chronic absenteeism which we know is a bigger issue for our student outcomes achievement and for our budget than nearly any other factor kids who are currently absent are not learning and we are not getting um funding for them to teach them and so I do appreciate that we have a teacher in every classroom but I feel that that is the baseline that every school district has to absolutely guarantee that is the core function of the school district but I don't think that anyone in this room believes that it's sufficient to meet our very ambitious student outcome goals and so um I The only reason I would vote for this budget is to prevent our students from losing 62Million dollars.

Just again, it's just we'll say that the goals that the district. And this body has approved is goals 1, 3rd grade reading goals to 8th grade math and college career readiness. If we want to move chronic absenteeism into a goal and make that a fourth goal, then we can. But if I have to prioritize with limited resources, and we have to prioritize because we do have limited resources, then that was the strategic decision that I made, which is to move our funds to prioritize Mary Pelletier, Moving the needle for third grade literacy and eighth grade math and college career readiness, so I know that we will have an opportunity to change our dvds soon and maybe that is a time where we could change and move chronic absenteeism to a goal.

We've had this conversation about this very thing about chronic absenteeism. I appreciate hearing that. I think the strategic conversation among the board would be to talk about that, right? Because I think when you shared that with me, I think in a check-in earlier this week, I shared with you, that was the first time I heard you say that so concretely out loud, that you are prioritizing this and not prioritizing this. And I actually have never heard that. Right? I can appreciate that. I can ask questions about that. I can try to unpack the strategy and rationale for that. I can ask for data about that. But if you don't say it so concretely like that, it's I don't know what I'm going to be asking for. And so I appreciate you naming that. I do I don't know if it's if that's been so clearly said like that, in that way, or all of the things that are taking place, and I think that's the kind of strategic conversation that. I think we continue to ask for so.

i'm gonna i'm gonna you can come back if you need to.

Commissioner Ray.

Thank you. Um, I also am I'm so appreciative of the work that you have all done in budget. Like, this is an area where I feel we have made tremendous tremendous strides and is a real. Success for the district, and we often face many, many huge challenges. You guys have done a fantastic job getting us to a much better place in terms of our. Stability and our compliance with the law, which we should be doing is just like baseline measure. It shouldn't be a question. Um, I also want to strongly concur with Commissioner Hewling's comments, um, and, uh, frustrations around uh around what has been happening like and to note as commissioner fisher and commissioner alexander mentioned i actually think it's very remarkable how unified the board is on this you know this interest although we may disagree on many things on this interest in having strategic conversations and making sure that we're strategically resourcing our student outcome goals I personally think that chronic absenteeism is absolutely critical to doing that. I don't see that we meet any of our student outcome goals without addressing chronic absenteeism. So for me, that's a little bit surprising to hear it framed in that way, but City Council Chambers, Something else that I wanted to comment on is that superintendent Sue when you were commenting earlier, you said you hope staff has been able to convince the board that the budget does what it should and. City Council Chambers, I. Janet Callahan- i'm deeply appreciative of staffs work and we've been trained as do now come focus governance that it is your job to convince us. Janet Callahan- You know, and for that we're supposed to be talking to you, you are our employee in that sense, so I I think it's really important that. Janet Callahan- You engage with us and don't just shift the burden over to staff certainly like I appreciate what staff does I appreciate like the answers and so forth, but ultimately. City Council Chambers, We can't direct staff, that is what you do um. it's it's you need to be able to convince us and to speak to these issues in my opinion and uh i certainly hope our directing staff to be responsive to the board's concerns like we are up here trying to do our best by the community and to reflect what what our school system is designed for which is to improve outcomes for students so they have choices in their life and aren't you know aren't constricted that they can expand and have as many opportunities as possible So in terms of like voting, I am going to vote for this budget. I am deeply, deeply concerned by the many consequences that have been outlined, including in the CDE letter. And I don't think, like, I respect a vote that anybody takes here, but I personally feel that it would, you know, that it would be very damaging to the school district. And so I will vote yes for the for the budget while continuing to push for more strategic work. Thank you.

Commissioner Gupta? Yeah, I mean, sorry, before we do that, can we move to extend our meeting past 10? Second roll call vote please.

Commissioner Alexander yes. Commissioner Fisher. Yep. Commissioner Gupta. Yes. Vice President healing. Yes. Commissioner Ray. Yes. Commissioner Weissman award. Yes. President Kim.

Yes.

Sorry. Go ahead. No problem. Um. So, I just want to name that there's a tension here in the tension of compliance versus what we seek and I think it's very logical to try to marry what would be strategic documents. What would be good public engagement around what we seek to see whether that be the staffing model that that President Kim has named that would go hand in hand with this. So that our school communities can understand. What is getting cut what is not and have that clarity or some of the clarity that commissioner Alexander was asking the, the idea that we must approve something as long as it is as it is technically compliant. Back against the wall, even if there is no evidence that's been presented to us by the superintendent that this will move the needle. Maybe it will maybe it won't but I have not seen sufficient evidence to make that judgment to me that that is. that is i i wouldn't be doing my duty if i were to say okay i am going to Just take on blind evidence, especially given that we have not seen major movement across these outcomes for as long as we have. Right? Maybe there is a case, but that case has not been made. And as we see in student outcome focused governance, that is the duty of the superintendent to. And if that is conversations with staff, so be it direct us to have conversations staff and vice versa. Happy to have that conversation happy to have that briefing, but I have not seen that evidence. Um. You know, and and I think part of this conversation, what would be a productive conversation if we did have this evidence would be to have a conversation around. Maybe we want to push out when we get to fiscal positive certification, because then we can invest more. I mean, as you mentioned. I was gonna say Chris or the chief business officer, whatever decorum, um, but, uh, decorum. Um, but, you know, if if we're going to have a conversation around, well, you only have 10 to 15%, and that's what roughly 130 to 200Million to to to utilize. Then maybe we have that conversation. I'm looking at goal 1, 3rd grade literacy, and we see an increase of 580,000 totaling in fiscal year. 27. you know, 15.3 million, right? So that would be a significant investment if there is a strategy behind it. And should we choose to then push out, you know, fiscal positive certification? We haven't had that conversation. So to me, I recognize you all have done your job beautifully. You all, again, I think, as maybe Vice President Hewling mentioned, have, you know, you weren't here a year ago. So I laud the technical compliance Part of this, and I really wish we were having this deeper conversation to say, how are we going to move these needles and show us evidence of that? And how staying the course would move that needle or what do we need to do to provide the support necessary to the superintendent and to staff to say, here's where we need to go or even. When we think about strategic abandonment, if we think that we're not going to be able to move the needle or we can move the needle faster to catch up, then maybe, you know, we then need to say, look, we're going to focus on goal one or goal two or recognize that chronic absenteeism is critically important to moving the needle on some of these goals or not. But we're not having any of those conversations right now. It's really frustrating.

Sorry, can I just, I believe that there were conversations about whether or not we wanted to move towards a positive certification. It's actually in my short-term metrics. We've also had conversations about moving and changing the goals metrics. Actually, when we as a board governance team took on the decision to extend Um, the VVGs, our goals for one more year, we had the back and forth and I believe even AJ came on and said that it would be really hard for the district to meet, um, the 70% goal of third grade reading the 65 of, um, of eighth grade math. And, and I think we all agreed that we wanted to stay the stay the course and, um, not make changes. So I would acknowledge that we didn't have enough and deeper, but we've had those conversations. And so I, again, would acknowledge that perhaps we could spend more time and dig deeper into those.

I appreciate that. And I do appreciate you naming the point where we did have the conversation on goal extensions. I mean, just to be clear, though, that context around the goal extension was because we had named the two major decisions that we thought were going to be implemented this coming year around school reorganization and mergers with enrollment changes. So I think there was this conversation around what is it that we want to tackle this year? And all of that was somewhat in the context of we have a lot of work to do, and we need, understandably, capacity to deliver on those things. I think the conditions have just changed a lot since then, right? And so, I mean, if there's a question right now about whether or not we need to go back and again, just a part of this was that extending and actually changing meaningfully our VVGG or at least our goals would have required us to go back out into community and reengage in a way that we, again, did not have planned for and time for because we extended that to be a year away from now. because we were going to plan on doing other work around major decisions. Right? So I think again, the conditions have changed dramatically since that conversation, and I think that's partly the disconnect here. I mean, I'll just use my time here just to acknowledge I'm going to go back to the effective budget alignment document around budget adoption part four. Once the board is fully convinced that the superintendent's draft budget prioritizes accomplishment of the goals while remaining within the boundaries created by the guardrails, the board is then ready to proceed. We know it's time to pursue adoption of the budget when the majority of board members voice in the negative on the following questions. Are there any board members who have evidence that the budget does not address the accomplishment of our goals? And are there any board members who have evidence that the budget violates our guardrails? When the majority of the board members answer no to each of these questions, then the board can proceed with budget adoption. The budget should hinge on alignment to vision and values, not on whether the board members like the budget, agree with the budget, or have items in the budget that they want. In addition, the budget option should be all or nothing, board members should not try to do line item edits, right? Like, I continue to go back to, I think, part of the whole orientation around our good governance efforts hinges on our allocation of resources towards our goals in the most strategic way possible, right? And is there a demonstrable plan? And this is why I think I'm really excited to see our ad hoc committee on progress monitoring recommendations get implemented next year, in part because the idea and premise behind voting on those is to put formally a vote to whether or not these plans are actually giving us confidence that we are meaningfully going to move towards our goals. And and so, you know, in many ways, I am excited to kind of bring those kind of operationalize those recommendations, because I do think that's going to be necessary part of this next part of the conversation. And Commissioner Fisher, you asked, like, what's next from there? And I think this is part of what comes next is in our progress monitoring meetings. Can we see and are we inspired by and do we have confidence around based on the evidence The plans that are coming forward and I think that's part of where we need to go from here.

Um, can I ask you a question?

Oh, yes, I don't know.

So, so my question, because this does, uh, figure into how I may vote. Um, is it possible to. Seek for the superintendent and staff to present a budget and, uh. uh an lcap document or crosswalk document if you will that meets the requirements or perhaps the requirements you just named in the student outcome focus governance manual before then we would proceed to further business i think so i mean again part of the last i mean granted it was slightly different in its format but part of

What the previous board did in 2,024 was have an ad hoc that ended up just becoming part of a standing item for every board meeting. But again, I I think the question here is less around our numbers adding up and more about How are we resourcing the strategies that we're talking about? Which to me would be a most appropriate in a monitoring conversation around are the things that we're saying with our goals and the strategies that we're discussing actually being lived out and resourced appropriately. And I think what we have tried to do is talk about it from like an academic instructional lens and perspective, which I think is right. what we haven't done is necessarily tied that to resources right so there is a question here of like do we take that step and actually ask ourselves in our monitoring meetings are we resourcing these appropriately and do we see evidence of that right that I think it's a great question right um and and just just to acknowledge here and I know Elliot has you have your hand up here too Because I think what we're talking about right now is are we approving a SACS document, SACS forms, to go to Sacramento? I don't have an issue with the numbers in our budget, right? What I have an issue with is the rationale behind that all, right? And what that means then in terms of our roadmap to Sacramento. meeting our goals right that there's a distinction there that I think is important, and I, I am personally trying to work on not conflating those right because there's a difference there and the consequences are real. um. i'm going to call it up, but then we'll do go ahead.

