Summer School in 2006 (edit this)

17 Responses to “Summer School in 2006”

1. Nestwife Says:
   July 26th, 2006 at 8:23 am e

   “SFUSD needs to invest in its students”
   Nice slogan - are you planning to use it in your BOE campaign?

   A more realistic slogan might be “SFUSD needs more money to invest in its students.” All of the areas you identify as needing improvement could be addressed by more money - more money to upgrade bathrooms, more money to purchase higher quality food for the caf, and more money to pay more teachers for summer school.

   You are quick to identify what you feel are the problems in the SFUSD, but I have noticed that you are noticeably short on solutions. As someone who believes she is qualified to guide the school district as a BOE member, how do you propose addressing these problems? I know you are aware that the district is already facing a $6 million budget shortfall for next year. Schools are facing cuts to their site budgets. Where do you propose to find the money to pay for bathroom upgrades, better food, and more summer school teachers?

   Oh, and about that tardy policy - it is in place because a constant stream of late arrivals coming into class 5 or 10 or even 30 minutes late is a huge distraction and disrupts learning for the vast majority of students who were responsible and got to school on time. Why should their education suffer because a small group of kids are chronically late? If kids don’t want to sit in the office, or in a tardy room until the start of the next period, there is a simple solution - get to school on time!

2. kimknox Says:
   July 26th, 2006 at 10:21 pm e

   Teachers working at summer school get $36 per hour for six hours per day at 5 days per week for 5 weeks is $5,400.

   In this current fiscal year, the Board approved a budget that includes $57,139 for an increase of 14% for the Board of Education’s Office and another $89,227 for the Office of Policy and Planning for an increase of 17% over FY 05-06. That’s a total of $146,366 or an equivalent of 27 more teachers for summer school.

3. Caroline Says:
   July 27th, 2006 at 1:16 pm e

   If that amount is discretionary (as opposed to for employee raises, for example) — is increasing the teacher ratio in summer school the No. 1 top pressing need? We have schools with desperate needs all over the city.

   I mean, perhaps it is, though there’s an awful lot of competition. And that’s IF that money is just sitting around there waiting to be diverted to a more pressing need.

   However, as a longtime SFUSD parent, volunteer and advocate, I’m weary of hearing uninitiated observers chirp, “Why doesn’t that stupid school district just (fill in the blank — Clean up the bathrooms? Improve the food? Hire more teachers? Make all the schools good? Cure all the special-ed kids? End dropouts and truancy? Diversify all the schools? Allow every family to attend their neighborhood school? Turn every student into college material?)”

   We can’t expect everyone in San Francisco to be informed enough to recognize that there aren’t easy-peasy little simplistic solutions to these intractable problems — all of which exist in every diverse, high-poverty school district, nationwide if not worldwide.

   We do expect BOE candidates to grasp the complexities, though. Behaving as though everything is oh-so-simple is not only insulting to the voters — and to the teachers who deal with these issues on the front lines every day — but harmful to our schools and our kids.

4. Nestwife Says:
   July 27th, 2006 at 2:24 pm e

   This is completely the wrong way to go about trying to fund summer school. Summer school was traditionally a categorical program funded by the state, and about half of SFUSD kids used to attend – not just those in need of remediation, but kids who wanted to get a jump start on the next year’s academic classes. Aptos used to run a very successful move-up type program in which incoming 6th graders would attend for 6 weeks over the summer and be taught an overview of what they would learn in the coming school year. They had a chance to meet some teachers, make friends with other kids who would be their new classmates, get familiar with the material, and almost as important, get comfortable in the much larger halls and classrooms of what can otherwise seem a much larger and more intimidating school than they were used to in elementary.

   When the state budget crisis hit several years ago, state funding for summer school was cut to pretty much nothing. The district has been able to cobble together a summer school program using Title 1 and other categorical funds, but there is so little money that it is available only for the kids who failed a class during the school year. When more money was restored to schools by the state this past budget cycle, the governor did NOT restore categorical funding for summer school, nor did the legislature.

