commissioner fisher here. commissioner. lamb. commissioner sanchez. commissioner. weissman. ward vice president. alexander. here president. mctominay here. thank you. so. accessibility information. translation services, virtual meeting information can all be found on our website at the notice of this meeting. and we are now going to take public comment on closed session agenda items only. so at this time, before the board goes into closed session, i call for any speakers to the closed session items listed on the agenda. there will be a total of five minutes for

speakers. thank you, president tommy. we do have one card for in person, so go ahead sir. testing good afternoon. my name is chris tredinnick and i'm commenting on the cvra letter this past month i finished ten years serving as the board of supervisors appointee to the elections commission. i've also been an advocate for better election systems for over 20 years. last meeting i told you, i think single member districts would not be a good response to the letter. i also mentioned the idea of proportional ranked choice voting or pr-stv as another option. so thank you for the amendments to the resolution you adopted. i encourage you to see if mr. rafferty would be open to pr-stv instead of single member districts. this would give you a chance to turn what would have been a negative change into something positive. pr, cv has a long history of use in the united states, and was even studied by the elections task force in the 90s for the supervisor of san francisco's voting equipment already supports pr-stv and san

francisco voters are already used to ranking candidates for local office. it would also bring more consistency to how voters vote in local races. thank you, thank you. that concludes in-person public comment. we do have two hands raised for virtual participants, so i'm going to call on stephen. um, last name initial h. and then stephen last name initial c stephen h. go ahead please. thank you. commissioners uh, my name is stephen hill. and, um, thank you for taking comments today. um, as i've testified before, you have quite a, a proposal that's been dropped into your lap and trying to figure out what the best way is forward the attorney, scott rafferty, at the last meeting of the, um, the community college board proposed a compromise. um, and so it shows that he at least is willing to be flexible and so

it seems like a compromise that uses, um, in what he proposed would be three seats, three districts with three seats per district, a total of nine seats elected by proportional ranked choice voting would take 25% of the vote in one of those districts to win a seat. but there are other compromise uses that the board of education might propose. back to mr. rafferty. uh, and some of them would be easier and more cost effective than fighting a lawsuit or even drawing seven seat districts for all of yourselves, where you have to go through four public hearings and these sorts of things. so i really think you do have options, as we've been saying for a while, you don't have to simply take, uh, the, you know, accept that you have to go to seven member districts, um, a seven seat, uh, seven districts for yourselves. you could actually thank you, mr. hill. that that is your time. i'm sorry to have to interrupt you. thank you. steve. thank you, mr. chisholm and president of

californians for electoral reform. and i'm speaking on item three. the c.r.a. letter. i understand that mr. rafferty is open to negotiating settlement. that includes proportional ranked choice voting. he refers to it as the single transferable vote, or stv, but it is the same thing. i strongly urge you to negotiate with him and include the prc or stv in your settlement, and will save the school district money. the california supreme court's pico decision specifically mentioned the portion of ranked choice voting san francisco voters already had years of experience in ranking candidates. this would be a compromise that would avoid a lawsuit. please consider it. thank you very much. thank you. and john. thank you. i'm john trasvina proud graduate of our public schools here in san francisco. i urge you to take the step of not negotiating with mr. rafferty. we do not have a violation of the cvra. we have years of history of electing

asian americans, latinos and african americans to the school board. no decision should be made or no alternative should be agreed to without a demonstrated record that it is better for the communities that are protected under the under the cvra. uh, nothing has been shown that there's a liability or that any possible alternative is better. we all need to focus on school safety, on the budget, paying teachers, and all the things that you all work on. focus on that, please. and leave it to your lawyers to fight, mr. rafferty. uh, because this is a misuse of the of the voting rights act, and it will not improve access for asian americans, latinos and african americans. thank you very much for your stance. last meeting and for your continued work on all these issues. thank you. that does conclude our virtual public comment for this item. okay so i now recess this meeting at 507, and we will return at 630.

our report out from closed session in the matter of student jc versus sfusd. case number 20 2311 zero zero 25. the board, by a vote of seven ayes, gives the authority of the district to pay up to the stipulated amount and two matters of anticipated litigation. the board, by a vote of seven eyes, gives direction to the general counsel. the board, by a vote of seven eyes, approved the release of 21 probationary certificated status employees. um so now we um in just a minute, we'll move to the table for the workshop on student outcomes. and at that point, i'll introduce the items. and, um, as a reminder, public comment will take place at the end of, um, the monitoring sessions on both item d items.

all right. so let's move to the table . computer charter. i don't want. to yeah.

so now. that. you are welcome. yeah yeah. oh that makes sense. that's really good. sorry i haven't heard from her. after the presentation starts, this evening .

okay. um everyone settled. so, as a reminder, the focus of discussion tonight is to continue the work of monitoring our goals and guardrails and to demonstrate effective measures to improve student outcomes and identify changes and updates where needed. and we are beginning year two of this work. so we will be monitoring two areas tonight. first, we will review and discuss progress on goal three, which is career and college readiness. and we previously held a monitoring

session on this goal in april of last year. and then secondly, we will review and discuss guardrail one effective decision making. this is the first time we've had a monitoring session focused on this guardrail. and the conversation will be facilitated by aj crable, who will join us at 730 for this item. so i just want to note that because it's 635 now, and he will be joining us at 730, um , so here and so i'll pass it over to doctor wayne to introduce the item and to introduce staff to speak about career and college readiness. uh, thank you, president motamedi. good evening. commission and, um, sfusd community. and so, yes, we are pleased to present our college and career readiness progress monitoring report. as you mentioned, our first report was last april that was more broadly, um, how we were doing on the measure of college and career readiness and the state dashboard here. we're honing in

on our the interim goals. we've identified towards our progress to ensuring more students graduate college and career ready. so with that, i'm going to turn it over to assistant superintendent of high schools. uh, davina goldwasser and our interim executive director of college and career readiness, patrick west. thanks have the slides. so they'll do a brief presentation of what's in the report, and then we'll just open it up to questions and comments and discussion with the board. great. thank you. next slide. so just to introduce the team today , um i'm assistant superintendent of high schools davina goldwasser. we have patrick west from college and career readiness. doctor priestley is here from curriculum and instruction eric gutherz from student and family services is karen fraley. norman from student family services, julie yu from college and career readiness and aaron dice from college and career readiness. so

i might call on them to support us. if there's questions that come up. but patrick and i will be taking us through. and before i get started, i just want to say that, um, the collaboration between dean high school, lead college and career readiness and sds counseling, um, has been so tight this year, and we're really proud of our collaboration together, because it really takes each of us coming together to really address these goals. and so hopefully you'll kind of hear about some of that collaborative work. and it's and the lines are going to be blurred as they should be around kind of who's taking on what. because we're really working in partnership all the way through to achieve these goals together. our next slide. so we're going to focus on the goals the data. and some interpreted action. and our focus areas are around ninth grade. we exits that patrick will get more into explaining the lingo around that. and 10th grade on track status. um, we're going to hear from balboa high school, more specifically around

some bright spots and school site highlights, and i'll share some other highlights from other schools. next steps, and then we'll turn it over to discussion and questions. okay, the first goal that we wanted, the interim goal that we wanted to highlight, is interim goal 3.1, which davina had mentioned is around dwi, exiting. so dwi is the early warning indicator that high schools get from students who come from the eighth grade. it lets them know that these students have had either a low gpa and or, um, poor attendance. and so that is a way for us to be able to, to notice there are students that might need some extra supports in the ninth grade year. so the two graphs that you have there in front of you, um, i do want to notice there. i just want to point out on the paper copy, you have is a little different than the bottom bar graph. we have made a small small error that should be 25% underneath 2004, which it's accurate on the screen there. so

we want to just point out here that, you know we as was mentioned, this is our second year doing this. our first full year with this particular interim goal. and in um mid-year of 2024, which is right now, we had 30% of our ninth grade students exit. why? the goal is 25% by the end of the school year. so if you go to the next slide, you can see that we already feel pretty, pretty good about the work that's being done so far since we're even ahead of the goal at this point. so we want to continue to maintain that momentum. um, we're actually, um, have a higher exit rate this year than previous years 2019 and 2023. so we are on track to meet interim goal 3.1 at this point. if you move on to the next slide, um, we want to highlight interim goal 3.2 and termed goal 3.2. is a goal around 10th grade students

and being on track to graduate. being on track to graduate is, um, a different measure than the overall goal. three though just to point out, goal three is about being college and or career ready, but but a student who is on track to graduate in 10th grade is more likely than to graduate. being college and or career ready. so that is a slight difference between the interim goal and the overall goal. as of right now, as you can see from the charts, um, and the data, the current 10th grade class is we are not on track to, uh, meet this particular goal with our current 10th graders. so if you move on to the next slide, you'll see a couple of bullet points. just basically saying that 65% of our current 10th graders, um, are on on track to graduate. but our goal was to be at 71, um, by the end of this particular school year. and we're going to highlight some of the steps that we're