Just because I think this is relevant to this portion of the conversation. The reason that I'm bringing up chronic absenteeism is for exactly that reason. When the board set short-term metrics for the superintendent, one of those metrics was for her to choose what her interim goals and guardrails were. that she would be held accountable to. And we did a lot of work with the board and with AJ last summer to make sure that those superintendent was ready to present interim goals and guardrails that tracked our goals and guardrails. And the superintendent chose as her guardrail, interim guardrail 2.1, the chronic absenteeism rate. And that's why I'm bringing this up in the budget context is because we're supposed to have a budget that meets the goals without violating the guardrails. And at our chronic absenteeism progress monitoring, we were off track. And the reason given by staff was that we had defunded certain positions. And that is why I asked what the strategy was for funding those positions. So to me, that is just the larger context of this. It's not to set an additional goal for the superintendent. The superintendent chose this goal.

Elliot, are you?

I'm ready and waiting. So I want to start out by saying there's an underlying assumption to AB 1200. that when a district is not solvent, it's not able to sufficiently serve its children. It's about kids every bit as much as your goals and to be able to carry out its goals if it can't meet its fiscal responsibilities. That's the reason Tina's here. That's the reason I'm here. That's the reason we started as experts, then got elevated to advisors where fortunately we never had to use stay and rescind authority. But the district came around to becoming solvent. This is the best budget I've seen in the almost five years I've been with the district. You should all be commended. It is of great importance that you aim toward your goals. But you can't build a house unless you have a solid foundation and your budget is your foundation and a fiscally solvent budget. Even though it's not written in the VVGGs or maybe it is, it's probably fundamental to everything that you want to do in the future. So I think you've all read the letter. You know the consequence. But I think the fundamental point that I want to make is that by balancing your budget, you are making great strides to meeting your goals. All the other goals rest on that budget. You need to be commended for it as a board, as a staff. I won't list all the things you've done. It's a very long list. But The other point I want to make is the budget is dynamic. I think you've been told that in many different ways. It'll change when the legislature passes their budget, it'll change. You've changed your priorities even through the year, changed some of your curriculum. So you have that ability to continue that conversation and it can be ongoing. So again, You've read the letter, you know the consequence, but this is as much about, I would hope, celebrating the fact that you have a balanced budget to approve.

I just want to reiterate Commissioner Gupta's point sort of in response to what Elliot is saying, because I think it's just the it's this tension between the technical part of the budget, which is critically important, right? And I think as Elliot says, like, you know, for the last I've been on this board for five years, and I've seen the disaster that was were budgets in fact i voted for all of them i think um right so i mean that because because of the same thing where it was like at the last minute it was like if we don't vote for it we're there's all these consequences right so so i think i voted for all of them but but But and we were projecting massive deficits and then we ended up with surpluses because the tracking was so bad. We didn't even know where our money was. And I think that's the progress that we've made. And I think the superintendent deserves credit. I think deputy superintendent and the whole team deserve tons of credit this year for for having done that. And I think, you know, I think part of for me, what we're trying to do is continue to raise the bar and to say, you know, this other piece, which is the strategic allocation of resources, is also. Critically important and we can't just say, okay, now that we have. a technically sound budget, which is, I mean, that should have been a given, right? In SFUSD, it wasn't. Unfortunately, we were digging ourselves, right? It was not. It was not. So do I do? I just want to say, like, I think however people vote here, I think there is, I want to say, like, I think of recognition on the whole board that that's a heroic achievement, as Elliot said. And I think I don't think anyone wants the budget to not pass, but if some of us vote no, it may be because we're holding a higher standard and we're saying, look, next year, this needs to be better, right? And I think that's to me, if I vote no, I still decided I'm gonna vote because I'm really on the fence. But if I vote no, that's the message I wanna send. It's not that this is bad, it's actually that this is great. And now we can get to the point of raising the bar and saying, if we really wanna make things better for kids, We actually need to be really strategic. And like I said earlier with LCAP, I think there's been some great work in the last two weeks of putting out some documents and beginning to have frameworks. But that has to drive every single decision we make in the school district. And this can't happen in the boardroom. Honestly, this is senior staff. This is executive cabinet. I mean, y'all are full time. highly paid professional employees. And I think what the board is saying is we think you're awesome and you need to do better. Like in some ways, like it's like, we need to step it up. And if you need more resources, tell us. Like if you need more staff or whatever it is, we've got to get to a point where we're doing better by our kids. And it's not because, you know, it's we've come so far, we can't stop here, I think is, is sort of at least how I'm seeing it. So I don't know, I just I just want to like name that tension and say, I don't think that I think there's a lot of common threads here. And that I hope that even if I hope folks don't even don't take the no votes as a critique, because that's not the way they're intended. They're intended to be a, we believe in you and think you can do better.

I know i'm sorry um I appreciate the push I really do I know that this is an uncomfortable conversation. And I do feel that we have worked really hard to stabilize the budget to get us to a place where we can now really strategically focus on moving the needle for our students. And that is what I am hoping that this budget reflects. I acknowledge that we need to do more. But this budget, the intent of this budget is to reflect our desire to stay focused on moving the needle for our literacy rates for students, our math rates, our college career rates, and that it is about us being strategic, staying the course so that our students can fully realize what this district can provide for them. If we can continue to support our educators to be in the classrooms, if we can continue to provide the wraparound supports through social workers and counselors and our community schools coordinator and all of those other support folks that our students and our school communities rely on, which is what we're seeing in this budget, then the hypothesis is our students are going to do better because they know that that teacher is going to be there for them. They know that that staff is going to be there for them. And we know that when there is consistency and stability, that's how our students are going to improve. That was my hypothesis in building this budget.

Christopher McConkey, Again, I will just i'll read again the effective budget alignment document if it just it's pretty straightforwardly says, if the board is not convinced that the but proposed budgets first priority for resource allocation is accomplished. Christopher McConkey, But the board's adopted goals don't approve it instead send it back to the superintendent, so they can either one make the appropriate adjustments to demonstrate alignment with the goals or to do a better job of presenting the alignment. Right and I not I I don't know which of those two it is right like is it that this is a communication gap and we just need to better frame how the existing budget and strategies are fulfilling our goals or if there's something more fundamental there but but again I think what I heard from Commissioner Alexander is We are so genuinely trying to do our due diligence and following our good governance efforts in the way that we were trained and the way that we were told. And that sometimes comes into conflict, which tonight is a good example of the legal ramifications of this. And so that tension, I think this board is willing to lean into and understand, unpack and talk through. What we shouldn't do is do that on June 23rd, the day that we have to vote. Right. And I think this inherently is the frustration. Right. We should have been having this conversation months ago. And I think that's the continued ask of this board is let's make the time and space to do this with a very long runway so that we don't find ourselves in this position again. And I think all of us welcome the efforts to have that conversation as soon as possible. That being said, I I will be voting yes on this budget I would hope Commissioners well I won't even go there Commissioners do what you need to do but I will be voting yes on this budget I I would like to not vote yes on this budget but we are here where we are today and with that I will just call for a roll call vote please Commissioner Alexander no Commissioner Fisher yes

Commissioner Gupta?

No.

Commissioner Hewling? No. Commissioner Ray?

Yes.

Commissioner Weisman-Ward? Yes. President Kim?

Yes. Thank you very much, finance team. I don't know if y'all are staying up for the next one, but appreciate all your work. Thank you for your presentation this evening. Christopher McConkey- Moving to item for 266 dash to three SP one approval of the resolution declaring the property at 865 market street as exempt surplus land and emotion and a second.

I move item F for 266 dash as 23 SP one.

Christopher McConkey- i'll go ahead and second it. It has been properly moved and seconded that the Board approve this item. As Dr. Hsu brings this item forward, Commissioners, just for added context, we did ask whether or not this is required to be voted on as a standalone item on the agenda. We had intended for this to be on consent, but alas, the law does require us to vote on this as an individual item. So with that, staff, you are, Superintendent, please take it away.

We're seeking board approval to declare this property as exempt surplus land to be in compliance with the law. So board action on this item is needed in order for the development plans to proceed. I'm going to hand this over to our newest bright and shiny head of operations, Katie Boyle.

Don't make me regret it. Okay. Good evening, Commissioners. Good evening, Commissioner. So before you as a resolution to declare the property at 865 Market Street as exempt surplus, otherwise known as San Francisco Center, this is a procedural step. um in order for us to engage in conversations around a ground lease amendment with any perspective redevelopment or purchasers because of changes in the surplus land act between the last time we declared this property exempt surplus or surplus in 1980 and today we have to do the second declaration there are new restrictions around it i do want to be very clear that this action does not approve a sale or a lease or any terms of a lease. Um, this is really just to make sure that we are compliant so that we can continue negotiations and, uh, have conversations around the ground lace. Um, any further deal terms amendments, um, would come back to the board for approval for conversation approval. Um, we do plan on coming in August to bring more information about, um, the status, um, because there's no. Public, uh, information about the sale. Um, I'm not going to share that tonight, but we will be bringing information to you in August and anything further would be voted on by this board.

Uh, commissioner for sure then, um, 1st of all, no, take backsies. So just want to put that on the record. Um, but. In the Q and a document, I had actually requested that the word sale. Um, or other disposition be removed, I had specifically made that ask and the response was. This resolution is not intended to define what the district will do with the property, but what it has the legal right to do. Therefore, the district does not recommend removing these references. And that's true, but it is our job as a board to set the board policy of what we are willing. And I'm not willing to vote for a resolution that authorizes the sale of this property. So if we're willing to make that change, I will vote for this. Otherwise, I will not.

I don't believe that this does authorize the sale of the property. I believe that the legal definition of surplus land is land that those things is the only eligible land that any of those things can happen to. And there isn't a way to declare something surplus while being leased without being also theoretically eligible to be sold.

I understand the definition of surplus and the options I'm saying that we, as a board also have could potentially take the take the authorization and the authority and say, We're willing to lease it and set those parameters as a board above and beyond what the state surplus authority is. So that's what I'm saying is, yes, the state, once the property is surplus, there are multiple things we can do with it. I'm saying that we as a board, should be much more specific about what we're authorizing staff to do with this. If for no other reason, in the same way that we had the conversation earlier about LCAP, what we say in our documents that we approve versus what we say here at the dais, what's in the document is what's memorialized. And so in order to vote yes on this, I'm not willing to vote yes on anything that says in our policy We as a board authorized sale of this, even if it is just bringing us into compliance with ED code, I think we as a board needs to be much more specific about what we are virtue signaling to the Community.

I think. Just to clarify um. So, yes, 100% hear you. So this is legal language and so it's not at code. This is actually government code. Um, and so the legal language does, like, say, we are setting this up in order that you can do these certain things with it. It does not grant staff the authority to sell. Um, it does not grant us the authority to enter into ground visas.

I understand that and I'm saying that we, as a board should be much more prescriptive to be much more aligned with what we're hearing from the community. And what we're hearing from the community is don't sell property. And so, yeah.