   You don’t fund a summer school program by cutting a few dollars here and there from other line items, as you are proposing. The way to restore state categorical funding, which is the way summer school SHOULD be funded, is by using membership in organizations like the California School Boards Association (CSBA) to lobby for it. This is how our district was able to save $1 million dollars this year (and every year going forward) – by using the lobbying power of CSBA to support SB813, which changed the way charter schools are funded. Before this legislation (which was proposed by the SFUSD and carried by State Senator Carole Migden), our district was paying a million dollars a year to charter schools, because of a state funding formula which mandated higher payments than the state average to charter high schools. These higher payments were supposed to be offset by lower payments to charter elementaries, but for a district like SF, where nearly every charter school is a high school, not an elementary, this resulted in a million dollar imbalance. Again, lobbying by CSBA was able to help get this bill passed, saving our district over $1 million this year and every year going forward.

   CSBA was also instrumental in getting recent legislation banning soda and other non nutritious foods removed from schools statewide. Here in SF, of course, we have our own BOE policy which got this junk out of the schools years ago, but for several years, CSBA opposed any statewide regulation of soda and junk food sold in schools. SB19, which was supposed to accomplish this several years ago, was effectively gutted by attaching a provision which tied its implementation to increased funding which was not expected to materialize (it didn’t, and SB19 was unenforceable without it.) It was our own Jill Wynns who was able to successfully convince enough CSBA members to support a statewide initiative to get junk food out of the schools, and when new legislation was proposed last year which would put SB19 into effect even without the increased funding, CSBA changed their position from opposition to support and the legislation passed.

   Clearly, membership in organizations like CSBA is vital to the future of our school district. In any kind of battle over funding with Sacramento, this district cannot make headway as a lone voice – it is only by banding together with other districts and using the very loud megaphone provided by organizations like CSBA, that we can be effectively heard.

   And yet, the very money you call for cutting from the school district budget (the increase for the Board of Education office) is actually primarily slated to pay for the increases in the annual membership in CSBA, as well as the equally useful Council of Great City Schools and the National School Boards Association. Do you really think it would be a fiscally sound move to stop paying annual dues and drop out of these powerful lobbying groups just to save a few thousand dollars, when using their lobbying clout has been able to save us millions?

   Oh, and the remainder of the line item increase for the board of education office is to cover the cost of the increased health benefits for the board office clerical workers. Or do you believe that these clerical workers should not receive health care benefits so that the money can instead go to summer school?

5. kimknox Says:
   July 27th, 2006 at 9:42 pm e

   Two people in the Board of Education are getting $57,139 more for health benefits-more than any two person office within the District? If that were the case, then every department would see that type of increase. Rather, it looks like more travel for your favorite Board members.

   And the CSBA’s dues went up by $89,227? I don’t think that any California public school district could afford that type of hike in dues.

   And yes, I would advocate those funds be spent on students who are struggling as well as hardworking teachers than more travel for Board members and a new position in the Office of Policy and Planning (or even your unbelievable tale of huge hike of $89,227 in CSBA’s dues).

6. Caroline Says:
   July 28th, 2006 at 8:10 am e

   Kim, your attack on board members’ alleged travel is total BS. You know it’s dishonest to try to portray drab trips to boring meetings in windowless hotel conference rooms as some kind of Jsck Abramoff-type scandal. Don’t demean yourself with this sleazy, Karl Rove-like behavior.

   When the Bay Guardian cluelessly tried to make a hoohah over board members’ travel expenses (aiming mostly at veteran Jill Wynns, and failing to note that BOE members are essentially unpaid volunteers, something to which I think the reporter — a child of privilege herself — was oblivious), I blogged a response on the sfschools blog — www.sfschools.org . A version was published in the Bay Guardian as an op-ed. Here’s my blog version:

   Some flak has been launched over veteran SFUSD school board Commissioner Jill Wynns’ travel expenses for attending school board-related conferences and events.

   Wynns donates her volunteer time — unpaid — to attend these events. The school board commissioners receive a flat $500 monthly stipend no matter how much extra work and board-related travel they take on.