going to, that we're planning to take or hoping to take to help turn this around and help support our 10th graders to get either back on track or some preventative measures to prevent future 10th graders from being off track. all right, i'll turn it over to veena to talk about some of our bright spots that we do have in our schools. great. so, um, sorry. um, so in a moment, i want to call up norma hernandez, assistant principal from balboa. and victor, you, counselor from balboa and their principal. um doctor kat aronson is in the audience as well. and so we're going to start with a specific bright spot from balboa focusing on exiting dwi students. and also really focusing on how we're working with ninth graders. and so i'll have them come up and share some of the practices that have been successful over there. yeah. hi,

everybody. how's everybody doing? good awesome. um, first of all, i just want to say that i'm really, um, proud of our, um, balboa staff who have worked really hard to support our students and, and, you know, i'm just going to speak a little bit of the ct, the coordinated care team, um, which is composed of five counselors, five amazing counselors, our dean, our fresh specialist, um, our social worker, our chow, our school therapist, sped department chair, um, some of our, um, department, public public health, um, clinic representatives, and our after school program coordinators that all attend this meeting once a week. and and we have different categories of students. um some of them include the csea students, the dwi students, um, some of the students that are

currently under an iep. and 500 fours. and so, um, you know, we discuss these students in, in a group and we try to figure out a point person, um, to designated for a particular student. and we try to look for supports and gaps. we learn about the student, we try to look at their background and what are the things that they're um, uh, need support in. and we really try to create a support group for them. um, and, you know, our fresh specialist here can speak a little bit more on, on those, um , on that process. um, he has done a really good job at, um, supporting our students who have been truant and, and, um, i'll just pass it over to him. hello hello, everybody. my name is victor yu. i'm actually a burton

alumni from 2012. s.f. native my whole life. so really happy to actually be in front of the board. my overall role as fresh specialist. i like to think of it as a bridge builder. i really do meet students where they're at in the halls, elevator shafts, stair wells and really get to know them on a holistic level. why they're out in the halls, what they're currently either running away from looking to meet or looking to get out of their overall unstructured time after getting to know them. you know, because our students are generally either missing class, missing their gpas, or a combination of both. um, but getting to know them in the halls after we have established rapport building out the team, which consists of getting to know the parents, getting to know their teachers, understanding the various interests so that we can try to connect them to supports inside and outside of our school. so having meetings, really understanding them at their core, and then identifying like, all right, if the students

interest is football, getting connected to the football coach really understanding. like what are the expectations from being there. and then once we have those kinds of incentives laid out, we work on accountability. we really start with daily progress trackers, figuring out who can be that point person in talking, connecting with the student on a fairly regular basis. and after that, we see generally a fair amount of improvement after, you know, maybe some rough starts here or there or, um, improvement, which leads to higher attendance, better, stronger grades in their classes, which then triggers me to think about recognition. recognition often in the form of things that really are are true and big to our students right now. it's food. right now, our students are still very food motivated and looking to get full. um, but beyond that, it's a lot of like workforce preparation. i think like understanding, like where the overall goals are. and a lot of our ninth graders have vocalized

like we want workforce readiness training. so i've been providing a lot of like resume building interview skills, cover letter skills, just try to diversify the things that we're offering. and then lastly, it's just recognizing that their overall progress will continue on and bringing out other incentives. but yeah, we have a tracker as well. oh yes, we have so many trackers. um, we really do try to keep detailed understanding of how students are progressing this year. i actually built out a tracker utilizing different synergy and illuminate data. so if you were to use my tracker in key in a student's id number, you would then be fed atp 401 to the most recent date that i updated it. so august 16th all the way to i recently updated it on monday, so it will show you all that. it will show you p1, p2, p3 grades and your semester grades. and i typically update that every week. so that's one of the trackers that i've shared

with our counseling team, parts of our ct team, to really ensure that our students are taking care of. yeah thank you. let's give them a round of applause. let's go to next slide. okay. so, um, this slide really focuses on our peer resources program. and so we know how important peers are for our students. and sometimes it's other students that are going to be the ones that reach them more than an adult. and so we try to reach everyone through multiple ways. and so these are some proactive measures, um, where we see students being mentoring students, tutoring, um, a mediation may occur if we feel like there's, you know, a conflict or something unresolved between a teacher or other students in the class. and we want the student to feel comfortable in class, because if they don't feel comfortable in class, they're not going to be attending the class. um, and

also really utilize, um, student voice to continue to inform, like, how do we create the best conditions in the class so that our students want to be there? so just wanted to highlight kind of taking a different approach of how we're looking at supporting our students. next slide. so our goals are for everyone. and so whether you are at a large comprehensive school, whether you are at an alternative school, or whether you're in county, um, program, um, we really look at our goals, um, across the whole high school division for all and so wanted to just also focus on the ways that we are getting students in our county programs into ccsf how we're focusing on dual enrollment, um, college and career readiness, and really working together in partnership with college and career readiness. thinking about summer opportunities. um, and different internships and really focusing on, like i said, you know, all of our students are meeting the goals that we've set. next slide . all right. yes thank you. so as devina had mentioned earlier,

the our three departments high school lead student, student family services division and ccr er we work collaboratively to try to address the heart of the goals and so in the first one here, interim goal 3.2 around ninth grade, we um exits. um high school lead um for next steps. they have determined that they're going to start making sure well continue to focus on the site leaders really understanding the dwi, um, data and the progress data and using the beginning of the school year as they did last year, to continue to highlight the students that are on the list. but more focusing on what strategies, um, are successful and at other schools and can be replicated at other schools as well to help move students off the iwi list, the sfd team will continue to work with the school counselors so that they can continue to progress, monitor um students that are on the iwi list. um, we also, um, have been

working this year on on updating the data that our counselors enter into synergy so that we can track that counselors are having, um, what we call off track conferences. but we would want them to have those and make sure that they're recording the those conferences are happening with students and families, and we've seen great progress with helping our counselors be able to enter in that data so that we can see which schools, um, are having the conferences, which schools might, might need some more counseling support around around entering that data as well. um, for the ccr team, we're we mostly focus on um, 11th and 12th graders around, making sure that they're are able to graduate and graduate on time. um we are starting to shift our focus more, um, on the ninth and 10th graders. and so this is to two ideas here. we have. one of them is we want to make sure that we're recruiting rising ninth grade students that are on the iwi list so that they

can attend our summer bridge program, summer bridge program is a program we have that's in conjunction with dcyf, and that program helps support rising ninth graders over the summer so that they can have skills and strategies in place to start the school year off well, um, then the last one is we've been piloting freshmen on track initiatives. um, this school year, unfortunately, due to some staffing issues, we weren't able to pilot as strong as we wanted to, but we were able to do a few schools where we are are trying to support students in the freshman year to stay on track or be on track, be on track through some of our initiatives. and then if you move on to the last slide around our interim goal, 3.2, our three teams are going to work together on ensuring that our um, site leaders and counseling teams have updated information on off track students so they can develop a plan. and um, also, a site leaders will focus on analyzing course data and our teacher data in order to

determine if there are certain areas or certain courses where there needs to be more support or interventions so that students can be successful in those courses. and our sfst team will again work with our students, our counselors, to make sure they're having those conferences with students and families. so that students are on track to graduate. and then next year, due to some, um, possible um, reduction in counseling, staff, that that team may need to revisit, how to how to support those counselors with potential increased caseloads. and then our ccr staff again will start focusing on continue to focus more on our ninth and 10th graders that might be off track to find a credit recovery options for them so they can get back on track sooner. um, and then also, um, providing special interventions that might be needed for ninth and 10th graders that could be enrolled in credit recovery courses .