John Potter, So so to just maybe clarify that. John Potter, katie so is there, so if we were to put into this policy, you know this cannot be sold would that still suffice and meet the requirement for.

So, for what you need to to be clear, this is only this is actually allowing you as the board to make that determination. This does not allow staff to make any of those determinations. Right? This is authorizing you as the board. You're saying this property is not just surplus, which is the old law. But now we have to call it excess surplus so that you as a board can receive options of what to do with it. any options that are out there in the universe. Right. Staff can't do anything. Anything to do with any of your real property must come back to you in open session to be voted on. We can't even predict what that might be in the future. Right. So right now, this is only saying that you you are willing to receive offers because it is X, X, sorry, surplus exempt, which is the new definition of the state. So you haven't contemplated the sale of anything. You are in the middle of the actual building, which sits partially on our land being sold so that we can then renegotiate a long term land lease. This just says that you have the ability to receive those offers, whatever they may be currently, though you are not contemplating the sale of this property.

I appreciate that. So, first of all, Katie, I appreciate you taking time to clarify a few things for me and, you know, just kind of bring everyone along. Um, you know, what I had suggested was that we receive something of a roadmap for this process, because I know I was just not necessarily clear on where this was. So I appreciate, um. You all receiving that feedback and sounds like if there's the next contemplated action in August, perhaps receiving a roadmap of what this what what exactly are the steps for this so that we can reach agreement and, you know, everyone's amenable, uh, in in August. Um, as I understood and please correct me if I'm wrong part of the reason that we seek to do this now is not. Any contemplated sale, but, um, to allow for. The developer, whomever may contemplate purchasing the property that sits on this land to be able to, um, or sorry, clarify please.

We are not offering the land for sale. That's never been what the board asked us to contemplate.

Sorry. The, the, as I understand, um, we're leasing. And and the person, or the developer would then take that and be able to renovate or do what they need with the building on top of it. So this is necessary for that renovation. Is that correct?

Correct and you can't receive offers on what that lease might be modified to until this exempt status is passed.

Okay, and do we have clarification on whether it's retail on ground floor office space residential space?

we don't have any sort of official purchase agreement or anything, so we don't have anything official to share.

Okay. The the reason I ask is I was looking at the John Potter, at the document that was referenced and says, if you know if it is residential space and by 421 point F1 capital F1 restricts 100% of. John Potter, residential units to persons and families of lower moderate income with at least 75% of the residential units restricted to lower income households. John Potter, I won't go through, I have all the language in there, but what i'm curious about is if we do declare this. Exempt then are we taking away the necessity of whoever would develop this property on this land from developing affordable units?

They would have to abide by by statute. But at this point, we don't know who the successful bidder will be or what terms or what their intent for the property would be. That won't come to us until after this step. And then the the broker and the lender will try to come to terms with whoever the successful purchaser of the property is part of that purchase will include them putting terms forward to the board of the of the new lease of the land that we own underneath the building.

So, I guess my question, though, is if we declare this as exempt surplus land with that right now, it seems like there are requirements of this land to have some percentage of affordable units or units developed for affordable housing or workforce housing. And I'm wondering if us declaring this exempt surplus land then takes out the necessity to create those units.

not that either of us are aware of but but honestly we're not we're not lawyers i don't know if i could answer that legal question but we we could ask for clarification from from our legal counsel to get back to you as a part of an rfi i would really appreciate i can't vote on this unless i know a definitive answer to that i think what i can share is from the perspective developers who have shown an interest in this property they are not considering residential

It the building as it is right now is a retail space and so there would be some configuration of retail. So, I understand the, the hypothetical, like, I don't know if we'll come to that.

But even even it says, even if, um, in that 5, 4, 2, 2, 1 point F, 1, H, 4, it says, if non residential development is included at least 25% of the total plan units, affordable to lower income households shall be made available for lease or sale. and permitted for use and occupancy before or at the same time with every 25 of non-residential development made available for lease or sale and permitted for use and occupancy honestly i'm having a really tough time unpacking exactly what that statement is but it does mention non-residential so it does seem that there's some clause for affordable or workforce housing of some sort in either case if it's residential or non-residential which is where i see clarification

Yeah, I can talk to her. I hear your question. So I can speak to our outside counsel to get clarification.

Commissioner Alexander

Yeah, I had a similar question as Commissioner. And so, and let me just, I want to make sure that I'm asking the same question. But so is that are you talking about the difference between the surplus land and the exempt surplus? So the Surplus Land Act is what you were quoting?

Exactly.

Yeah. So that I had the same question. So like, what's, it sounds like we don't know exactly what so we would be moving as cathartic surplus, so we'd be moving it to exempt surplus. And so I think that is the same, like, I would like to know, overall, what are the differences? Like, what are the? What are we allowing that? That isn't, you know, or what are the requirements that are that are not present for exempt surplus and particularly around the affordable housing case?

The difference with this piece of property for the district is this is your only land lease, where we actually don't own the improvements on the land, nor do we actually own We want about half of the improvements or half the building rests on our land for which we're providing the least right? But we don't have any claim to the actual structure. So we are just looking to clear the way for them to be able to sell and get you new terms for that land lease. uh per the board's earlier instruction they were not looking to sell it but we need to clear the way because at this point it's sitting with the lender and the people interested in buying it for redevelopment and they can't offer us terms until it's considered exempt surplus right the exempt surplus why i think that's the to understand the difference well the example for for this it's a little different if it was just a school property that we weren't using anymore or if it was a vacant property then residential housing if that was the potential development then that comes into play This is not a residential structure. And so they needed to be exempt surplus to be compliant with the law because that's the current statute that's enforced for municipal property. And that if they want to modify it in any way, so if the developer is interested in modifying the property in any way, it has to be considered exempt surplus. So we just found ourselves out of compliance with the new law.

But why couldn't they modify it under surplus?

Because the law has changed that if it's municipal, it has to be exempt surplus, not just surplus. It is literally a compliance piece for us.

If it's municipal, what do you mean by that?

So that's why it's operating under government code. So when municipalities, meaning cities or counties or school districts or community college districts, have this situation, even with a land lease, they're not allowed to modify the structure unless it's declared exempt surplus now. That's the new statute.

Yeah, I understand that, I guess. But But again, I went, Okay, I won't beat a dead horse. But I think I, I would want to understand what that difference is between surplus and exempt surplus. To understand what we're because it because it's, you're saying that we can't have surplus land anymore, it has to all be exempt surplus.

depends upon the intended use. This one is just a land lease. So that's the only intended use. This is a very narrow one for us.

Okay, well, yeah, I would like to get that clarification around the housing. Because again, if, if what we're saying is, yeah, yeah, I just think it's not totally clear. I guess what's not to me, it's not totally clear the implications of this switch. And so I, it's not that I'm necessarily opposed to it. I just don't feel comfortable voting for it without that explanation.

Can I ask a clarifying question? Does this have to be voted on tonight or can it wait until August?

There's there's never I have to. This is still pending. The sale is still pending and it's now pending this action. Right. And so we don't have another meeting until August. This was explained to us by by both outside and internal legal is just a statutory requirement that's changed since the surplus declaration for them to be able to move forward. So, again, we can't comment on what that will do to the potential deal. We don't know. Right, this is, this was just a compliance request that they had to make sure that it was compliant with government code.

Okay, see can I move to continue to August 2nd.

What are the implications of that.

Again, we just don't know, right? We are just trying to move this through the courts and the lending system and trying to be compliant with current law. So asking us to predict what this will do to a potential deal or not, we just don't know. We're trying to be as helpful and move it through as quickly as possible so as not to miss any opportunities, but we can't predict that at this point.

But are there contingencies or relationships in place that we should be aware of? Like, does this have an impact on something else?

So without saying things like, publicly, that can't be said publicly, right? There are conversations that are being had. There are prospective buyers. And so there are real risks in not doing it, whether or not it will jeopardize the entire sale. I'm not going to say one way or another. I can say that this process to file this with the HCD takes about 60 days. So if we have a prospective buyer who's interested, things can move very slowly or very quickly. And I think given the enthusiasm for mid-market redevelopment, and it's very late, I can't think of other words, and the interest in the revitalization of mid-market, we do not want to be putting obstacles in place, this could put an obstacle in place. I 100% hear the concerns about, um, are we taking away the opportunity to do housing here? I will just reiterate. We own a very small sliver of the land underneath this building and have minimal, um, opportunities for, uh, creative. Development here. Um, and so my intent here is to preserve the, uh, investment of the district to preserve the property of the district and to get the most for the district that we can. I do believe that we are negotiating to the best interest of the district, and doing it in a way that we can ensure long term stability and revenue that will go back to the classroom, because we can use it for operational services. So that's what I can share right now.

With respect to my fellow Commissioners, I would oppose any motion to continue this matter, given that we don't have a meeting until August eleventh, especially I You know that this building has been a vacant blight on the core heart of downtown San Francisco, and I would not want anything that this board does to jeopardize the ability of the city's downtown recovery to proceed as quickly as possible, especially if there were You know, a deal that were to fall apart because it couldn't be completed on time with the financing window or how interest rates are moving or anything like that. That is beyond our control. Um, and I also hear the concerns of commissioners. Um, I was satisfied with the answer to the question about why, um, the language needs to include all possible opportunities under the government code to me hearing that response as a lawyer. Um. It's very common for there to be legal requirements that say this law needs to be. You know, compliant with this statute and if we were to say. City Council Chambers, Actually, you can only do one of the three things with this statute, they would say that's not compliant with that statute. City Council Chambers, And so, actually the resolution it wouldn't be setting a higher bar necessarily it would be saying we're not meeting the floor and we actually are not eligible then to entertain any offers for a lease, and so that I think again could potentially. defeat the purpose of the resolution which is to just bring us into legal compliance so that we can then hear what our options are both to help support the regeneration of downtown and also to um bring in resources as we talked about ad nauseum tonight we do need to have more resources to put toward our students and meeting our student outcome goals And so I would hope that we would do everything that is in with within our power to preserve any opportunity. We have to have the possibility of considering that in the future.

I'll just comment on this. I appreciate what. I'll tackle this from a good governance standpoint. We explicitly removed. Facilities. from a major decision framework. I don't know why we're talking about this. The only reason we're talking about this is because we legally have to vote on this. And so if there are questions that need clarification, we should have sent that in advance. I'm not trying to be rude about this, but I think that if there are clarifications that require legal review, we should have asked those in advance. I would just encourage us, I mean, I know we still need to motion, respond to the motion, so we will, but that's just my perspective here. Do you have a comment generally or a comment about the motion to?

No. Yeah.

I just want to say also as a lawyer, I was satisfied with the response and I can understand why people are raising concerns, but it made sense to me. So I don't know if that's helpful to anyone, but I wanted to, you know, support also what Jamie was saying. I came to the same conclusion.

So we do need to take action on the response put to post or the motion to propose postponement. The motion to postpone to a future meeting. And so, uh, can we get a roll call vote on that? Please?

Okay, so motion to postpone vote. Commissioner Alexander.

Yes.

Commissioner Fisher. Yes. Commissioner Gupta.

Yes.

Vice President healing. No, uh, Commissioner Ray.

No.