   Much of the discussion comes from observers who don’t understand that and who assume that the travel expenses are a benefit of a paid job. Even some of the press apparently fails to recognize that this is unpaid volunteer work. Wynns incurs more travel expenses than other Board of Ed members because she donates more time — a sacrifice she makes on behalf of San Francisco’s schools and children.

   This discussion presents an opportunity to learn more about how school boards work. Let’s ask Wynns what she does on these trips.

   She describes a typical event, giving as examples the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and the National School Boards Association (NSBA), as well as its “urban component,” the Council of Urban Boards of Education (CUBE).

   Wynns: “Both CSBA and CUBE/NSBA combine their conferences with meetings of the board and Delegate Assembly (governing body). At CSBA the Delegate Assembly meets for a day and a half. This involves sitting in a hotel conference room going through a long agenda that includes presentations and discussions of current issues in California education, like the budget and legislative proposals.

   “Last year, when CSBA met in San Diego and the District paid for my attendance, there was discussion of an influential High School Task Force to which I was appointed. The task force took four full-day meetings in Sacramento plus several conference calls.

   “The presence of urban advocates on these groups keeps the perspective of small suburban and rural districts that vastly outnumber us in the organization from ignoring the realities of urban challenges.

   “I have always attended the entire Delegate Assembly and been outspoken, as you can imagine, on progressive issues.”

   Eric Mar and Eddie Chin are also SFUSD delegates to the CSBA, but haven’t been able to be present for much of the time. Wynns, as the only SFUSD Board of Ed member with neither a day job nor young children at home, is able to devote far more time to these obligations, and has built up years of contacts and a national reputation among her peers along the way.

   She emphasizes the value of regular participation in these organizations: “It is credibility built up by being a faithful participant that makes it possible to get support for our issues when we need it. It took quite a lot of aggressive advocacy to get CSBA to support SB319, which saves SFUSD over a million dollars a year that we were giving charter high schools from our general fund.” SB319, authored by state Sen. Carole Migden (D-S.F.) and passed in 2005, remedied an inequity that required school districts to provide significantly more funding to charter high schools than to non-charter high schools.

   Wynns recently rejoined the CSBA Board of Directors, which she has served on in the past. She explains how selections for that position work:

   “The delegates from our region, San Francisco and San Mateo counties, choose the director, alternating counties. The delegates will only support a person who will attend consistently to represent us, someone who also regularly attends and participates in the Delegate Assembly. This Board requires six weekend meetings a year, all of it paid for by CSBA.”

   Wynns is not paid for any of these duties.

   “None of the boards on which I sit include any compensation. In fact, they require the District to support my participation in conferences, etc.”

   She gives more details on her involvement on the national level:

   “At CUBE I have been an elected member of the national Steering Committee for five years. I will be term-limited out in two more years. This group is elected by the membership of CUBE — those that attend the Annual Meeting at the NSBA Annual Conference in April. Last year it was in Las Vegas. The Steering Committee picks the sites. I voted against Vegas, but it is very popular with attendees. Eric Mar and Norman Yee attended too.

   “I have been co-chair of CUBE’s Racial Isolation Task Force for five years. CUBE is one of the few national organizations still working hard on desegregation issues. The NSBA/CUBE web site has links to the important documents that the Task Force has produced, including a guide for school districts to designing diverse assignment plans and programs without the protection of federal courts. My work, with others in CUBE leadership, has kept NSBA from dropping this hot potato.

   “The Task Force and Steering Committee have designed programming for urban board members from around the country. We brought (nationally recognized school-desegregation expert) Gary Orfield to a CUBE meeting in Boston last summer.

   “I often act as a facilitator at CUBE conferences in my role as a Steering Commmittee member, giving SFUSD a national presence and platform for our programs and work. We have highlighted our Weighted Student Formula/Site-Based Budgeting initiative, our Nutrition Policy, language programs, our Labor/Management Committee work from a few years ago, the STAR program (initiated by Arlene Ackerman to give extra supports to the lowest-performing schools), and many more. We have often been featured in the newsletters of CUBE, NSBA, School Board News, etc.”

   “We visit schools at every CUBE conference, including when NSBA comes to San Francisco every four years. CUBE is one of the only organizations that has these regular school visits for board members and staff at conferences.