okay yep. thank you. um, thank you so much for the presentation. and thank you to balboa staff for being here. and um, illuminating a bright light. thank you. um i also want to appreciate staff. i was comparing last year's, uh, what was brought forward to this year and really appreciate the addition of the evidence and the plan and the additional detail. so thank you so much for that. um, i'll kick us off and then i'm happy to pass it to whomever or go around if it seems whatever seems most to make most sense. but, um, i'm just curious now that we're in year two, because the first year was setting the baseline in, um, establishing how we're going to monitor and assess and now we're

at more of the implementation seven point and monitoring progress. and i just wanted to know what, um, learnings you've had. what surprised us or, and challenges that you've had in that both good and bad. so even though it's year two, it's also like a different cohort of students. and so it becomes difficult. i mean, there are some challenges around like we want to look at kind of our systems of support and make sure that's happening. but it's also kind of not comparing like apples to apples because it's a different group of students. and so we may have more off track students, you know, coming in or on track. so just kind of something to consider. um, but i think right now, the stage that we're at is i wanted to focus on those bright spots because we're focused on mapping out what is successful and creating a menu of that to offer back to our school sites, because people have been trying all kinds of things, and now we want to get much more clear so that at the

beginning of next school year, once we get the dwi data, for example, in august, that at all admin, we can hone in on like here's five practices his with, here's the percentage of, you know, success of exit data for these practices that this amount of schools have tried. and let's really focus in on those that we can track because we've been more in sort of the experimentation. so that's going to be, i think, a change moving forward is just getting clear on like, no, we're honing in on these practices that we can stand behind. and that's really increasing our supports. in ninth grade. um, and so really refocusing, like you heard, um, on as soon as the students come in making sure that they have this really positive of like, network, um, that doesn't just include the teacher, but it's more broad because students often identify people that are not their classroom teacher as maybe who they go to kind of keep them on track. and so we're learning a lot about who students name. and patrick was sharing with me that once the students do credit recovery, they interview the students and find out, like what is it that got you here? what do you need? and so we've been sharing that

so that then we can backwards plan like, oh, you know, is there something we could have done different by looking at the patterns of what students are sharing? thank you all for i'll just ditto. lainie's. sorry president mohamed, it's like i haven't been here in two weeks or something. um president motamedi, it's been a long day. um, thanks, uh, especially for the sort of the additional data and the evidence based and also big shout out. thank you. balboa. um, i remember i came to i did a early on as an appointed commissioner. i did a tour of balboa, and i remember thinking, wow, i could see my kids here. it was just a space that i could see as a parent, being really happy to have my kids here, they're still young, but maybe one day. so thank you. um, so this is sort of a maybe follow up, uh, question to president muhammadu. um, it's amazing that we're on track. in fact,

appearing to be ahead. um, and so i guess to your comment about sort of using some time to really dig in at the end of the year to say, like what works so that we can hone in and decide what to implement, to continue to implement. i'm also wondering if when we're looking at the, um, the plans moving forward is this like, can we be even more aggressive of because we've already like whatever you did, maybe it seems to be working or some of the things seem to be working. is there is there a space to actually be more aggressive, to get even more gains and, and, or alternatively , um, if, if the resources that are in place are working or are sufficient to some extent. have you all looked at whether there is any difference sort of in schools? are there any schools that are actually not at that median district wide level? and would it be appropriate to focus

more resources, sort of with an equity lens to say, okay, we have x schools that are already at or exceeding where we want them to be right now. and a handful of schools that aren't. so let's figure out how to push some more resources there so that all of the schools are at that that median level. i'll uh, i want to respond to the first question. and then if you have data for the second one, you can share. um, yeah. i think, you know, like, it's both. yes encouraging to see we're on track for interim goal. uh 3.1 for the early warning indicators . at the same time, what's discouraging about it is that students who face who, um, are classified as having the early warning indicators means that coming into high school, they've struggled. and we know the later that they we address those issues, the harder it becomes to resolve them. so i think for us it's thinking about how to have fewer kids coming in, meeting with these early warning

indicators is an area where we could we need to think about. i think additionally, um, you know, and appreciate the team emphasizing like what we're trying to do to be proactive, like with the fresh special test and, um, you know, a lot of the interventions you're hearing are when we see students are in the hallways, but what's happening in the classroom, um, that might contribute to them wanting to stay in the classroom rather than be in the hallway. and that comes out through our, um, our really more in our guardrail around curriculum and instruction and having engaging curriculum and instruction, because we're assessing that in the classrooms. and you heard megan speak to last time how she's joining a classroom visits using our core rubric. but i think that's an area where when we bring that that data forward will be interesting to see, because we want to have fewer kids in the hallway, which will make, you know, sure, they're they're staying on track. and so what's happening during when we talk about that thousand hours

each year, they're in the classroom. um, and this doesn't speak to that as much as well. so i think those are two areas where we could be more, um, yeah, just push even more. one on having fewer kids come with classified as early warning indicators. and to, um, seeing what's happening in the classroom, um, to make sure that students are successful there. and we need fewer fresh specialists. although i appreciate our fresh specialist over there. and then i don't know if we had the data or you want to just get back to them about the data for what other schools are doing. um, well, just something to add is, i mean, we one of the things that we're tracking is the, um, off track conferences. and so i would say some changes that we've made is, you know, there used to be, um, times to convene with counselors, but it wasn't like as mandatory. and so now, literally, if counselors don't show up to their centralized pd, um, you know, the counselor team will get on the phone, they'll call lee, they'll say, which schools are we missing that are here? and the reason why i bring

this up is because we want to ensure that all counselors at all schools have the same training and the same expectations. and so the counselors, um, are given a script of what, you know, the suggested script of what to say for the off track conferences and we just looked at the data. and so we have some schools at 100, which means 100% of their students had a conference. and we can track that. and so we're just going towards making sure that no matter, you know what school you're at, no matter what counseling team you have, that all of these practices that we want to stand behind around at least ensuring awareness and reflection that the students have gone through, are happening for everyone. one and then we can get right on top of it. if we see that there's like a data discrepancy. so i mean, it's above 70% overall of, you know, completion of the conferences. but we also like, you know, there's still some counseling teams where we can say, okay, let's look deeper into that. you know, maybe was there, you know, a counselor that didn't go to the training, that didn't feel comfortable with the script. and then why did some schools have 100% and other schools not? so

we're just trying to get everybody up to at least the practices that we say are for all. and i would say the conference is an area where i would say like, that's for everybody. um, and so there are certain things that we can insist on once we provided the, you know, the training and then holding people accountable and providing the support to make sure that we've done the steps that we feel are going to be effective to get students on track. testing. okay. now it's working. um, yeah, i appreciate i was going to follow up because i appreciate, uh, superintendent, that you mentioned the, um, what's happening in the classroom. and um, i'm curious. i have two questions, but i'll ask one and then say it. my other one, maybe after our colleagues have gone. but my first question is, which i'm not totally clear on from this report. like what's your analysis of why the kids are in the hallways in the first place? right um, again, i also love the

balboa example and i have a special place in my heart for balboa because i used to teach there a long time ago, but, um, but but that doesn't surprise me. like balboa has always been a place where where there's a lot of care for students, and now they've designed a system, um, to address the fact that there's kids in the hallway. so. but what are why are those kids in the hallways in the first place? like, what's happening in classrooms or what's not happening in classrooms? that's producing the problem? i guess that's the part where i don't see so much. here is an analysis of the why the problem is happening. i see a lot of strategies, so i don't know if there's i just love some more clarity on our thinking on that. um, i'll say one thing. and if our balboa colleagues want to share their analysis, they're invited to do so as well. but um, yeah, i mean, there's a, um, you know, definitely a variety of reasons, but one is and i just see this in my in my visits to schools, also is, you know, students, you know, showing up

late to class. right. and then are showing up late to school and then ending up not necessarily getting to class. so i think we heard about the need, um, for focusing on attendance and understanding, like why the kids, maybe why the kid is struggling to get to, uh, get to school on time. and that's where the common practices around the coordinated care team are important. um, but i don't know if we have other other, um, evidence about why students aren't in class. davina had mentioned earlier that in credit recovery, we always ask the students, what has led you to be in this credit recovery course? because we're trying to figure out what has led you there, which might lead to part partially to your answer. most of the time, the students will take personal responsibility. the usually the answer that they give us is something to do with something they did at. and for example, they'll say, i didn't go to class or i, i skipped my class or i didn't do my i didn't turn in my assignments and i got too far behind. and so then we

try to turn that around and then make a program or create a program that will address that. so if you're having trouble with attending class, what can we what what what can we offer you in credit recovery to help with that or or if you're having, um, a difficult time with your assignments, what is it that's keeping you from doing your assignments? and then we try to go back to those is it organizational skills? is it what is it that that you need from us in this program to help you. so can i just follow up on that. so i'm really curious what's our analysis of why it is. what is it about our schools that makes kids go to that response that it's my fault if i don't go to class? if i don't succeed, it's on me. what is it about? because again, if we don't have an analysis of that, how are we going to change it? i agree, and i think, i think that it would be good to go even deeper into that. the answer to that question, because i wasn't trying to say it was the student's fault. no, no, i know you weren't. that's why i'm saying so. that's why i'm saying, like, what's what they say, right? no. exactly. because

there's something culturally about what's happening. right? i think that's a really great insight. so i guess what i'm saying is, how is our plan addressing that insight? and in and thinking about creating schools where kids don't necessarily have that response or have a way of or maybe they do. they say, you know, i was i didn't handle my business today, but i'm going to do it tomorrow, and i know how to who i can go to for help or what. yeah, yeah, yeah. so i guess that's i guess that would be my question is how do we build a plan that takes that reality into account and yeah, so something to build off of that is um, we've been some of our schools have had a lot of success with our grading for equity work, and we want to expand that. and so that's an area where we also look at, you know, is it a specific course that we have a higher dnf rate. is it a specific teacher that students are less successful with that maybe need more professional development or support or, you know, their class size or things like that? and so we're doing a lot of grades, analysis, um, with school sites and also thinking about in the grading for equity