Commissioner Weisman-Warren? No. President Kim?

No. Motion fails. Going back to the original motion to approve the item, if there are no other comments or questions, I'll bring that to a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Alexander?

No.

Commissioner Fischer?

No.

Commissioner Gupta? I'm sorry, no. Vice President Hewling? Yes. Commissioner Ray?

Yes.

Commissioner Weisman-Ward? Yes. President Kim?

Yes. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Hope you stay in the job. Moving to item 5, 266-23SP2, Board of Education Governance Calendar for School Year 26-27. Can I have a motion and a second?

I move item F5266-23SP2.

Second. It is properly moved and seconded that the Board approve this item. Dr. Hsu?

Yes. Uh, thank you, President Kim. I'm sorry. It's late. So every year as required by the board, every year as required by law, the board adopts a governance calendar to establish the board's meeting schedule for the upcoming year. This year, in collaboration with board leadership and based on the recommendations from the ad hoc committee on progress monitoring, we have enhanced the governance calendar to reflect multi-year planning. In addition to the upcoming board of education meeting dates, Um, the proposed calendar includes several recommendations from the ad hoc committee on progress monitoring. Um. Which which spans both the so so this, uh, governance calendar spans both, um, school years, uh, school year, 2627 and 2728, um, within the current goals cycle. Um, goals and guardrails are scheduled in line with the recommendation, um, from the ad hoc. Um, the calendar does not yet devote, um. does not, the calendar currently does not devote half of our board meeting times towards progress monitoring, but we are moving closer to 50% of our board time towards progress monitoring. We also include board training calendar as a supplement to the main calendar. Um, at this time, I am going to. Hand it over to home a paying to walk you through the calendar. Great Thank you.

Superintendent. Um, so. Building off of what you had shared, um, the calendars in front of you, um, are aligned across the 2 school years. Take into consideration district holidays and school academic calendars and also based on consultation with board leadership. We have devoted specific meetings to advisory reports to have a more strategic and focused way to engage with board and parent advisories. And as the planning is ongoing, we are committed to working with the board to update and revise the calendar. Just want to. acknowledge that this is not perfect. It is definitely an iterative process. There is still a lot of work that we need to do to, for example, flesh out Dates around major decisions, for example, that's tied with ongoing discussions with the board. Um, and also, um, to just say that this is, um, 1 of the milestones that we were able to really integrate the progress monitoring recommendations. So, appreciate the board's interest and, um, continued engagement on this calendar, um, for. The next 2 school years.

Uh, thank you. Um. Commissioners, I intend to continue this item into the next meeting. So the 1st meeting in August would be the 1st time that we have an opportunity to vote on this. I do have a question for, um. Our Council who is on zoom, I believe. Um. To ask if there is any impact on us continuing this item into August, the reason i'm wanting to continue this item is because the board leadership hasn't has a chance to review this until the agenda we didn't get the item until the draft was posted and so. As Hongmei named, while this is addressing many of the questions that have come up, there are still many things that are outstanding. I would encourage us to not vote on this until we have a bit of a fuller calendar, have discussed this with staff in advance. I think there is a... Yeah, so Council, if you're on on right now, I do have a question around just the implication of not voting on this by July 1. And are we able to vote on this in the 1st meeting of August?

I think the short answer is. That you do have some additional time to vote on this item. Board of Education governance calendar, the starting period, I believe, is when school is back in, you know, the new term starts. So any time before that. So I'm not sure when the actual next board meeting is. So depending on that date, we may be able to, you know, borrow some time.

Okay, I believe the first day of school is August the seventeenth. Our first meeting of the year is August the eleventh. So maybe I'll just say for the record, we intend to hold that meeting on August the eleventh, which is aligned to our second and fourth Tuesday of each month in August. Um, and at that time, likely what will happen commissioners is that the only item on the agenda will will be the governance calendar. Because I do not think we should be scheduling any other meetings until we have that in place. We may bring forward major decisions if that's something that we need to do. But, um, I think at the end of the day, I mean, I continue on with the trend of our feedback here of, like, we are trying to have a. High bar for where we where we are. Um. And so the. The spirit of that is that we have our meeting on August 11, the only item there being governance calendar, and we need one.

Yes, just point of clarification. I understand that you would like to agendize the governance calendar as the only item for the August eleventh meeting. I I do want to note that there are several items that are currently on the proposed governance calendar that has to do with For example, bond sale and the you know boards approval of the bond project labor agreements and local hiring policies that are somewhat time sensitive and tied to operational effectiveness for the district. Do you intend to have those be agendized for August eleventh? Or do you want us to

Yeah, I mean, again, as I shared in leadership, I, I. We should not be starting the year without a clear governance calendar in place that lays out the cadence of the meetings and the topics that we intended to cover. That includes the feedback that we've been giving around major decisions being allocated across the meeting across the year and et cetera for all the remaining items. I again, my. my current position right now is that we we should not be agendizing anything until we have a governance calendar in place that reflects what the board has been requesting um and again I I appreciate staff and the work that they're doing to plan ahead again I think this is a governance calendar we've been asking for since last year and so can I sorry this is comey here can I actually um

I just pulled up the San Francisco Unified's policy 9-100. Sorry, I wish I had more time to look it up properly, but you have a hard end as per 9-100 policy, which says that it must be approved before June of each year.

That is our own policy, not state, correct?

That's right.

Okay. Thank you very much for that. Um, commissioners any questions before I continue this item commissioner Fisher?

It's just another point of clarification. 1 of the things on the proposed governance calendar is a public hearing around charter schools. I think on the 11th, um, which if we don't hold that public hearing might put us into statutory compliance issues. So, um, I see some tension there.

Would you be? I think there's tension everywhere right now with not having a governance calendar in place. I hear that. Let me, I think what we can do is confer with staff and council on what our options are. Again, the spirit of here is not to try to throw us off track from all the things that we need to do. It's just a very practical matter of we just need to know a plan for the year and we should have that in place before we vote on it.

I understand, but if tabling this until June and making this the only agenda item that we do on June 11th or August 11th, 1058 um if if tabling this and making this the only item on that august 11th agenda puts us into statutory compliance problem tear i'm not willing that's why i want to know i want to i want i will vote yes if leadership will commit to me to make sure that we meet our other statutory compliance obligations in that same time in the time frame necessary yeah some way some law not local

right so we we should do what we need to do for a compliance standpoint yes um so again i think this is the conversation we need to have with staff and what is possible i think my posture still is uh for all other non-legally required non-binding no deadline purposes we should not be doing anything unless we have a governance calendar in place thank you for that clarification um commissioner gupta commissioner ray then vice president

Yeah, I'm supportive of that. Again, I mean, I think we're just seeing the constant trend of until our back is against the wall, we're not receiving necessary things like being able to understand. I know I would certainly benefit from a full governance calendar. One of the things that I've been asking for is where our major decisions are alongside this, because those are the questions that I continue to receive from community as well in terms of whether we're talking about tk through a mandarin immersion whether we're talking about uh school mergers whether we're talking about uh finally eliminating the lottery system these are all matters that we should be able to tell the community front and center that we are we do have a plan for this so i would not be comfortable uh really voting on anything until we finish and get this document so we know exactly what we can expect and our community can do the same

I had similar concerns as Alita because I had taken a look at this too and saw that it said the public hearing about charter schools and I thought that might have a specific date associated with it we couldn't go past. So anything along those lines that we have to do, I think that we should do. I absolutely think we should comply with the law. I also want to say I'm really troubled. I'm just generally troubled by things that go against our policies. I don't think we should do that. In this particular case, We have, as President Kim has indicated, leadership has been asking for this for at least six months, if not more. And we have all, at least I have certainly also asked about what's going on, like why we don't have information. And I feel like we're essentially in this pattern of almost governing by crisis, where it's just one crisis after another. And that is not healthy for us as a district. So while I, i'm very unhappy and disappointed that we are in this position i understand uh you know presidents president kim's desire like what commissioner gupta has has mentioned about wanting to push this forward um until we have more uh until we actually have uh Well thought out, you know, timeline that we in the community can see and understand and hold people accountable to. So but I just want to emphasize that if there's anything we need to do from a legal perspective, I think that we should absolutely do that. Thank you.

And I just wanted to, you know, share with fellow commissioners that. President came and I had several working meetings with district staff a year ago last June to try and get a working multi year governance calendar. We only got a partial governance calendar that calendar actually, uh, essentially, uh, ran out this spring, which is why the governance calendar was agendized this spring, because we literally just needed a governance calendar to map out what we're doing. And Only a partial governance calendar was brought that just got us to the end of this year. And so we have been asking for multi-year governance calendar for quite some time, and you know, have offered resources to help that occur. And I agree with Commissioner Rae, you know, we talked earlier about being strategic and planning ahead. part of enabling staff to plan their work is knowing when their deadlines will be. And that is really part of the exercise of setting the governance calendar is knowing when things need to come to the board so that we can backward plan effectively as a district from that and avoid those kinds of crises and emergencies and make sure that we aren't in a situation where we're doing things like considering curricula when the books won't get here in time for the next school year, you know, things that we need to avoid.

That said, I appreciate that additional staffing has been allocated to this. I know that there's been a meaningful effort recently. I think the draft is a much improved draft from the previous draft that we had. So I thank you for your efforts. Um, so I'll go ahead and continue this item to our next meeting on August 11th and just for the record commissioners and everyone else. This is a. We do have a meeting on August 11th that is the 1st meeting of the year.

Ann Marie Chischilly, Commissioner, so I I guess i'm still help me understand, and I think this is important for Superintendent executive cabinet to like. Ann Marie Chischilly, I think we've made good progress on this calendar. What is the official ask for the superintendent? What what are we aligned as a board? on asking as the next thing to come in front like what what do we expect to be included in this governance calendar that's not on that's not on the agenda currently do we have specific feedback that we can put on the record right here now publicly for the superintendent leadership team like what what are we asking for that isn't here that's a great question commissioner fisher and what i'll do is uh maybe just articulate what has been asked so

What what we have done is a couple of things. Um, there's been multiple iterations of the governance calendar that we've been working through. Um, and this one that you see here, uh, was. A version that we hadn't yet seen, uh, until it was posted. The at the highest level we've been asking for is in addition to the statutory required doc or decisions that need to be made by the board. What are, can we overlay on top of that a new strategy for engaging our advisory councils and committees? and um in addition to overlaying on our governance calendar when we can expect certain milestones to come to the board for either discussion or approval regarding major decisions right um then on top of that we've asked questions around strategic timing of study sessions and what those are but we haven't had a chance to talk about what those decisions might be We've also asked for an incorporation of the ad hoc committee on public engagement, and I had a committee on progress monitoring to be incorporated into the governance calendar as well. A part of this was a technicality. We're talking about the governance or the ad hoc on public engagement now, and so today, and so that hadn't yet been incorporated. But the progress monitoring one has And then other major topics that we know are going to come to the board. So, for example, we have, we've been talking about the establishment of 2 ad hoc committees, and when those recommendations are coming to the board, we have talked about other priorities that we know are relevant for the district. So, um, you know, when are we going to calendar out when a. change to, for example, our financial literacy plan is coming to the board. So these are things that the board needs to take action on. We don't want to find ourselves in a place where we have seven different action items again. It's just a question of are we able to thoughtfully lay this all out. There was a version of the document where we worked with Chris to lay out some questions that we asked and posed to staff. But again, we hadn't yet met to go through those responses from staff on why certain things were laid out the way that they were so part of this is also timing, I mean there was understandably a event in DC that happened. In addition to a strike and all the other stuff for sure. So. So I think there's a part of it that's just we need to meet to talk about the governance calendar and we have we hadn't yet done that prior to the draft coming to the board.