   “NSBA has significant lobbying influence on Capitol Hill. It took me two trips to Washington (which also included other duties) to get Congressman George Miller (D-East Bay) to speak at a CUBE legislative luncheon and to establish a good working relationship with him and his staff. This is essential, as our own representatives do not serve on the education-related committees. Being on the CUBE Steering Committee and active in CUBE allows urban board members to influence the positions taken by NSBA.”

   Wynns is also involved in the Council of the Great City Schools, requiring still more attendance at conferences and events. “Dan Kelly and I have played different roles there. I have worked to become an influential member of the Governance Task Force while Dan and Arlene have been working on the Bilingual Education Task Force that Arlene has chaired.”

   School board members do this unpaid work for good reason, Wynns emphasizes.

   “Getting and keeping the urban perspective included in national education policy discussions is a difficult and time-consuming challenge. This kind of involvement and hard work is the way you become an effective advocate for urban education.”

7. Nestwife Says:
   July 28th, 2006 at 8:21 am e

   Do you know how to read? Show me where you think I said that “CSBA dues went up by $89,227″!

   I did not say that the dues for CSBA and the other lobbying groups to which SFUSD belongs, and on which they depend to bring about much-needed changes in funding at the state level, came out of the $89,227 which you identified as an increase in the Policy and Planning department - I said that it came out of the increase for the board of education office (which you pegged at about $57,000 in your original post). So did the raises for health care coverage for the clerical workers. You clearly have no idea what the BOE office line item increase is for, nor do you care - you just want to find things to criticize.

   Which would be fine if you were just an average ignorant citizen who enjoys bashing the school district over matters about which she knows nothing. Lots of people seem to enjoy venting their aggression that way. But you are not just a typical citizen, Kim - you have declared yourself a candidate for the Board of Education, and that means you have an incentive (some would say a responsibility) to try to be as informed about school board matters as possible before opening your mouth to voice an opinion. You don’t need to always be supportive of what the school district does, but you should at least try to know what you are talking about.

   If you had bothered to ask about what the increase in the BOE office budget was for before blasting it, you wouldn’t have to be desperately trying to defend your claim that money spend on CSBA (and other organization) membership is a waste, when clearly it is not.

   And since you don’t seem willing to accept that participation in CSBA and other organizations of this type is valuable to the school district, and well worth the price, here’s what your pal Eric Mar had to say on this subject back in March, writing on sfschools:
   “I agree with Jill and other board of ed members perspectives that CA School Bds Assn and CUBE/NSBA [urban board of ed of Natl School Bds asnn] are valuable to our district. Leland Yee used to be the
   national chair of CUBE by the way.
   “But Caroline’s wrong again on a few points -
   Norman Yee, Eddie Chin and I are all delegates to CSBA’s delegate assembly.
   “I have attended all but maybe 1 CSBA event over the 5 years. I have presented on CSBA panels and spoken on issues also for the CSBA, the Asian and Latino caucuses of CSBA as well.
   “I try to go to CUBE/NSBA too because the networking is so valuable, but also because we get a ‘bigger picture’ of how other similar school districts are addressing the needs of their students and
   communities.
   “Jill isn’t the only board member who does not work outside of BOE work - i believe norman also is doing school board work almost full time.
   “Even though it is usually very difficult for me to squeeze in attending CSBA and CUBE/NSBA gatherings because of my teaching/advising schedule at SFSU and my kindergarten daughter and partner’s need for me to be home, I have attended the gatherings because I also feel that our school district benefits from my
   particpation and leadership in those groups.”

   Now, go explain to Eric that you think instead of traveling to those many CSBA (and other groups’) meetings, which he feels are so valuable, instead you have decided that the money would be better spent trying to piece together a summer school program, so from now on he can pay for his own travel to these events out of his teacher’s salary.