work, um, you know, what are the what's the ability to make things up? what is the ability for reteaching, you know, how are zeros calculated? so we're really taking a deep dive into that. and i think that we're going to have different results as we dive deeper into that work. and i see that as really kind of a promising practice moving forward. um, for us to meet students where they are and make sure that we're, you know, providing everything that we can for them to get their grades up. yeah so as a student, i really appreciate the efforts with using outside resources, not just like bolstering the academics, but also with programs and getting students actually excited about school. i think as a student, i'm very excited about activities offered by the school, not just academics and also just coursework that is relevant to like everyday life. and i think that's one of the check boxes, um, for the, uh, like when we go through walkthroughs, we look for certain things within our curriculum and definitely seeing that relatability to things that

we see every single day is something that students look for. and i think just addressing , um, vice president, um, alexander's question about about why students might not be as engaged within school, i think it's probably that they don't really recognize why is that relevant to them? like, why do they feel like this is so important? like, why is this prom even relevant to like, my success in later life and i think having a curriculum that really fosters, like problem solving and things that are more like, um, diverse, having like more like proms that help them think critically, um, outside of the classroom is definitely going to make students more engaged within the classroom. no question. um we both had the same slide up. so i was thinking you were going to talk about pure resources specifically, but i do want to touch upon it because it is a bright spot in the slideshow. um, so pure resources. and i don't know how many of our high schools and

middle schools, um, and it's periodically is under fire for staffing. um, and i know that that's been an issue recently as well. can you talk a little bit more about how valuable the program is across the district, in the high schools and whether or not it can be further utilized to bolster what we're seeing? um, in our bright spot here, which was specifically actually to commissioner, vice president alexander's point around why students aren't in the classroom. in this slide, it talks about a student peer led mediation, um, where it surfaced that the student felt that the teacher, a teacher, did something that, um, harmed them. and that's why that student wasn't going to class. um, but the mediation itself made that clear surface, that and then the student returns to class. so i just if you could talk a little bit more about the value of the program. yeah, sure. this is hi.

good afternoon. good evening everybody. um so i'm happy to jump in for a moment. i'm not supervising peers this year, but i, i have in the past and very closely with the high school team and i would say peers kind of gets at everything. you've all been talking about here. so for one, one piece and i think what you were speaking about a moment ago was around cultural relevance. relevancy. right. so students see themselves in the curriculum of peers, which i think is critical because i, you know, sometimes i think we think of peers as like a soft course, like it's touchy feely, but it actually is quite rigorous and quite academic. and it really models that idea of warm demander. so i think that that is a key piece to the work. i think the second one is we haven't really talked about it here, but there is no way that we can talk about it shifting. um getting students college and career ready and actually shifting students out of the iwi world. if we don't think about sense of belonging. and so i

know that we talked a lot about sense of belonging when we did the, um, chronic absenteeism. um, but sense of belonging is a key piece. um, when commissioner alexander was asking about, well, why are kids in the hallways? there's a lot of reasons and i think some are around. i don't, as a student, see myself in the curriculum. i feel guilty that i've, that i'm, i'm struggling and maybe that that feels a certain way. i may be disconnected from my, my past experience in schools. um, but the moment i can feel that sense of belonging and a sense of belief in who i am, i, i shine and i thrive. and so i think that peers really builds that. and so like thinking about peer tutoring. right. it's not only saying here i am to help you, but it's also saying i actually have skills to help you. right? i've built those skills myself. and so i'm seeing so it's transactional for both. both students are benefiting from that from that model. and then in terms of peer mediations and i think because of so much of my work is around the violence interruption work, this is critical because if we can't have students feel safe seeing loved and cared for in the

school, they're not going to thrive. and so i think that those kinds of programs that we offer are, um, uh, indispensable in the high school level. thank you, um, for the presentation. and i guess my questions, i'll direct to the superintendent and then if we need to direct to staff to answer, i think the thing i'm most interested is how are these examples, such as balboa park, i guess reflective of sfusd practices and what's in place centrally to support these best practices across the district. and i guess i'm really just kind of wondering, like, are there enough resources to support having these best practices at every site? and i don't really get a sense that, like, we have a plan to kind of expand the scale of these things that we have a plan to, to, to fund these things in a long terme fashion, the way that we currently are doing them. and i

guess i would love, i guess, a little bit more insight on how all these things fit together with some of the changes and reductions that we're making in staffing and how we expect to maintain these best practices, or if we don't, then i guess kind of how how we're relating them to what we are actually doing. yeah um, you know, when i've talked about the fact that as a district, we've adopted these goals for city outcomes, i always say there's nothing revolutionary about these goals. it's the work we're supposed to be doing. but what's different is it brings a level of accountability focused on these areas as a district that we haven't necessarily had in a while. and and, um, that accountability translates to the what we're identifying our key strategies to make a difference. and so a lot of the concepts you're hearing here aren't new to sfusd. so for example, the coordinated care team is not a new structure, but what's new is what you heard devina talking about is having some clear expectations that regardless of the school, you know, here is

what it means to have a follow up. you know, check in with the student or here's how we're going to at our coordinated care team, talk about the students who are off track and so, you know, we're identifying the areas that we think are critical. are the strategies rather that we think are critical. and then and then going and then, you know, that's where we're looking to bring some accountability and support. um, in in ways we haven't before. and so to your question about the support with our school site staffing and budget plans, we are, you know, um, putting in place a foundation to be able to support these kind of activities, like some making sure, you know, every school has counselors and has social workers, and then schools will have some say in terms of if they feel like they need additional, uh, support. what to bring in for that. we are having to make some tough decisions around resources, but we want some of those, like if we're

saying coordinated care teams of practice, we need you know, key practice. we need to make sure we have staff who will actually be on that care team, like a social worker or a nurse. i appreciate that. i guess that just feels a little disconnected to me. i guess from the presentation, because it feels like we're lifting up balboa as a great example and a great model. but i think at the same time, we're saying that that is not a model that we're going to invest in across the district. and commit to kind of having all the things that they find valuable and resourceful as a part of what we do across our district. and i guess i'm wondering why why, why is that? and if and if balboa's model isn't perfect, i guess, why were they the group that you chose to, i guess bring forth? no. so i wasn't clear. so for the coordinated care team was an example of district wide, but then to what divina shared earlier, um, you know, identifying some of those practices that we do want, then want to make sure district wide are happening. so i think the balboa example is one we want to , um, spread. so i mean, victor is a counselor and so the decision on the balboa team of,

you know, i think it's about working smarter around the practices that we want to hone in on. and so the role that he's taken on as a counselor to focus on attendance and to focus on the freshmen in that way is a practice that we can learn from and sort of how counseling team is organized. so i do feel like that model is replicable. um, and i feel like the examples that we pulled were intentional to show things that we can, you know, spread across schools because it's also how you utilize, like, you know, how you utilize the role. no, i appreciate that. i guess what i'm curious about is, is there a plan to actually do that, and is there a structure in place to ensure that happens? like, i understand that we want to do that. we would like to see that. but if there isn't a plan at this point in time, i guess it doesn't seem realistic and maybe it doesn't reflect our real commitment to it. okay yeah, i hear that. i think again, we bring our counselors together, um, to like, this is where we want to, you know, bringing them together to share these practices, just like we did with the off track interviews. so

that would be the space to do that. good evening. great to see you all. thank you so much for the work. you know, i'm going to dive in to some questions. um, for interim goal 3.2 i wanted to ask specifically what do you all see as contributing to being off track? and you had mentioned some of the strategies that you all are going to be working with, um, site leaders to look at the data to support those, the site leaders and their approach. for from your perspective of in addition to what's contributing to us being off track overall, um, on goals 3.2, what are some of the characteristic birx of the schools that you see are off track. julie, can you join us as

well? through the dig into the data so in looking at it by a course analysis, this math is definitely an area where we know we need to focus. and so when we're thinking about off track, that means that they're not getting passing grades. and so that's definitely an area some of the data will definitely change. um, in 10th grade because students, um, are going to be off track if they don't have their pe credits lined up the way they need to do, but then eventually some of those students will get waivers where if they're in pathway programs, they have different requirements. so that so that's like a structural thing that we're not concerned about. and so we're running reports now where we take out the pe data and make sure that we're not like you know, looking at just the pe data as why students off track. but in terms of the course, that's the that would be the course. um, are there other reflections, julie, that you would want to share about kind of the what we notice in the data? um, yeah, i think course, um, i think you mentioned math