Thank you, and I appreciate the acknowledgement that the superintendent was pulled away from her job for multiple weeks because of forces beyond her control that were political in nature and not student outcomes focused so.

I look forward to continuing this discussion in August absolutely and as per the conversation on the budget, this is, I think why we brought the item forward for discussion very, very early on, so we had a long runway. and We are, we are where we are. So, yeah. Thank you for that question. Commissioner Fisher. Um, I'll go ahead and continue this item, uh, until the August 11th meeting. Uh, thank you for bringing this item forward. And with that, um, we'll move to discussion items. Item G1.

Uh, major decisions up. May I make a point of order?

Yes.

Um, it's 208. A. M. for me, and so I'm going to respectfully ask that I be excused shortly. So if you see me hop off, that's why, but I will make sure to. Watch the recording of the future discussion items.

You're actually required by board policy to stay until at least 3, but thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Commissioner Weisman award.

Can I also make a be with the last action? I mean, you tabled it. But because you tabled it as president, don't we still need to vote on tabling it? No, no.

So I can continue an item to a future meeting or postpone. I think the language is without a vote, or there can be a request to vote. Yes. Look at that handy dandy laminated half page for you.

Yes, and just another point of something information. I have to drive back to Santa Rosa tonight, so I'm not going to stay. It's too much longer either.

So hopefully we can get through some stuff doing sorry just to kind of lay out the timeline for item G. Discussion items. I depending on how long item G one goes, I intend to engage in this conversation on major decisions. We'll see on timing to consider the recommendations from the adult committee and public engagement just so we can get an affirmation there and move that work forward. It may be that we need to continue the items around Board of Education, mid year self evaluation and short term metrics. And maybe these are some of the things that come up on the first meeting again in August, I think it'll just be how we go through this work. Yes, sure. I mean, again, I think these are the kind of conversations we need to have given where we are right now. Okay. Going to item G1, major decisions update school assignment policy. Dr. Hsu?

Thanks. Okay, so thank you as staff are coming up to the dais. I also want to introduce Jeff Kahn and Joseph Mondaro, who's actually on. Hopefully he's still on because it's also very late for him. Right now, who are both former leaders as a few sds enrollment Center joining us, along with lauren color and of course you already know the other two esteemed guests Chris bonitas and. And homemade pain i'm sorry okay. i'm trying to pull up my slides sorry guys okay. So I know we've had a long day. So the goal for today for this particular presentation is to build shared understanding of the challenge and why portfolio and policy needs to move together. So portfolio changes and student assignment policy changes need to move together. We are going to share the roadmap, which includes when the board when we are proposing the board to take action, and where we hope to consult with the board and obviously with the community. And then of course, we want to hear from the board, your priorities and seek guidance from you for the next phase of this work. Next slide, please. So again, every day we strive to provide each and every student the quality instruction and equitable support required to thrive in the 21st century. This is our mission. This is what we hold true and near and dear to our heart. And this is what we are going to center the work around school reorganization. so that we can make sure that we continue to prioritize and center our students on all of our decisions that we are making. And then, of course, as we are thinking about the school reorganization work, we want to make sure that whatever it is that we are doing is not going to be overly burdensome to our families, because that is exactly what we hear on a regular basis. that we need to be able to create a future state for our students, for our families, for our staff that really meets the needs and really fulfilled and lives up to the vision and goal of us being a world-class school district. Next slide so I think you've at this point, seen this roadmap many times now so just want to reorganize and re orient everyone to this over the past few years, we have done a lot of necessary and foundational work to balance and stabilize the district. One of that work today was to approve the SELPA, approve the LCAP, and approve the budget. Each step that we take towards stabilizing the district puts our students closer to the point of stability. ensures that we continue to prioritize our students first so that we can make those very important strategic decisions and strategic investments that we all know our students need and want. School reorganization is now the next step. After we have stabilized the district, we now can move into a more strategic conversation about where we want to go to. So school reorganization is the next step and it really comprises of two parts where one is around the alignment of school portfolio and the other one is to really ensure that we have enrollment policies that meet the needs of our students and our families. So this is not a departure from the work that we've been doing and this is now just a continuation on this path of to the next iteration of the work. As we are doing the work, we need to make sure that we hold these priorities true to center again the work. We need to ensure that we are not only stabilizing the work, but is also ensuring that we continue to prioritize excellent teaching and learning, ensuring that as we stabilize, we have to, as what Commissioner Alexander and others have been stating that we need to ensure that we have equitable resources as well. And of course, in true alignment with Guardrails 1 and 5, we need to ensure that we are doing this with the community, with all of key stakeholders, because again, we are not just functioning alone in our system. We are part of multiple entities, many, many key stakeholders, Obviously, our families and staff and larger community needs to be a part of this process. And as we continue to do this, engage in this process, what we strive to ensure is that our students' academic experience is, again, top of mind, but needs to we need to ensure that it is um highest quality academic rigor and that our students truly feel that they are seen heard loved and welcomed in our schools because at the end of the day that is what we're striving to do is create welcoming and supportive schools both through a portfolio alignment as well as a policy alignment work um now i'm handed over to homey

Thank you superintendent so um good evening board members Commissioners just wanted to really ground us in the purpose for tonight. There are no major decisions, there are no actions that we are asking from the board tonight, this is really a critical juncture as we go into the summer into deep planning mode. The engagement that we seek from you today is to first align on the priorities that will guide the work. This is a complex set of decisions and we're looking for you know direction from the board in terms of what priorities, we should be holding as we continue into deep planning mode. Second, to confirm the decision making process and timeline with you to ensure that we are moving in a pace and also cadence that works for the board. and also to give clear direction and guidance on what the next phase must address. So these are the desired outcomes for tonight. Next slide, please. I did want to just overview what are some of the metrics that define success by 28-29 school year. Success is one resolved system that is clear for families, is shaped by communities, guided by the board. For family, success would look like an adopted policy with clear guidance on how to apply a clear picture of nearby and citywide options and ongoing improvements to their experience. For community, it's really building on existing inputs dating back to 2010 when the student assignment policy is being put into policy reform questions with a different board, different administration, but with a mix of broad and focused engagement for communities most affected by anticipated shifts who are currently and prospectively engaged with the district. For the board, success would look like an alignment as the board, but also as a governance team with the superintendent on priorities, policy framework, implementation plan, and also to stay current on program and portfolio decisions. I did want to just lift up, there were a couple of questions about this, but also inherently, Um, success would look like, um, for the superintendent, um, and the team here, um, and staff, we, we do recognize that we have to be owners and are accountable for system design and execution. That means that we have to deliver on plans and analysis on schedule, having clear owners and reporting progress to the board and set at set intervals. Um, just to kind of recognize that, you know, we have been able to very rapidly increase our capacity. With Jeff and Joseph joining the working group and we're making some really you know intensive efforts to make sure that we are effectively resourcing this effort next slide please. So just to level set, I want to just acknowledge that there has been quite a bit of perhaps confusion, perhaps, you know, cross wires around nomenclature. I want to acknowledge that, you know, members of the board have submitted questions about, well, what is, are we doing portfolio changes or not? What is actually the scope that is being proposed? Seems like there is some back and forth about that. And to just level set, I want to be very clear that we are taking a systems approach to building strong schools. And that means we have to address school portfolio and student assignment at the same time in order for this to work. So what does that mean? So I just want to take a moment for us to define some key terms. Portfolio means what mix of schools and programs do we need after the effort initiative is done and where? So I just want to reiterate that the work that we've done in the last several weeks is part of the portfolio work, such as expansion of Mandarin Immersion School, TK expansion, newcomer program redesign, et cetera. These are decisions to expand to start with, but that there may be efforts to consolidate and or co-program schools at scale sequence to follow the new assignment system not preceded. So in terms of program placement, could include, you know, which programs are going to be citywide? Where do they sit? How would that interact with a neighborhood based assignment system, such as language pathways, as well as k aids, etc. These are the ways that we are going to offer and deliver on student programming. And yes, there's a deep connection to how that affects student assignments and the rules that will come out of the process on the other side, which is the student assignment policy side. The policy reform that we would be working with the governance team and the board is policy reform aimed at governing our student assignment system. And this reform must be paired with investment in our portfolio across the city to ensure that every family, every student has accessible and equitable access Ability to quality to have quality schools, no matter where they are in the city so really the point here that we want to drive is that solving one without the other will create a spin. And that this team is really aimed at producing an integrated approach, it is more challenging but critical to sustain success aligned to our VB GGs.