8. Nestwife Says:
   July 28th, 2006 at 6:50 pm e

   One more thing – about $26,300, or nearly half, of that approx. $57,000 increase in the board of education office budget that you suggest spending instead on summer school, is to pay the City for part of the cost of televising BOE meetings. I agree with you that this portion of the budget would be far better spent on summer school (5 more teachers!) or better food for the kids, or just about anything else other than televising meetings which are already broadcast live on KALW radio. Keep in mind that the television broadcast will NOT be live, may not even happen until several days after the meeting, and will only be available to those who have cable television. I seem to recall that it was Sarah Lipson and Mark Sanchez who pushed for this expenditure, and that Jill Wynns opposed it on the grounds that approving more spending was going in the wrong direction when the district was facing a $6 million deficit.

9. kimknox Says:
   July 29th, 2006 at 6:25 am e

   Your source on the School Board, Jill Wynns could tell you how the funds for televising came to be in the budget.

   When Wynns and Nancy Waymack went in front of the Finance Committee for Prop H funds, the Finance Committee under a motion by Mirkarimi and Elsbernd, voted to put funds in reserve, so that the Board of Education’s regular meeting proceedings could be televised on SFGTV. Mirkarimi and Elsbernd don’t agree on much-but they (along with Peskin) didn’t like the way that Wynns and Waymack were answering their questions. They both agreed that there should be more sunshine on the School Board.

10. Nestwife Says:
    July 29th, 2006 at 8:09 am e

    It makes no difference how the money came to be in the BOE office budget - the question is, what does the increased budget represent? You claimed that the increase would be better spent on paying for more summer school teachers. I understand that you made that claim without knowing what the increase really represented (higher membership dues for BOE lobbying groups like CSBA, increased health benefits for the board’s clerical workers, and some of the cost of televising meetings).

    Putting aside for a moment the question of whether someone who is running for BOE ought to perhaps be better informed about how the board’s budget is allocated, do you stand by your original claim that this approx. $57,000 increase in the BOE office budget would be better spent on summer school teachers, or were you wrong about that?

    And BTW, my information on the budget comes from district staff. They write the budget, not Jill Wynns.

11. Caroline Says:
    July 29th, 2006 at 4:24 pm e

    So the guys on the BOS “didn’t like the way Jill Wynns and Nancy Waymack were answering their questions”? Too uppity? Not demure and subservient enough? Get those pushy broads outta there! I assume you plan to commit to being properly docile, deferential and submissive if elected, Kim?

    (I’m not clear what you’re saying happened, though — you mean the BOS planned to fund the cable broadcasts, but then those harpies Jill and Nancy so offended their manly entitlement that they reneged and it was left to the district budget instead?)

12. kimknox Says:
    August 1st, 2006 at 6:51 am e

    When I watch the proceedings, I was amazed how Waymack and Wynns treated the BOS’ Finance with disdain. No doubt they were angry that they waited for hours to testify. But every grandmother can tell you “Sugar catches more flies than vinegar”.

    Secondly, you had suggested that the reason for Policy and Planning’s Office $89,000 increase this year was due to a dramatic increase in CSBA dues-it doesn’t appear to be the case by their own printed budget dated June 27, 2006,

    Here is a comparison of the budget for Policy and Planning from the final 05-06 budget dated June 28, 2005 and the final 06-07 budget dated June 27, 2006:

    General Fund for Dept. 012/Policy and Planning
    FY 05-06 Classified Staff-$228,420
    FY 06-07 Classified Staff-235,000

    FY 05-06-Benefits-$89,486
    FY 06-07-Benefits-$98,577

    FY 05-06-Services and Other Operating Expenses (which include membership dues)-$100,500
    FY 06-07-$120,500 (an increase of $20,000 not $89,000 as you claimed)

    Broad Foundation Grant
    FY 05-06 Classified Salaries .5 $40,000
    FY 06-07 Classified Salaries .3 $24,480

    NCLB Title I Basic Grants
    FY 05-06 Classified Salaries .5 $40,000 (So the other part of the salary for the Broad Foundation Intern is paid for by Title I Grant Funds that is supposed to be targeted to struggling students-not an intern from Harvard chosen by the Broad Foundation)

    But in FY 06-07-SFUSD moved the salary and benefit expenses for the Broad Foundation Intern into County Services Fund/Williams Case-
    FY 06-07 Classified .7 $57,210