and the english is another course that a lot of students are not passing as well. so i think, um, yeah. so i would like to then understand what are the strategies to be able to hone in specifically with those sites that are off track with, with math and language arts, as you've highlighted? yeah um, so we're really looking at, um, and kind of going back to the high school task force and what we learned from that, um, kind of the whole structure of high school and thinking about, um, you know, how the day is structured. so we want to increase credit earning possibilities within the school day. and so that will very much relate to a school's bell schedule. so we're working really closely with our schools to get more alignment around those bell schedules. and really looking at shifting as many schools as possible to seven period day. um, and what that will provide died is open windows to do things like office hours with teachers, building

that time within the contractual day, um, for students to get that level of support because what we have piloted in the past around after school tutoring options has not yielded the success that we would have hoped. students have athletics. they have jobs. they have extracurriculars. and so we know that whatever we do has to be in the school day, um, to provide that support. we also know that in terms of those tier one practices for all students, and especially as we bring new teachers on having common planning time for teachers is going to be a big lever for us so that a new teacher coming in can learn from their more experience colleagues, and they can all collaborate around that. and so, um, and megan will know when we're doing walkthroughs, as you know, we can really see that when you go into like all ninth grade math classes, seeing are they all, you know, kind of in a similar area. are they approaching, how are they approaching? um, the lesson objectives and being able to see that alignment. but without that common planning time, it's hard for us to provide that equity of an experience for all students.

and so we're really investing a lot in, you know, looking at those structures and that will be i think a difference is when we can have that be more in common across school sites. i'm going to move on. thank you. i think overall just want to know and recognize that that goal number three, even when we went into community, you know, the college and career, um, measures was a new, um, measurement. even through the cdc at the state level. so i want to acknowledge and recognize that, um, and i'm going to hone in next on guard rail number 5.3. no surprise. um, around cte pathways, college and career readiness, um, ap courses, dual enrollment. the things that i truly feel is a parent of a high school student and now alumni. um, to eric's

earlier, um, you know, perspective, you know, sharing around the connection to school, being engaged at their school sites. um right now with cte pathways, i believe it's about an estimated 23% of high school students in cte pathways. um, and i'm curious, hearing from our colleagues at balboa, for example, we do hear from our young people just more and more desire being connected to the workforce or preparation for the workforce. and with cte, it is an amazing opportunity because of the three g. um, require elements and just what i've seen the diverse um offerings field trips live, you know, um, just constantly um, being able to introduce to new sectors. so maybe this is a question for the superintend and uh, similar to commissioner. um, bogusz

question. so how are we looking at scaling these programs? and i just want to note the 51% of latinx pi students and black students, i feel, is a low. and we've known now. so through the student monitoring, student outcomes, monitoring that one of the things that is greatly inhibiting us to advancing our students and their success and outcomes is that we have not had the highest expectations of our focal and most vulnerable students. so superintendent, if you can speak to what are the plans of increasing the interim goal 3.3 um, specifically around, for example, through the cte pathways? um yeah. no, the, um, giving the students the

opportunities and the pathways. i mean, you described how powerful that can be. i think, um, what divina was speaking to, you're not seeing yet in this report, but is important is how are we giving those students the opportunity parties to participate in programs like that? whereas we have a school like john o'connell, that's wall to wall pathways or burton that has a good pathways in it that also has like an eight period block schedule day. and so, um, you know, we're going to, you know, this goes into what we shared in the high school task force and this, you know, we're in the phase now of operationalizing some of those recommendations to be able to provide those opportunities. so i guess that's the long winded way to say more to come. but here, you know, but the intentional in our design, we're intentional in thinking through how we're designing the high school experience to build more, build those cte opportunities. in the other thing, i want to say is definitely for our 5.3, our partnerships are key. um, it's the 5.3. the 3.3. no no,

but you mentioned i thought you mentioned. sorry, i might have quoted the wrong one i meant, or the one that's about partnerships, because i know you care about partnerships. right. and that's one where we have an interim measure of students participating in, in internships , like that's where the partnerships are key. and so we just had, um, the our second annual, uh, at city hall, uh, job fair showcase where kids actually can apply for, for internships and sometimes paid jobs. right then and there. um, and that was when i was there. they were targeting our county schools and continuation schools . as for those opportunities and so we're not going to be able to meet that goal without continuing to expand the partnerships. we have to provide internships for our students. so this is just a perspective, i think, that makes sense. and at the same time, um, i've been curious s around how the funding and baseline supports for the

cte, cte pathways happen. so for example, if balboa has two career pathways and we've heard, you know, at the highest level of, um, young people in our students wanting to further engage in workforce and their learning and other comprehensive have maybe six pathways. and those six pathways, though, really struggle to kind of get the full funding. it's kind of up and down from year to year. so if it is a clear interim goal for us, my ask is then how are we going to demonstrate that we're going to increase this and not have it be necessarily kind of left to, um, if the site can write grants, can, you know, scrape what they can? um, because it is, um, such a, i think, opportunity for young people to say, like, these are

the things i'm passionate about or things i'm after going through the cte, i'm realizing that's not, you know, the sector i'm going to explore. and so, um , the other ask around guardrail 5.3 in the high school internship participation, an i've expressed is, um, a really amazing addition enhancement over the years. i know that we've continued to grow the number of students, but i'm also curis around the thinking, um, or strategy, how do these high school internship participation participate in aligned with the school year? um, to our for example, cte pathways is a continuum. um you know, i think those are the those, um, kind of are helpful points as we think about our next, you know, next round of monitoring and, and kind of what i'm hearing the, the theme, um, about, you know,

going, going up a level all in terms of being able to speak to the overall strategies to get to the particularly the, you know, the college and career readiness piece and that we emphasize a lot here. this on track component, the early warning indicators or you know, what's then raising the expectations. um, so again helpful feedback as we continue to think about the next steps in monitoring. yeah. and i just want to be on record of saying that, you know, if we think about raising the percentage of 11th and 12th grade african american black, latinx, native hawaiian pie students to increase in their particularly interim goal, then that will lift up our entire district right? and that's always been our values around equity. so that's something i just really want to be able to hone in on, of how we're going to be increasing that percentage of 11th and 12th graders. going to have to switch from this.

this has been an amazing conversation. thank you all for being here tonight. and thank you for supporting this. um, and it's really, really encouraging to see some of the data you know, it's really lovely to be looking at a report where we're ahead of track. i mean, i can't tell you how exciting that is. so thank you for all the work. um, and just a reminder to everyone early warning indicator is what e-w-e stands for. um, uh , so having a ninth grader who i think fell into the e-w-e category this year, this is, um, very encouraging to see. and seeing him blossom this year has been really fun for me as a parent, too. um i think one of the things i'm really interested in seeing is, as always, a breakdown of the school. you know, we talked about this before, data where what schools are doing well, what need more targeted support, but also the demographics of that as well.

um, you know, is who's who's what is the performance by category. also the e-w-e, there's a lot of things that go into the e-w-e a lot of different metrics. correct. so my question is, have we done a deeper dive into these metrics to understand and where, you know, is it, you know, if we were only measuring one, two and three, you know, our kids would be blowing it out of the out of the water. and they're really struggling with metric number four, you know, i mean, have we done any of that deeper analysis into the e-w-e to understand and where, you know, we talked about the sense of belonging, i think, which was a really, really good point. our freshmen are new to their big schools. right. and so building their sense of belonging through bright spots, like having a fresh coordinator, i'm really, really, really excited to see it. bal then when you talk about ct's, the iep coordinator and the 504 plan coordinators and the ccs coordinators are actually included, you know, that's not

true. at every high school. so that is huge to see. um, so, so, um, and i the question i had that i think others have already asked was really like the resources that go into these ccs teams and ct's and some of the other really bright spots here. how are they reflected in our resource allocation and alignment plans? moving forward to make sure that we do spread these bright spots? um, um, i will stop there. i have a, um, one of the things i would like to just say is what really resonated with me is, is the, um , is the thought about getting to know the students in the hall? why are the students in the hall? what are they running away from and what are they looking for? i thought that was a really beautiful way to put that. um, so thank you for that. and i'll stop there. i wanted to ask one more question. um, i

have one more. what did you know? let's hear let's hear both questions and then maybe i have some general themes and some comments on on commissioner fischer's that. so we'll hear. uh, i'll listen to both and then we'll have final comment. i think i just had some clarifying questions on what was presented. do we have an idea of what percentage of students fall back off track after exiting the early warning indicators, and kind of what does the historical data give us to kind of predict on the progress that we're making and how that will hold up as we move forward. and the other question i had is, are the results equitably distributed amongst all student groups, like is the progress we're seeing in the first school reflective amongst all student groups equitably, or are there big gaps for certain student groups as well as for the goal 32 with us being off track, is that true for all student groups, or are there some student groups who