Hi, commissioners, so working toward 1 resolved system, as you guys know, currently, we have 2 policies on the books. Not 1, the 1 that we are using is board policy 5, 1, 0, 1, which is passed in 2010. this is a district wide choice system. We've made a lot of improvements to this process over time, an online application, a very streamlined wait list where there's only 1 time to apply, not multiple and much better choice outcomes than in the past. Um, in 2020, the board voted on 5101.2, which is the zone based system. It was adopted, but never implemented. We've prepared zone maps. We've done community workshops from 2021 to 2023, but because of leadership changes, fiscal pressures, we have repeatedly delayed implementation of this policy. Our goal here is making sure that we have a single system that meets all of the current priorities and needs of our families. Neither of the two policies that we have on the books is designed to meet the enrollment and fiscal realities that we are facing today. So, what we're hoping to do is weigh all of the options that we could look at against the priorities that you the board share with us to make sure that we are coming to a clear informed choice and replacing the policies that we have on the books with the one that we want to use. Next slide. So any of the options that we look at will be against the priorities that we're preferring. So in 5101.2, there were three different priorities listed, diversity, predictability, and proximity. Diversity is where schools and zones reflect the makeup of SFUSD students as a whole. Predictability means that families have a clear idea of where they will be assigned to school. Proximity means schools close to home. And one that we've included here that is not called out explicitly in 5101.2 is choice. This is where families get to have a voice and where their child is going to school. This is something that families have repeatedly told us is very important to them and something that we have seen in our analysis of who accepts their assignments is very important to whether families accept the assignment or do not accept the assignment. Um, through the design work that we've done on zones, we've learned that you can't maximize all four of these things at once. And in fact, it's very difficult to maximize the first three together at once. They're sort of opposed. And I think that it's easy to understand how you can't get everything that you want. Like one clear one is choice and predictability. The more choices you have, the less predictable it is which choice you will be assigned to because you are suggesting multiple different things. Our question for you, Uh, that we will come back to later in the presentation is. About these priorities, what you have heard most from the community and what you most want to see in our new system. Next slide. All right, so we're going to look realistically at 3 options over the next few months together. The 1st, 1 is choice and tiebreakers. The 2nd, 1 is zone based choice and the 3rd, 1 is some local assignment with choice. Each has a different priority that is focused on and each has some real benefits and real drawbacks. so we understand how the choice and tiebreaker system works this is best for maximizing family choice so it is best for getting the most families the thing that they most prefer the risk is that because demand is driving where we're enrolling kiddos we have very low ability to say predictable patterns of students enrolled in schools and a low ability to shape family proximity or diversity in schools um zone based choice this would be families are assigned to a zone and they choose among the schools within the zone plus city-wide programs you can make zones pretty small or larger and larger zones are best for diversity and family choice smaller zones favor proximity and predictability you can't optimize for all four of those things at once so By choosing the size of the zone, you're choosing what thing you're prioritizing. The biggest risk here is that this is a really large operational lift and it's pretty complex. There's some risks with technology implementation on the timeline that we are talking about. Some neighborhoods don't have enough seats for the students who live in those neighborhoods. The. Facilities in the neighborhoods are not matched to the population. Um, and then lastly, once we draw zones, it's pretty hard to ship them. So that would be a concern here. The last option is local school assignment with choice. This would be having students assigned to their local school by default with choice preserved through the option to apply to other city wide schools or programs. Um, this is best for proximity and predictability. Both students would end up with at least the default of being very close to home. Um. the main risk here is again that where students live and our physical facility footprint in the city are not exactly lined up so some areas don't have capacity for all of the kiddos who live in those neighborhoods so we would need to do some shifting of citywide and language programs to make space for everybody in their neighborhood so that's why the portfolio is a key component here Um, you can see at the top that there's the policies here. 5101 doesn't require any board action. If we choose to move to zone based choice, uh, this would be a board action and then moving to local and choice, uh, would also be a board action to revise 5101 to make this possible. Um, next slide. again we are looking for the portfolio and the policy to be a complete package so as we think about the programs that we have we need to make sure that we have space to execute the policy by making program space so that could be about city-wide programs it's about k-8 models as we have talked about multiple times it's looking for spaces for tk classrooms and so If we any policy that we adopt, if we haven't set the portfolio to match that policy will not necessarily work. So if we were saying we want neighborhood TK assignment in our current setup of TK, it would be very difficult to get there because of the facility space. Um, but we could plan for a portfolio that accomplish that as long as we're considering both of these things together. So, in the portfolio, we would start with an instructional vision and look at how we want these things to look TK, K5 classrooms, city wide programs and K8 and then in the policy, we would look. First, at the priorities through the lens of priorities to choose which of these systems we would like, and then sort of continually be analyzing the interplays between those 2. So what we would end up with is a unified policy. Assignment policy and portfolio decision that makes sense together that works for the priorities that the board and community select.

Great. Good evening. This is how this all comes together in a timeline. So to the best extent that we can give you, this is how you would take those two strands, the portfolio strand and the policy strand, and have it, this is a backwards mapping initial exercise to get to August of 2028 for that school year to be able to open under a new and revised policy that reflects the changes that we're looking for. Moving backwards from there, there are several things on the page here, but I'll just note that in order to get to that date, we obviously need to be able to launch the new system and be ready to launch that in October of 27 to open the enrollment process and educate families and communicate to them. Prior to that, we would need to be able to make sure that there's implementation in place, all the operationalizing of the algorithms, the back end, the front end, the communications, all of that to make sure that our community partners and our families are well educated on the new system. And then in the red box there, we have like the kind of two really critical things that topics that will be bringing to the board. In April, no later than April of 27, perhaps before then, but by April of 27, we will need final proposed, sorry, final adoption or revision or revoke of the policies based on the option that we choose. So that will be like the final policy option that will help to set things into motion. And then moving To get to that point, we will have to start with in September. It says September there, but I believe the updated governance calendar has us in October 13th to really set the policy direction and make sure that whatever choices we are presenting and considering as options that it's been, at that point, it's been really clear what the tradeoffs are, what kind of things we've been exploring, and that would be happening, I think, through study sessions and different formats that we're, like, really exploring. By that October time, we would really need a policy direction so that we could actually start building. If it's a zone-based policy direction, we would go that direction. If it was a non-zone-based, then we could kind of continue to build in that direction as well. Just naming everything that Lauren had mentioned around portfolio is really critical. down and bottom up in terms of I think what we're naming is that it has to start from the instructional vision, everything that aligns to the goals, but it also has to match the capacity needs of whatever option we're choosing. So it is a very iterative process. There's a lot of hard work that's going to be needed to be staged, planned, coordinated, and like decisions made in the fall around our portfolio and program placement, et cetera. so that it can integrate with the policy work. And then again, at the end, what we've noted, which is in alignment with the initial slides around portfolio work is once those kind of critical decisions are made with the policy, that then sets the stage for larger scale school facility decisions and kind of more analysis once the new enrollment system is in play.

So, as part of tonight's discussion, the team has put together for. Primary guiding questions for the board to engage. Um, I just want to really hone that we want to surface and hear from the board your priorities tonight and your key input so that we can come back in the fall. with recommended options and trade-offs, and we're not resolving the policy today. So just to kind of walk us through the four areas, first is around priorities. As we evaluate options, which one of the priorities should we be pushing the hardest? The second area is around process and timeline. Um, does the proposed process and timeline give the board clarity on roles and engagement? What else might be helpful for you to see so that we can get to that clarity? Third is around engagement. Uh, you know, we have guardrail one in place, and I know that that has been an ongoing question that the board has had, um, what must be true in terms of community engagement as we prioritize most effective families and staff. um areas that we may need to engage um could range from program shifts to drawing of attendance areas to the different options around the system and policy shifts so what ideas or suggestions do you have around engagement and then lastly what around execution what can we build from and improve upon from prior efforts to ensure confidence What are some of the key implementation milestones that you would be looking for in order to make sure that you have confidence in this process? So just wanna pose these four areas for your consideration and to get your input.

I will kick us off so that I don't have to talk later Thank you for the presentation. You know, I think my initial reflection here is I've shared this in the in previous meetings of the last four meetings, we spent the last four talking about expansion, but I'll reiterate. I just think those were the wrong topics to talk about. They were non-controversial. They were not a surprise. We were 100% invested and in support of each of those strategies. What we should be doing is what we're proposing that we do in this fall and the board action to confirm a policy direction that is already a policy. And so what I would have much desired was to have a conversation where we're actually looking at the maps, looking at the data, getting to see what you see in terms of the rationale for why this is coming first and and most important for me if this is the plan that we go down with enrollment first what are we doing with the other school I think this question came up two meetings ago what are we doing to support the other schools that we know are under resourced and under enrolled between now and 2028 right like what what exactly is actually happening with them And we heard from Sanchez, we're hearing from others, combo classes, teachers getting laid off. Like, I think there's a genuine question about what we're doing to support our schools if we are not going to touch portfolio per se and make changes around mergers. Which leads me to this question of, like, I'm still not convinced that this is the process and timeline and that this is the right path forward. And we don't seem to be talking about that, which is why I kind of come back to this question of whether this is actually the right path forward. And I have, like, I think two primary concerns. One is we're talking about zones as if it's still a hypothetical, but it is a policy and we just haven't operationalized it. And having been on staff, I know that there are factors as to why we are not operationalizing it. But my push is we haven't talked about that as a board. So what does it mean that we cannot operationalize the policy as it stands? And why do we need to go back to the drawing board? We still have not looked at those maps. We haven't talked about those things. And before we create a new policy direction, we need to unpack that a bit. And so I really want to push us to not talk about zones as a hypothetical, but zones are the policy right now, right? And so what are we doing to talk about that to make adjustments as necessary? And the last thing I would say, going back to this question around what we're doing to support our struggling schools that we know are coming to us today even, is just, you know, I think in order for me to have confidence that enrollment is what we need to tackle first in this way, I really need to have confidence that our portfolio as it stands today, without the changes that we had sought to make in last October when we set this as our two major priorities of the board, that those are being addressed in some way. And I actually don't hear anything about what is going to happen to our schools at the periphery here, who we know are coming to us with some challenges. mean i will just quickly end by just saying i think part i will bridge this over to conversations that we've had in the most recent meetings where now we're hearing about things like uh the mandarin immersion school not being announced in their location until the spring which i think is a very confusing timeline especially given the conversations we've been having about the need to land a place before enrollment the idea that families aren't going to need to take a bet uh and and then do so potentially knowing that there's going to be another school that may be displaced in terms of their program like i i just don't understand that part and so again i think in order for me to build confidence in this plan forward which again i'm still not necessarily invested is the right plan forward i think i i just want to be able to have a conversation where we're looking at the data and looking at the maps and talking about the work and the data as opposed to just talking about the plan to talk about the plan

In terms of the, I was just because it took me off guard to when, um, I think a public commenter said that, um, we were not going to share the name of the school until spring. Um, that is definitely not what was shared in our presentation on June 9th. So, I don't know if we could share that. I don't we can pull up the presentation.

The facilities timeline says that will announce shortlisted sites in September 2026. and that the final location isn't announced until spring 2027. And so can we unpack that?

Yeah, we could. Katie?

Hello again. I'm so close to leaving. Yes, so sorry for any confusion around this. So I will be very transparent that I think the best course of action is that given from what I heard last time, the importance of community engagement and having like really thoughtful, meaningful engagement with any communities that are impacted by this. by impacted by any um potential relocation move opening a new school of Mandarin immersion the impacted school in the facility that we're talking about I do not think we can announce a permanent location this fall We do not have enough time before the enrollment fair to properly engage with the community or to talk about all the ramifications. We are currently in the process. We have done an entire classroom count. we have done, we are going through and like triple checking all the facility code requirements, the buildings that I mentioned to you last time. We are also looking at what Lauren was mentioning, the enrollment impacts to surrounding schools, given potential implications for these other conversations that you guys are having. given that it is my recommendation that we move to a short-term location so that we do not slow down the opening of the Mandarin Immersion School. So fall 2027 my recommendation is for a short-term facility for the four classrooms that we were discussing because they all need to be code compliant While we still continue to have these conversations with the Community, while we engage and figure out, is there any construction that needs to be done, what are the implications and. impacts to surrounding schools, so that when we open a facility permanently in fall 2028 we do so, knowing that it is, we have fully vetted it and it is the right choice and we can grow into it and we have laid out the map for impacts and things to come.

I appreciate that. I just want to add it on to just some additional context as to why that's somewhat frustrating to hear. And I'll just name, like, I think When major decisions were announced part of what what I laid out in a just a pretty basic inclusive decision making timeline was just when is the latest by which information would need to come to the board so that we can avoid the last minute planning of engagement and then delaying information or plans from coming out and. I think you know just to dovetail this into a conversation on governance calendaring, this is why we've been insisting on a governance calendar to kind of lay all of this out, so we don't find ourselves in a position where we run out of time and we didn't make a decision and so. Logically, I understand that. It makes total sense. I mean, again, I think I said this in the same meeting as the meeting that we had with the presentation around the Mandarin Immersion School of just a plain backwards plan from October. There's four meetings in the fall. right to an August to September, I don't know how engagement would adequately happen in that moment, which is why we've been talking about this for so long. Right. So, so I'm just trying to make it all add up a bit. And I think that coupled with the concerns that I just named here, I think I continue to, if we're talking about building confidence up in the plan, so that we can all stand behind it and say yes, I I there are just outstanding questions and kind of things that i'm really deeply concerned about that make me continue to question whether or not this is the right plan for us right now right and and I just want to say for the record 100 in on zones right like I and I think we've said that over and over again I think there was a meeting three meetings ago where I even poked on this question of like we we keep saying if amendments need to be made to the policy. And I'm like, unless other information is given to us, this is the policy, right? So yes to that. But I think that's just the tension that I'm feeling right now, speaking of just tensions generally today, that I'll just stop talking because it's beyond my time. So I just wanted to add that, right? Because I hear you, but I'm just trying to now add it all up to like, well, when is all of this going to happen and how?