    So the comparison for the budget for Planning and Policy was
    FY 05-06 Total $529,255
    FY 06-07 Total $618,483
    For a difference of $89,228

    The increases are in:
    Salaries for Myong and Nancy-$9,580 ($225,420 to $235,00)
    Benefits for Myong and Nancy-$9,090 ($89,487 to $98,577)
    Services & Other Operating Expenses-$20,000 ($120,500 to $100,500)
    Total of $38,670

    Broad Foundation Intern-
    Salary Increase-$1,690 (a total of $80,000 in FY 05-06 to $81,690 in FY 06-07)
    Benefits-$2,203(a total of $33,848 to $36,051)
    Services & Other Operating Expenses-$34,700 ($0 in FY 05-06 to $34,700 in FY 06-07)
    Total Increase for an Intern by the Broad Foundation from funds that are earmarked for our struggling students-$38,593 (71129)

    County Schools Fund/Williams Settlement-
    Books and Supplies-$11,966 ($0 to $11,966)

    So total increase is $89,228

13. Nestwife Says:
    August 1st, 2006 at 8:34 am e

    I never suggested anything about the $89,000 increase in policy and planning, and again I will have to ask you if you know how to read. Please do a cut and paste to show exactly where you think I have claimed anything about the policy and planning budget. Everything I have posted relates to the BOE office budget only, and I made that perfectly clear.

    The increase in CSBA (and several other board of education groups, like Council of Great City Schools) membership dues, are part of the approx. $57,000 increase in the board of education office budget. You know, the budget you claimed was for “travel” for certain board members who you don’t like. In reality, the increases there are for the membership dues, for benefits for clerical staff, and over $26,000 to pay for part of the cost of televising BOE meetings - something demanded by “sunshine” advocates such as yourself. You still haven’t answered my question about whether you now feel that the increases in the BOE office budget are justified - now that you know that they are not for increased travel, but rather for membership in organizations which have helped lobby for needed changes in state education funding which have saved our district money; and for health benefits for clerical staff; and for televising BOE meetings. So, would that money be better spent on summer school, or not?

14. Caroline Says:
    August 1st, 2006 at 9:01 am e

    So exactly what increases are you objecting to in the Policy & Planning budget, Kim?

    I see you’ve made an issue before of pay for the Broad Foundation intern. I’m not familiar with this specific situation and don’t have time to do the legwork — but wouldn’t the Broad Foundation intern by definition be FUNDED BY the Broad Foundation? In nonprofits that I’m familiar with, grant-funded expenditures are listed as budget line items under “expenses,” offset by the income from the grant under “income.” I can’t decisively declare that that’s the case, because as I say I don’t have time to do the research and find out, but do you have reason to know that SFUSD is paying the Broad Foundation intern out of its own budget?

15. kimknox Says:
    August 2nd, 2006 at 6:58 am e

    1. According to a presentation by Myong Leigh, Broad only pays a portion of the Broad’s intern. According to SFUSD’s own budget, 70% of the Broad’s intern is paid by County Services dollars and the other 30% by the General Fund. Last year, it was 50% by Title I funds and 50% by the General Fund. So Broad’s share is going down each year of the internship.

    2. Yes, I am for televising the proceedings. KALW goes off the air at 11 a.m.-and suddenly, controversial items are in front of the Board. Televising the Board would allow more community members follow the School Board and their decisions. There is a great deal that can still be cut from the Budget that would allow both summer school to have smaller class sizes and televise the Board meetings to allow more people to know what is going on in the Board of Education meetings.

    3. If you go to CSBA’s website, all of their meetings (but one) in 2006 are being held in Sacramento. School Board members can travel from SF to Sacramento by bus, train or car-and they don’t need to stay overnight.
    The one meeting that is being held out of Sacramento is in: Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco. So the Board members can get there by MUNI.

16. Nestwife Says:
    August 2nd, 2006 at 9:12 am e

    1. I have no idea what the Broad Foundation intern does for the district - do you? Presumably he or she is not just pocketing the money and performing no work, so before we complain about $38,000 in costs, perhaps it would be germane to know what services are rendered to the SFUSD for that compensation. Does this person peform a job which would otherwise need to be done by a more experienced administrator at a higher salary level?