aren't actually also kind of similarly experiencing that? and so those are kind of the two clarifying questions i'd love to get and really understand of the data and how that is reflective of the strategies that the district is putting forward to solve these issues. um, and my question, my hello, my second question was about, um, back to this question of this issue of bright spots that several of my colleagues have raised. um, i actually had asked a question in the written document that we submitted in advance around, uh, bright spots and it was interesting because because i had been thinking when i wrote the i think i wrote what are examples of success in our high school portfolio, and i probably should have written it more specifically around around meeting the college and career goal, because that's what i was sort of thinking of. but it was interesting that that most of the answers didn't refer to

academics like there was a few answers that had to do with academic achievement. um, but but so i guess that would be maybe a follow up question around, do we do we know that there are spots where we really are achieving excellence? and one of them, for example, was a charter that was listed as an academic success, was a charter high school gateway that says has a 97.5% graduation rate, 51 points above standard on english , 58 points above standard on math. in test results. um, you know, and that's an intentionally small high school with a small schools model. i know we have some of those in the district that directly compete with our charters. um, i also know that financially, not all of our schools can be small schools, but i think that's just another piece i want to raise around, um, bright spots and successful models that we're clear on, kind of what's our theory of action around school structure? the cte pathways my colleagues have mentioned as well, school organization,

classroom instruction, all those things that, um, kind of i feel like this report, a lot of it was around these really important support structures that were around that are around the edges. but there's these other pieces that i think we are thinking about and just would love to hear. next time more about that kind of our, our big picture strategy, uh, around that. okay i think patrick might have some information about the data. commissioner boggess has, and i'll kind of respond to the last few comments. um, as well as the answer to your question around the gaps is that for all of our data, the our focal population is are underperforming in most areas. so like if we do the breakdown and we can get you guys the breakdown, that's the short answer. sizably i wouldn't i wouldn't want i don't want to make a guess. right. but yes, i can just say across the board, in most cases when we look at

data, our focal populations are usually under the sf usd number as a whole. so i think this is, uh, here's just some themes i'm taking away from this, um, to inform we do we do this again in in may, i think is when we come back for college and career readiness. and so one is just around the data. i'm looking at our head of research, planning and accountability. and uh, usually, you know, in many reports that you can kind of double click and see all the breakdowns by schools and then by student groups. and so i think, um, even though these reports are meant to be, you know, five pages and just, you know, show the, the targeted areas, i think i, you know, hearing the comments that come from this and the other reports, i think having that school level information available and accessible will be helpful. secondly, i'm not sure what uh, again, just a reflection. it's maybe because this is the college and career one, uh, progress monitoring report,

where it's the students who've been in our system longer. um, they like just the interconnectedness of our guardrails and some of our other goals to this goal. right. when you hear about math and literacy as being our math and english being two of the roadblock, like we've got to be addressing and we're trying to address that earlier and or when you hear about sense of belonging or, you know, partnerships. so, um, i don't know, i just again, just a noticing that i think might be able to inform some of our progress monitoring as well. and then lastly, um, when thinking about the future for the next report, i am hearing, like, i think like around the coordinated care team, you know, very clear theory of action of what we're doing, like, right. if we have it all schools, teams that are focused on these areas, you know, attendance and like then we will see improvement. uh in that i feel like, yeah, in terms of programmatically at the secondary level, you know, what

is our theory of action around our program models and around the school schedule and some of these things. so i told you more to come. that's more specifically what i think i mean by more to come, uh, including those in in our next monitor report, because those are going to be key factors to achieving college and career readiness. and my reflections prompted more reflections. so i'll defer to the board president of, uh, well, actually, um, so it's seven almost 740 and, um, news flash, i've been texting because aj is stuck in weather and his plane has been grounded and he is now going to a place where he can join us shortly. um, so we do have i'm regardless, i want to start the next session. um, by 745, which, um, but i have something that i would um, so do you have a clarification? okay and then i'm then i'm going to wrap us up and move us on to the. they just didn't answer one

of my questions yet. and so if they could just come back to that one about the off track off the, um, early warning indicator, i think, do you have a response in regards to percentage of students that fall back off track after exiting the early warning indicator? and i now see aj has joined us. i appreciate the reflection on superintendent. thank you very much for that. i just have one additional ask um for the deeper dive into the kts. um, because the beauty of a ct, in my understanding and correct me if i'm wrong, is that a big part of it? is not just what that team can do there, but the brainstorming around. sometimes the additional resources that the team needs to bring in to support students. and so are we captured any of that additional work like our community partners who then come in and provide those additional resources that might not. sometimes they are just resources. sometimes

they're outside resources. but are we capturing the data to in what you know, what is that seats. what is the ct bringing? you know, what resources are they pulling in? what exactly is it that they're doing? i mean, just having people sitting around in a room admiring a problem doesn't fix the problem, right? what are what are they actually doing? what is the end action result that is improving and outcomes? that's really what i'm interested in seeing. okay um, appreciate the conversation. um, i'm just going to take the luxury of wrapping up also some themes i've heard one we haven't directed. we talked about it, but i would love your thoughts as far as coming back. um, i know it's career and college readiness and we're focused on high school, but it's evident from the data that's been put

forward and where our kids are coming into high school, that there's work to be done prior to in their elementary school time, middle school time, and i would be interested in hearing more about how coherency happens and handoffs happen. grade to grade as well as, you know, fifth to sixth, eighth to ninth, um, because cause picking up where in ninth grade to try to remedy what's not happened or has unfortunate happened prior prior is um, is frankly like too late to start doing these interventions. and so i appreciate what the high school team has is doing, doing. um, but i, i superintendent i would love your thoughts on how that could be reflected in future, um, updates and then i did have

a clarification question. um, going back to the earlier comment about graduate nation being different than being career college ready, um, and i wanted to understand i have personally had confusion about how grading is done in, in our, um, in our high schools and, and middle schools. but your high school, so, um, so, so when you spoke about grading for equity, i wanted to better understand that and how it also reflects proficiency and you don't. yeah, i don't know. so we do. a.j. said he's ready in two minutes. so if you want to give some thoughts in two minutes, and then we will, um, move to the next item, i think. i mean, you spoke to that. that's the connection i was making that our monitoring reports from, uh, literacy and math are connected to this. and then i hear what you're asking about the handoffs, and then i don't know, in that minute and a half. davina, if you want to speak to the grading for equity work that's happening. um, we have

some sites that have focused on this with their instructional leaders teams. and so what that work looks like is those department heads are agreeing on that alignment. they're doing book studies, they're doing that research, and they're aligning so that students have a more common experience. um, but we don't have we haven't dived into that work yet at all of our high schools. we have a structure in our assistant principal meetings , um, called an ap learning strand. and so next year we plan to have our assistant principals, a lot of them are overseeing a lot of the kind of instructional work happening at our school sites. um, to go through that as more of a common experience. but we have kind of, you know, a range of schools that are seeing success when they've been able to delve into that with their ilts. so grading for equity is actually standards based on performance, like student academic performance. what it does is it actually removes a lot of the, the, um,

other criteria like effort. so it's actually a specific there's a book and it's a whole methodology right around around grading that is about academic excellence. and and rather than a kid getting, getting graded on points for completion, they get graded on performance and then have usually multiple opportunities to, to improve their performance. so it really is, in my experience, about, uh, academic excellence, even though it's called grading for equity. so it's both it's equity and excellence together. and so how many of our schools have have implemented that now. go ahead. yeah. and i don't think we're yet presenting it as a district wide strategy, but it's definitely something to okay. all right i'll i'll leave it be. that was okay. so now now yeah. now. yeah. now i'm off in the weeds. so thank you so much. really appreciate it. and aj very much appreciate you. so everyone be exceptionally

prepared and prompt and on time. um using your effective goal monitoring sheets and so forth so we can make ag feel like his time was worthwhile. um, wherever he is in the cold, wondering where he's going to sleep tonight. so, um, aj, are you on with us. yes, ma'am. okay all right. so can you hear me? yep we can hear you. and thank you so much for taking the time to be with us. so we are moving on to, um, our second progress monitoring, which is guardrail one effective. oh, yeah. um, lee, just needs a minute. i'll just introduce it. don't you know typing necessary? um okay. what she's doing. um, so, yeah, i will note what lee is doing and why her fingers hurt so much is she is on her second month of doing time monitoring of how the

board uses their time, and that is going to be rotated among board members. um, this is this is lee's last time doing it at our next, um, business official business meeting in march. she'll report out how we did in january, how we did in february, and then i will have an offline discussion with the person who is so lucky to be chosen to take over in march. so she has a template. she's and she will be reporting out with a template as well. and student delegates are welcome to help as well. um, so we're moving on to progress monitoring guardrail number one, effective decision making. and as i mentioned before, this is the first time that we've done this. so this is a baseline discussion on um, really appreciate it. um, staff preparing this this monitoring report. and aj i can continue you doing an introduction or i can pass it off. i'll i'm going to pass it off to doctor wayne.