Janet Callahan- Based on your point of information. I'm not sure if this is the correct way to do this, but It's eleven forty-five. Are we going to have time to discuss this in a reasonable fashion with Commissioner Weisman-Ward leaving, Commissioner Alexander leaving? I wanted to ask that to just understand what we're going to be doing here.

I appreciate the question. I mean, the short answer is no. I mean, this was a concern when it was laid out of what was going to happen across the four meetings was I don't know how we can have this conversation right now. Um, and so I think there's a very real question of what the implication is here. If we just continue to continue this item into August. Um, and again, the sensitivity I feel is that it was shared with us that in this meeting was the last meeting by which we need to give feedback to actually change the course of the planning here. I don't know if that's still true or what the implications are if we move this to a meeting in August, but I think everyone is starting to feel the pressures of our time, and so I don't know. Go ahead.

I'll just echo your comments, President Kim, about the importance of planning, because I just think it's – I mean, I'm tired and I have to drive for over an hour right now, so I am going to go. But I also think it's irresponsible to the public and to our constituents and students and families and everyone who might be interested in this to be having this conversation at 1145 at night. I almost feel like even if we could stay all night, we shouldn't. And I just think we've got to be more intentional about how we do this and just be realistic. I mean, there was a lot of meaty stuff tonight. We had to approve the budget. And again, I think that's why it's so important to have a governance counter. To me, there's a lot of really reasonable, thoughtful piece of this plan. But again, I don't know if it's realistic if we can't have the substantive conversations. And I think that is my concern. I'll just say I'm willing to come to more meetings. We may need to meet more often. I'd much rather have more meetings from six to nine on a Tuesday and be done rather than this kind of thing. Because I think that is a responsible way of governing if there's things that we need to do.

But just so that the board is aware, there... The study session concept has been introduced, and I think that is a perfect vehicle for all of these very meaty topics. Only one or two items. And this is one of the ones that I've asked staff to schedule study sessions for on your new board governance calendar. So we're trying to think of those things as well.

If I may just also add, as part of things that we have learned, worked in the past, there was also limited time bound ad hocs that were commissioned the last time. This effort was commissioned that served as a very focused way that you know, a, you know, body that was, you know, an extension of the board could provide staff with the kind of direction that we would need to engage the full board in the decision making milestones to get to clarity. So just wanted to offer that as part of best practices lessons learned.

Can I follow up on that? Actually, because that was the point I was going to make the last time we did this, we had our ad hoc committee that met for 5 or 6 months. Each meeting was 3 hours at least. Um, there was an insane amount of community engagement between, you know, work with demographers like. We're not going to have this done and I respect the idea of study sessions, but. that's not even enough if we really want to do this work authentically and even with that whole ad hoc committee and that whole structure we got to the point of where we are now with the resolution not being able to be implemented like the resolution as it's written couldn't be implemented we couldn't figure out language pathways we couldn't figure out special education you can't do everything that's in that resolution um so we do have to have the conversation because we're going to have to get to the point where we do take board action to figure out like How do we put something workable in front of staff? That is absolutely our obligation in this is to make sure that our policies are workable for staff right now or not.

Um, I completely agree with you commissioner for sure again. I'm not sure why we just haven't had those conversations last 4 meetings.

Because it's not of time because it's not of time like to do this work with authentic with the authenticity.

I'm talking about again. I'll say what I said at the very first meeting. This isn't about completely reengaging. It's us understanding, unpacking why our current policy as it stands today cannot be operationalized. We have that information. It's a lot of it's actually in the briefing document. We have the maps already. Thank you, Commissioner Alexander. We have the maps already, right? These are conversations that should have been happening to get us to a point where we can all be unified in understanding why we're going down the way we're going, right? I don't disagree with you at all. I think then there's this whole other aspect of how are we engaging the community to actually reshape these things. That's a totally fair question too, right? What I'm very cognizant of is come fall, we have new sets of progress monitoring expectations coming out. We have new public engagement structures that are coming out for the board. We have study sessions that we're trying to plan out. We have all of this work, right? So it is all piling up. And this is, I think, part of what we needed to kind of talk about in advance so we can prepare ourselves for what comes in the fall.

So, to finish the comment that I was making earlier, I think the board has, we have as much work here to do to decide our priorities as the district staff does as well. Frankly, right? I think we need to. I'm not going to articulate this well at 1152 PM and we have an alarm going off outside. I know. I don't know if I'm the only 1 who hears that. Um, but, um. I think we have to figure out what the work that we are willing to do as much as we have to figure out the work that we are going to put on to the superintendent and staff as well. Right. So I think we should we have some work to do on our own. I can better articulate that probably at our next meeting when we discuss this.

But to your question about the ad hoc, I mean, yes, the intention was to launch an ad hoc come fall. One of the questions I asked in the briefing was, How does this strategy that you're proposing come fall actually overlay with the ad hoc that we're intending to launch? I think that's a good question that we should probably discuss, but we haven't had a chance to discuss it. So again, I think we're feeling all the pressure of time right now and and. We are where we are right? So.

So, uh, yes, should we have spent more time discussing with the board? Yes, absolutely. Um, this is a very meaty topic. Um, it is unfortunate that, um, my time and unfortunately, some of our staff's time was was pretty drained, um, in the month of May and June and, um. So, yes, I do apologize that I do apologize for that. I wish, you know, we didn't have to deal with other political stuff. Um, uh, I know that we were suggesting different types of study session just to do the deeper dive. Um, I remember commissioner group to asking for. The opportunity to just to have a deeper dive into the data, the enrollment data, and I think it was just really hard for us to try to figure out how to slot the study session in. Um, and, uh. Unfortunately, we are now at the end of the school year and, um, uh, in terms of if we were to. Continue with this and delay this I do think that there's some cushion within this within this timeline that will allow us to have deeper conversations maybe do the study session in August, but I do believe having the ad hoc on this work is going to be really important.

Commissioner Fisher or Ray.

Thank you so much. I am experiencing incredible frustration right now, and I've heard a lot of frustration from the community, but things that are happening, no matter how terrible or difficult they are, we have to continue through those. We can't always be saying something happened and something happens every single month. And as a school district, we have to deal with this stuff. This is not, this enrollment thing has been going on for years, years and years and years. And as a board, Last fall, we specifically identified major decisions, including enrollment. Both of these things, community enrollment and school portfolio, was supposed to happen this spring so that the board could vote on whatever the superintendent recommended in August. And we are now at a point where This is being brought to us on the very last day that we have at an hour when, like, I'm willing to stay up till four in the morning, but this is not a reasonable way for us to conduct business. This constant crisis after crisis after crisis, we can't do it at this because we can't do it because of that. We have absolutely got to stop doing this. It just doesn't make sense that something like this is being brought to us on the very last day of the year when the calendar's already full and there's huge concerns and contentions around the budget. I don't want this to be pushed out at all further because it only gets pushed out, but I literally cannot see how we can have a conversation through the board. We don't even have, I think, at least two of our members here. it's so, so concerning to me. And I don't know how we address this because every time we try to set down some deadline or state something, it gets pushed off, which only compounds the problem. So as a practical matter, what can we do? Superintendent Hsu, what can we do so that we can get out of this cycle and so that we can actually somehow still manage to hopefully you know, meet the timelines and this roadmap. Like, we cannot keep disappointing and pushing off our communities and our students like this. This is just completely, like, I actually think it's irresponsible. It really, really bothers me. And we've had many meetings when somebody could have been talking to us about this. We've had months and months since last fall, and this is being brought to us on the last day. I just am, I'm just frankly very upset about this.

so with all due respect both of these policies were passed one 20 10 13 years ago in 2010 the other one was passed in 2020 we are now making an attempt to fix the thing that parents have told us from in my tenure the 18 months that i've been here this is the one thing that they are really frustrated about and we are making concerted effort to to to try to fix it um so so things are going to look different things are going to change But I do acknowledge that every single time we roll up our sleeves to start working on it, you're right, an emergency did show up. As we were trying to get going and work on this in early January and February, we ended up having a strike. And then when we recovered from the strike, we got pulled into Washington DC politics. I am sorry that those two big things did take up a lot of our staff time. And I don't know what else to say about that, except to just state it and state that I firmly believe that we are still we have very committed employees, very committed staff who continue to work on this. And if we I don't believe that we are going to extend for to extend. I think what I'm hearing from the board is For us to create perhaps 1 study session where we can go deeper into the data, show the maps so that the board members can see what we. The data that we're looking at, and why we're making the decisions that we're making so that you can then help us guide us on the decisions that you would want for us to to go deeper in. and then we can create an ad hoc so that we can then do that deep community engagement and then be ready by April to present a proposal that can be voted on and that is supported and endorsed by our community.

Also, respectfully, the DC thing, as terrible as that was, Like we have many, many, many folks and many capable folks in SF USD. We did not have everybody going to DC or being involved in the DC thing. It's pretty limited. We need to be able to, we, you took a ton of your time. I understand that. I recognize that, but we have lots of other folks and we need to be able to work on other things.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Uh, yes, uh, it was only myself and a staff person who went to DC. However, I had the entire lead. team. I had the law, the our legal team, I had our fiscal and ops team supporting me because the depth and breadth of the summon was very, very broad, wide. It went from general legal policies to bathroom policies, to bathroom structures, to locker room structures. So it required a lot of our staff. So with all due respect, I greatly appreciate the fact that the staff have worked really hard with me to make sure that I had the information to be extremely prepared for Washington DC so that I could continue to defend San Francisco's policies, SFUSD's commitment to all of our children.

Did you have a question or a comment?