    And speaking of salary, I am confused by something in your earlier response:
    “The increases are in:
    Salaries for Myong and Nancy-$9,580 ($225,420 to $235,00)
    Benefits for Myong and Nancy-$9,090 ($89,487 to $98,577)
    Services & Other Operating Expenses-$20,000 ($120,500 to $100,500)
    Total of $38,670″
    According to what you have posted here, there is an increase of $9580 for Myong and Nancy’s combined salaries, an increase of $9090 for their combined benefits, and then a DECREASE of $20,000 in the services and other operating expenses category (I assume that here, as in the other categories, you have listed the 05-06 figure first - $120,500 - and the 06-07 figure second - $100,500.) That would mean that after subtracting the total of $18,670 increase of salary and benefits from the $20,000 saved by the decrease in supplies etc. budget, the outcome is actually a budget reduction of $1330, not an increase of $38,670.

    2. Glad to hear that you are willing to admit when you are wrong. Although you repeatedly stated that the increased allocation for board of education office budget expenses should instead be used to pay for summer school, you are now saying that it SHOULDN’T be used for summer school, but rather for its designated purpose of broadcasting BOE meetings on TV. If you had bothered to find out what that increase was for before denouncing it, you could have saved yourself some embarrassment. Also, I assume you mean “p.m.” here, not “a.m.”:
    “KALW goes off the air at 11 a.m.”
    Televising BOE meetings will allow people who have cable tv, and a means of recording the programming (VCR or TIVO), to watch, but those without are out of luck. The broadcasts are not live; they are recorded and shown days or weeks later, at odd times. As you have indicated, some meetings go on for more than 4 hours, so I guess if you just set the VCR to record indefinitely, you might be able to catch those “controversial items” which crop up around midnight.

    Oh, and I see that you are back to your strategy of simply declaring that there is “a great deal” that could be cut from the budget to fund summer school, without identifying what those cuts should be, and more importantly, without acknowledging that summer school is SUPPOSED to be funded by the state from categorical funds, not by districts trying to piece together a program using a patchwork of other funds. No matter how many small cuts you make to necessary spending, you will never be able to properly fund summer school for every student who wishes to attend. As I mentioned previously, as recently as just a few years ago, the district was ale to provide summer school not just for students who had failed a course, but also for those who wanted to get a jump start on their next year of education, including thousand of elementary kids who otherwise were at risk of “backsliding” during the summer (ie - kids who were keeping up during the school year but who, in the absence of enrichment activites during the summer, lose some of their newly acquired skills before school starts.) Middle class kids who go to Summer GATE or take other enrichment don’t have this problem, but for poorer students whose families can’t afford summer programs, who have to work and don’t have time to go with their youngsters to the library every week and provide other enrichment, and who will otherwise spend the summer in front of the tv, summer school was a real blessing - a chance to see friends, get a free hot lunch, and keep their skills honed for the coming school year.

    You can propose little trimmings to the budget all you like - yes, there may be some conferences closer to home next year, but the Council of Great City School annual meeting is in San Diego; do you propose driving home every night from that one too? But a snip here and a snip there is not going to fund the kind of summer school program our students deserve, and desperately need. That is the state’s responsibility, and I would hope that as a BOE candidate, you would understand and acknowledge that, and try to work towards forcing the state to reinstitute summer school, rather than trying to bash the district for its loss.

    This is going to be my last posting here for a while. I have real work to do involving changes to the school nutrition program, which I must finish before start of school. Have a nice rest of the summer.

17. Caroline Says:
    August 2nd, 2006 at 2:08 pm e

    Here are some details on the Broad Foundation intern:

    The current Broad Foundation fellow is working in Human Resources on teacher recruitment and retention. The Broad Foundation provides matching funds for Broad fellows, covering 75 percent the first year and 50 percent the second year. The previous Broad Foundation fellow organized supplemental services for SFUSD’s program improvement schools, which are the school so low-performing that they’re receiving extra support (but also the threat of takeover) from the state.

Leave a Reply