and then you can make some remarks. uh, thank you. president motamedi. and welcome aj and yeah, we're excited to present our progress monitoring report for guardrail one. um huh . oh, wait. is that mic on? commissioner, can you. oh okay. um, okay. so guardrail one is effective decision making, and it notes the superintendent will not make major decisions without utilizing a process that includes meaningful consultation with the parents, guardians, students and staff who will be impacted by those decisions at the inception. adoption and review. so we actually have had published a monitoring calendar, and we originally intended monitor of guardrail one to be embedded within each major decision as they were brought forward for board action. but we're changing this course based

on lessons learned from the calendar and math decisions and feedback from aj crable about effective progress monitoring and i think we've learned that it's important to focus on the engagement process separately from the decision itself by determining what constitutes an effective community engagement process, we can assess the process independent of the substance of the decisions. so in the report we presented how guardrail one functioned in two of the major decisions that we identified we'd be making this year the two year academic calendar. and the secondary math policy. and we have three interim guardrails that show how we're measuring progress towards this guardrail. and we focused on inclusivity, two way engagement, and the satisfaction of participants with the process . and so in our report, you see a rubric. and since publishing the report and having gone through these first two, um, steps, we've made some revisions to the rubric. but based on the

rubric as it exists, we see, you know, our assessment is we met the standard for innovative implementation of the guardrail, but based on feedback from the board and the community, we recognize that it might be helpful to adjust the standard for what is effective. and we made changes to how we're assessing where we made made changes in two ways one, how we're assessing inclusivity. um, by making sure we're connecting with school sites. we noticed the way the rubric was laid out. it's implied that if you're talking with like, the general populace, that's going to be, you know, people, our students and families and staff. but we want it to be explicit because, as you know, most families, students and staff connect through their schools, not necessarily through like a district wide, uh, event. and then, um, we also made changes to what we mean by two way engagement. so for example, we need to share how the decision was informed by the input. and if the input was not being used,

being explicit about what factors led to the input not being in operated. and so um, you'll see in the progress monitoring report in red, uh, how we've updated the rubric. and so with that i will turn it over to aj to help us have a discussion on this, uh, guardrail. you all already know how to have these conversations. we've been doing it, uh, quite well with your goals. and so i'm only going to describe for you some of the variances when you're doing this with guardrails. so one of those variances is that it's actually not a variance. it's just very easy to do with goals and hard to do with guardrails that what you're assessing in the first part of the monitoring conversation is uh, has the superintenden brought forward a reasonable interpretation version of the guardrail? and have they made of the progress that they anticipate weighted toward that reasonable interpretation of that standard

of reasonableness is not synonymous with this is an interpretation i like, or this is an interpretation i enjoy, or this is the interpretation that i would have made if would a reasonable person have made made this particular interpretation? so that's the first part of the conversation. uh, but as you look at the document, effective goal monitoring and you apply it here, you'll notice that there's a section at the bottom that document about what to do after you've completed goal monitoring . and one of those things is to figure out are we going to vote to accept this or not? but then the next thing is, do we still have the right goal of guardrail, whether or not you like the guardrail that you selected is not in conversation for is not a part of the monitoring conversation. that is actually the monitoring conversation. so first, uh, engage with the guardrail on its current merits, engage with the internal guardrails on the

standard of reviewing unusable. is this something a reasonable person would come up with? uh, and if you're wondering that is by design, a relatively straightforward standard. to me, it's again, because it's not what is the interpretation of i like or what is, is this regional? uh, and if it is, then you proceed and you go through the monitoring conversation and then after the monitoring conversation, if you don't enjoy the interpretation, even though it's reasonable, then you would have a conversation about, have we been clear in our guardrails or not? uh, or is there any calibration, uh, misunderstanding within the board or not? so those are those are secondary conversations after the monitoring. so with that as clarification about what you're doing right now, uh, everything else is pretty much the same is with your goal monitor. it's the job is to be asking questions to get insights

into what is the difference between the values of your community expressed in the guardrail and the reality of taking place in the operations of your school system? that's what your inquiry is about, right? um i'll be here, obviously, to provide support. uh, but again, you all have gotten pretty keen at this. uh, if you need me, i'm here. uh, but otherwise i'll not jump in unless things kind of start to slide off track. not sure. yeah. so maybe, uh. yeah. aj, next time you try speaking, maybe keep the. yeah it was a little bit muffled when you were speaking, but i can, um, ag and i had the opportunity to talk this morning in preparation. so basically in conversation, what, um, what we discussed in his

council was looking at the monitor, the monitoring report that we received. um, and as you've heard him say so many times, is what a reasonable person say, that this is a fair interpret action and, um, to follow. and if so, is the report, um, comprehensive to support it? the, um, the progress put forward to date. and so i will first. okay. so getting out of the of the wonky mode, i want to say thank you very much for putting together a monitoring report for a guardrail, which is more challenging than a goal. um, and we i do think that there it's, it's very clearly put forward as far as the measures how they were measured with examples of how decision making took place, um, and then corrections based

upon feedback. so from my perspective, the first question that aj put forward is, you know, is this is this report, um, professionally put forward, adhere to what a board can reasonably expect out of a monitoring report? absolutely especially as we're established saying the baseline. but i'm seeing discerning looks across the table. and i also want to recognize that as board chair. i have heard that there are um deltas in definition and experience. and so part of what the second i think our longer and deeper conversation will be more definitional around what we see as major decisions and how we define in meaningful consultation, then i also think there's some work to consider around, um, what is community engagement versus what is decision making? um so that

said, you know, i'm, i'm actually not clear if you all wanted to present or if this was if we're diving right into discussion now, my brief introduction was our presentation. so again, we have the rubric. we felt like it in those two areas. um, you know, we met what was noted under the innovative, uh, standards. and our innovative level of the rubric. and so then just wanted to open it for discussion. um so can we share more for the public ? you can share more. do you want me to share more? okay. i don't know how useful it is, but , um, so i guess for the, for the public purposes is going through effective decision making. um, and also knowing that we have many major decisions ahead of us, we consciously decided to step back and look at how we approach effective decision making, how we define major decisions, and

how we define meaningful consultation and so following aj's structure, i think there is probably a shorter conversation to talk about. um, reflections on what you saw here in the report. um, and if the structure of the report is, um, is what you were expecting to see, and if there's ways to i don't know if you have thoughts. um, vice president alexander, on how to frame this. um here. yeah. i mean, yeah, i mean, i think, i think what we're trying to say is let's have the discussion, but let's like, if what we're if as a board, if what we feel is that, um, there's a big disconnect here that it may be on us in not having defined the guardrail clearly enough. right. so the first question is, did did staff interpret just the words here, what we said in a

reasonable way? right. and go about their business of doing the monitoring report? the second question is did we you know, actually express this. and we're clear about our expectations around what meaningful engagement looks like because that's and i'll just be transparent. i mean, in my opinion based on some having talked to my colleagues about this issue, not all, i mean, just a couple people is, um, that it feels like there's a disconnect, right? where it feels like, you know, staff did a really reasonable job based on their interpretation of what meaningful consultation was. and several of us are like, no, that's not anywhere close to what i thought meaningful consultation was, but that's actually on us then as a board to clarify what that what that means and potentially rewrite the guardrail. okay. so that's kind of the framing we want to we wanted to set so that if it's that latter let's let's have that conversation. but if it's but first let's have the conversation around. and is this a reasonable conversation. reasonable interpretation.