Michael Meitner- Yeah, I mean, I think, at the end of the day, I just want to center what we're trying to get at. I think what we're all trying to get at is, how do we improve student outcomes? And all of this is in service. The major decisions should be in service of our student outcomes. That's what we're focusing. I mean, either increasing the enrollment of Our students, so people feel comfortable sending their kids here. We, we are bringing in students. We're bringing in, um, that funding that comes with it given that we do have 14,000 empty seats. Uh, we are creating resources such as a Mandarin immersion program and. I would just on the Mandarin immersion program. I was hoping I really was hoping that we had narrowed it down, and we'd already been engaging our our schools, potential schools. I would request. I don't know how we do this, but if there is a way, because I know, for example, when I enrolled my child at Chinese immersion school, there was a reason I did not look at Star King. There's a reason I didn't look at They were just too far from me and where I lived. And so location geography plays a huge role. And so to say to folks, hey, I don't know if there's a way to potentially even narrow it down to a particular location. Part of our geography, whatever it might be, you know, maybe meet with the parents who are really engaged with this to understand what we might be able to do because I just I'd hate I'd hate for us to give short shrift to the program. And I know our staff is working really hard on it. Um, I know our students and our parents are really looking forward to it. It'd be unfortunate if we didn't see the enrollment. We saw it because people just didn't want to take that risk in terms of. What that potentially would mean with the lottery system. Um, but, you know, we made a commitment to get rid of the lottery system. We need to we need to do that. And frankly, I mean, you know, when it comes to the financials, I'm not convinced we can put, you know, I need to see evidence as part of our duties as board members. I need to see evidence that we can have. Underutilized schools where where our students aren't receiving all the full resources they should and we can continue that. I mean, this is an outcomes issue, but this is also, you know, how what are we doing in terms of the financials that were then pushing towards our schools? And so if we can't say. with definitive certainty that we can keep this up and we can provide the outcomes that we seek with underutilized schools with half-filled classrooms uh without providing the staff i just i cannot see how we push that decision around our school portfolio out that far like that that to me is the definition of kicking the can down the road when you have a board willing to make tough choices to do this and i've seen no evidence as to why we would do that when we know that so many of our students don't have the resources that they deserve so superintendent i'd really request you it you know when we come back in august to have the answers that we're requesting to make sure we are providing the students with the out with the outcomes and the resources they need to be able to get to those outcomes

um it's 1205 um i'm hoping to just we're not going to get to a conclusion today or any sort of so here's what i will just end with i i i do believe that we're all rowing wanting the same thing which is to improve outcomes for our kids can we not I'm going to, I'm just going to continue on this item that we're not going to get to an answer any. Can you ask it right now then?

Well, yeah, I mean, I, sorry, there's an issue with the consent calendar. I'm trying to address, but, um, the, it's actually going to contribute Yeah, I mean, one thing that I see just specifically on the school reorganization timeline is that in September 26 confirmed policy direction is coming to us, and two of the options are proceeding under board policy 5101, which is the existing lottery policy. And to my mind, when the board tasked the superintendent with uh the major decisions in october of last year we tasked the board the board tasked the superintendent with ending the lottery system and implementing the zone system with magnet schools which is board policy 5101.2 to my mind and and i have not heard any different from any anyone any board member i'm i'm very curious Why we would be spending time essentially asking the question, are we going to go back on the zone policy when the entire point of making that a major decision was to say. Please finally implement the zone policy like the entire conversation was around that and I understand that there are technical. in feasibilities with it as it is written. And so I would hope that staff would be able to use the time between now and September to illuminate what those technical and feasibilities are and to have deeper conversations with the board and the community around tweaks to that policy so that it can be implemented. But to me, as President Kim said, it is asking the wrong The wrong question, you know, do we want to stay with the lottery or do we want to get rid of the lottery, I think that the answer is, we want to get rid of the lottery and move to zones with magnet schools and. And I do, you know, there are other questions that I have that flow from that, which, you know, that invites the discussion of, okay, well, if we can't prioritize diversity, proximity and predictability at the same level, then which of those do we prioritize? But to Act as if we're coming on just a complete clean slate and we might actually keep the lottery to me is somewhat disingenuous. Um, and just does not, um. I don't think it is consistent with what I've heard from the community wants and from what I've heard from what the board wants.

Can I say something about that? I think that the idea of getting rid of the lottery zones are parents are choosing amongst schools in a zone. And so that will also feel like a lottery, just perhaps a lottery that is more bounded by the things in your zone than the fact that you can now choose schools across town from you. I think, like, the only way to make it feel like there is no lottery is the 3rd choice that we looked at, which is a neighborhood assignment and then choice on top of that. So you have, like, you don't have to do a lottery, you know, you're assigned to your neighborhood school. And then if you would like, as many of you have done to have your child attend a language program, or a K8 or something like that, then you can apply for those programs themselves. I think that's why we want to have this discussion.

Yeah, I mean, I mean, to my mind, though, that discussion was had by the board that adopted this new policy, and that decision was made, and this board's direction was to finally implement that. And then with respect to I don't really see it quite as a lottery to move to zones, because Right now we have literally 8% of kindergarten applicants don't get a choice, which means that literally that's 11%. Um, that is, or not 11%, but it's. It's close to approximately 2 kindergartners per classroom of 22 kids. Like, that is a huge amount of, um. Unpredictability to have something totally off your list. And so. The other thing I would say is, I, I'm surprised to see that there's. that under this, the application opens in October 27 and school assignments are generated in March 28. Again, I think part of the point of this is that things are quicker, there's more predictability, that we're more competitive with families that are applying to private school and they have their answers faster. If there are a limited number of options that are, and you're guaranteed one of them, why would it take so long? And generally, I also just have questions about the work proposed that's called language program stabilization. I literally don't know what that means. I don't know what work is proposed by the superintendent around changing language programs.

Thank you, Commissioner Fischer.

Yeah, I wanted to go to that slide where you asked us the questions. So thank you for those guiding questions to help provide some feedback here. And respectfully, Vice President Hewling, I don't think that we're all in alignment on implementing 5101.2 as it's written. And in fact, I have been a vocal opponent of Zones, as have many of the advisory committees since 2018. We have memorialized that for almost a decade now that and President Kim you mentioned this. Our schools in their current form forcing families into zones in but based on geography forces in equity, we have we have inequitably resourced schools and classrooms in various zones, and it is wildly. unethical of us to force families into just certain schools that don't have the same resources, because of where they live. that's modern day redlining frankly and not okay and so that's where seeing these two different major decisions come more into alignment is so critically important, because until, as you said, until we address the resourcing of our classrooms in our schools within the zones. we can't do right by all of our families and it's not fair it's just not fair and it's just not right so um to me it's we have and and that's where like all these other conversations that we had earlier tonight are so very important um so community engagement what do we need to do to make sure it happens in our community especially for families and staff like go back like go back to what the famous I can pull up the letter from 2,018 that all the advisories wrote if anyone wants, and that could be a nice roadmap for us. But um, but I really do think this, like, as was stated by Commissioner Alexander. Now, after midnight, it's not the right time to be having this conversation.

I'm going to move us forward. We need it's 1215, and

I agree with you about these the inequities between the zones, and that is why I thought that the conversation that the superintendent said she was going to bring to the board was whether the board agreed with the proposal from the superintendent to move forward with changing the assignment system before merging schools. I thought that we were going to have a conversation about whether the board agreed with that, and we have not had that conversation, and I do not agree with that. I think we need to merge schools now in order to free up the resources to invest in all of our zones, because I have Look, I have read the entire packet on the history of all of the many assignment studies that we've done, and all of the attached linked documents, and they show that we there are certain areas of the city where we Under essentially any type of neighborhood geographic zone plan, we have excess capacity. And there is no those students are not coming back. Even if we were to fill up that Mandarin immersion school, that would take 9 years on the proposed timeline of the superintendent and only bring in 600 students. Even if they were, if they were all new students, we're losing 500 a year. So I do think that the conversation we should have is, why are we not at least merging schools in areas where we know that there are not going to be students to fill them under a new assignment policy so that we can reinvest in all of our zones and make all of our zones equitably resourced.

Clearly there's a lot of thoughts on this, and we need more time to discuss. I think this is why we need to revisit our governance calendar and just have a conversation about when these conversations are going to take place. I don't know how it overlays with the current planning. And this is, I think, my concern, right? And so I'm going to go ahead and continue this item to a future meeting. I don't know when, because we're now just continuing everything on. But I will just underscore... I was on staff, I understand how much work goes into all of this. I think we all do. But I think the question is, help us understand where you all are, because I don't think we're all there, right? And so whatever data that is, whatever maps those are, help us understand, help us see what you see, because I don't think we see it, right? And so I think that's the ask. Right. And so with that, I'll just thank you, team. It's 1218. No, it's not. It's 1216. I got two minutes of my life back. Thank you very much for being here this late. I appreciate you. And thank you. Here's what I will recommend. If there is no comment for revisions at our Committee on Public Engagements recommendations, I'm just going to move that we continue that work by starting to embed that in our governance calendar. Wonderful. Seeing none.

Thank you.

Thank you. What I will now do is move item G3 and G4 to a future meeting. And we'll move to item H consent calendar. And then this is where I leave tonight.

City Council Chambers, And we may need to consult with miss bear and. City Council Chambers, Can we may need to recess for a minute to consult with Council around a matter on the consent calendar so. We need to we need a moment to recess, I believe, to consult with counsel about next steps.

I don't think we need counsel on this is simply we're talking about the certificated. Oh, never mind. Okay. Sorry. So.

We are discussing, uh, item 15.

specifically uh the resolution ending in the number four thank you yeah can we recess for just one moment and i'm gonna introduce did you see

yeah.

So so we're able to correct it okay.

Stay away, Phil. President Kim is recused from the consent calendar. He has a standing recusal due to his employment with the City and County of San Francisco, which is a frequent contractor with SFUSD, in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, and that is why he is not allowed in the room at this moment. So, Superintendent, can I ask, do you have any corrections to the consent calendar before we move it?

Yes, I have a correction and a withdrawal. So I need to pull item H18 from the consent calendar. And we have, oh, just the contract, sorry. We're pulling just the contract.

Can we please identify by name the number?

Yes, it's called the Liberatory Visionaries Curricula LLC contract from item H18. And then I have a correction, um, for 1 of our items. The spare, right?

So, for item 15, certificated personnel actions, we have a new list of employees. That's a revised list and that will be attached to the agenda. So the board would just need to take action on the revised personnel action for certificated stuff.

And so, corrected there's a number of resolutions under item 15 just to clarify the corrected portion of the item will be. The resolution numbered 26623. And the board will be able to take action on that. The appropriate action to complete this fix at the next consent agenda is that correct.

No, that that will avoid having to bring this back to a future agenda item. This is just simply we were removing the list of employees that were on the posted agenda and replacing it with a new list of employees that has one change. So it's just you're just approving the revised certificated personnel action.

As a point of clarification, this is we're changing 1, the, it's a retirement as opposed. We're changing to a retirement status correct?

1 employee was listed as being separated from the district rather than the word retired. So, it's just a clarification that she's retiring from the district.

And that will be uploaded to board docs today. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Okay, so with the two corrections, the two changes to the consent calendar listed,

Sorry, Vice President healing. Just one more note. We identified an error with the minutes that were uploaded with the final agenda on Friday. Staff has corrected and revised and uploaded a correct set of minutes to the agenda earlier this evening and printed copies were available today for participants who are here in person. So the minutes that are on the consent agenda should be up to date.

Okay, thank you. So to clarify with the removal of one contract under item H18, the revised names to correct a clerical error under item H15 and the revised minutes that are posted, I will move the adoption of the consent calendar. Is there a second? Second. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Alexander? Commissioner Fisher? Yes. Commissioner Gupta?

Yes.

Vice President Hewling? Yes. Commissioner Ray?

Yes.

Commissioner Weissman-Ward? President Kim? Thank you.

Okay, the meeting is adjourned on Wednesday, June 24 at 1223am but

Thanks, Dave.