that's what aj is trying to say, right? yes of course i think i do a clarifying question. um, so and maybe i should already know the answer to this, but for the implementation rubric for inclusivity, it's no basic or no basic progressive and innovative. who who defines that? i mean, who grades them. yeah no. so we right. it's your own assessment of how you've done for the first two. the third for the first two, it's our assessment and we show evidence. and of what we've done. and then the third one we actually survey participants in the working committees. that's what i thought okay. yeah so that's where when we get in the conversation to what commissioner fisher was asking was i could share more of the evidence of like, here's what we did for math. we had you know, this and that and okay, thank you. thank you for the presentation on staff. i guess my concern is really, i think, highlighted in the first

question from the commissioner's request for information, which makes me i feel like makes me feel like the district is maybe taking this as serious as i would like to see and makes me feel that there is a misinterpretation of, i think what is necessary. um, i think the fact that there is caution against taking a quantitative approach to the topic just makes me really wonder how we're defining representative, and how we are ensuring that the voices that we have coming in are truly representative of our larger school community. looking at the number of people who participated in some of the different engagement opportunities doesn't represent meaningful to me. and i think it doesn't come close when i'm really interested in how the district would kind of define the numbers of engagement is, i think, meaningful, um, kind of knowing the size of our student population and kind of school community as a whole versus kind of that amount of people who actually engage in the

respective processes and understanding that the people who are least likely to participate probably have the least favorable views of the district and what's happening. so, um, maybe that's not accurate. maybe you would have a different assessment of how they would, um, kind of weigh in, but i would just, i guess, love to get a little bit more clarity on, um, why we don't think that the number of people who engage in the process is really relevant to it being meaningful, especially kind of coming from a historical place where lots of communities feel that they have been excluded from being a part because they haven't been able to participate. and so i would love a response to that. um first of all, it any district or any decision, if we were due to time and personnel constraints, we are incapacitated to really do each and every person within the district, you know, counting

students, families, staff and everyone. so therefore, for the representative group, just like we see right here in this round table, that's the representative group of the community, for instance. so that's the representative proportional, uh, that we are looking at. so when we get the results, even getting it from 1486, a family is responding to a survey is a very high number. so the representation i do agree with you. uh, we do need to always cross check. so this time in our demographic mix that we are trying to collect from the general populace, we will ask the questions of local asian gender, race. i guess i understand, but i guess i guess that just doesn't address it to me. i i think for me, it seems reasonable to expect that there would be a target number that we

felt was realistic for us to reach based off our capacity and our skill, our our like resources that we would have to say this is enough. people for us to talk to, to feel like we've talked to enough folks and it feels like the district feels that the representative bodies that we have and that we utilize are enough to fulfill that. and i guess i'm curious what evidence or metrics are you using to gauge that representativeness of the district as a whole to present this to us in a way that you don't need to reach out to more people? yeah, i'm trying to think. i mean, i guess there's different. this is where we're trying to distinguish in terms of reaching out to more people gives us kind of the one way engagement, and we get the information like like as doctor connor said through a survey. um, and then it's in the working committees where there's really the two way engagement and you can have the substantive conversation and so i think we

are saying that if we have the right rep presentation of the working committee and that representation is looking at the data that we got from the broader community, that combination, um, then leads to a decision that reflects that kind of engagement. now i feel like with in terms of lessons learned, we actually didn't put this in our in our, um, rubric. but for the commission, alexander pointed out, like for the calendar conversation, the difference between having sfusd families representing sfusd families versus an outside organization representing svusd families and what i took away from that comment was that we want to make sure we're talking with sfusd families, but i guess we are saying that like if you have the working committee has the right representation and then it's looking at what the feedback is from the general populace. that's the approach. are there any metrics you're using to. yeah. can i just a

follow up? i want to say the same thing, which is i think what commissioner boggess was asking was, are there metrics? i think the question i heard was, are there any metrics of a minimum number of people, all right, or participants say it does. i want to make sure you get your question answered. okay. i was i was going to follow up. make sure you i'm sorry, i'm over here jumping the gun. yeah. i guess it's just a little bit i guess i disagree with your assessment that you don't need to set a number. and i'm curious where is your justification for what you are doing and that the groups that you have are representative of the district as a whole, and that the work that you're doing is because what this seems to me like, just to be fully transparent, this is the easiest possible way to reach this goal and to be on track without doing any work. like, you don't have to go out and build relationships and communities. you don't have to go find new people who are hard to talk to. you talk to people who are already existing in groups, who already are invested in the district. and i think that may have a very different impact on what you actually receive as the information. and i think that's

the concern that i see. and why i feel like this approach isn't reasonable. and i would also ask my fellow commissioners to also view it that way. um, okay. so actually i'm going to i'm going to for just so here is i just want to read read the what what it says. it says the superintendent will make major decisions by utilizing a process that includes meaningful consultation with the parents, guardians, students and staff who will be impacted by those decisions at the inception. adopt and review. and i know, sorry if you can give me a minute so how i've been in thinking about this is i think what the board was trying to say is they want decision making to be closest to the student. right. and to those who know the students, i think that's their was intentional parents, guardian students and staff and

school. i think school site staff is what is implicit, although it's not stated in there. um, and so what i have been because i have i share the same kinds of frustration that have just been voiced and what i've been trying to think about is how how what do we want to see? okay. so we've seen a lot of like what we don't want to see or ways that we think we could improve. we've identified deltas all over the place. and so the point of this conversation is what do we want to see? and frankly, i actually step back and i thought of two really positive processes that i saw this district go through. and frankly, the board go through. and the first was um, the super intendent search and when we had the superintendent search, um, consultant come in and do a leadership profile report with me, um, that went directly to the people who know the students the most and

families, staff, um, and those were done in, in um, two way conversations did not involve working groups in to a great extent that i was aware of. i mean, certainly you needed to rely on people to know who to go out to and so forth. but um, as an advisory committee member, i was asked to participate as a parent. i was asked to participate. and furthermore, before any decisions were made, there was a report that was produced that allowed me to see my own perspective reflective, but also to learn about other's perspective as well and to understand more broadly the complexity of the district. um, and then from that, we went through a superintendent search and the criteria was informed by this community input and so when we hired doctor wayne, he was reflective of the community's values. um, and that fed into

where we the work that we were able to do with vision, values, goals and guardrails, which is my second example, going through the vision values, goals and guardrails as this board went out to community, where community is at school sites throughout the district, i don't recall any time we asked people to come to 555 to tell us about goals and guardrails, although here in the boardroom we did put them out publicly and discussed them publicly before we adopted them. um, and our final and we put them out as a draft form. um, got input prior prior to making a final decision on. and so this is i think we have demonstrated and in doing so, when we put forward the vision, values, goals and guardrails, i don't recall hearing people say where what, what are these like what you know and what room. um, we had we had made ourselves available, including, um,

virtually and so forth. so i and being in those, you know, being a parent who was asked to participate in that leadership profile process was one of the first times i ever felt connected to the district beyond my own school. and and those rooms were full. they were full. they were well attended. um and i, you know, even with the vbg, i think, you know, some of them would have liked to have seen more attendance. but, um, really valuable conversation lessons took place. so this is just me focusing on what i would like to see more of. and that's not to say that we don't need working groups or that working groups don't have value. um, but it is to say like, i would like to see the district believe leave that

the district has a community body that they are present and available, um, to communicate with. and the thing is, it's different than decision making. when i had those or, you know, and i'm speaking just for myself. but when i had these conversations and gave my input, i did not expect they would hire the superintend that i would hire. um, but i did expect that there would be some reflection. and i saw that and went anyway. so this is my long preamble just to pivot to a more positive way of how we can improve, of, um, how this board has communicated this guardrail, which i think is a very important one. so it can support staff and doing, um, you know, the work that we're trying to direct them to say. so i think that's been like seven minutes. i'm sure aj has lots of feedback about what i just did. so let me try to frame where we are and where we're going, and

then pass it to whoever wants to speak next. so commissioner boggess is saying that there is a minimum number of people who must be consulted for it to be reasonable, right? like as one factor for that, he doesn't agree with the staff. and i agree with him as well, that i think it's. but but beside that, i think what we're what we're suggesting is let's since it seems like there's some disconnect here, let's pivot to what do we really want this guardrail to say. so one factor is it has is there has to be some minimum, um, number of people for it to be considered reasonable. uh, president motamedi mentioned two specific examples, the superintendent report and the vision values, goals and guardrails that are were examples of what she thought were good processes. one thing she mentioned was, for example, a report was produced reflecting the range of views expressed so that everybody was able to feel heard. and there were probably other factors in there. so let's try to begin teasing out what it is that we're looking for as good community, meaningful community, meaningful consultation. excuse me. and then maybe we can think about rewriting this if we need

to. in a way that's more helpful to staff. so that they understand what our expectations is. i would like to echo the fact that, like having this guardrail and actually putting all of that, like this is the first time any of this has been put in writing. and we're having like to be sitting here as a board and to be talking about what is in effective decision making and i mean, like this is huge. um, and, and i really appreciate the, the, the questions that commissioner boggess had had raised initially. um, i think my overarching question here is, is so to take a step back, you know, to go back to aj's original question is this a regional interpretation of the guardrail? and keep in mind, i wasn't sitting around this table when this guardrail was put in place, but but for me, the

overarching point of this guardrail is to make sure that we, as you said, president motamedi, that we value the community, that the community is present and responsive to the needs of our students. you know that that the community feels like they're included. right? and so, to me, i think that this effective decision making is part of it. what i have asked separately in a lot of different places is what is our overarching community engagement strategic plan. that's where i mean, the way nothing about the way that community engagement has been. your two examples that you gave were beautiful examples and to your point, rita, that took a lot of effort to do that. a hercule, an amount of effort to do those two projects. um and i can say as a past advisory committee chair, when i was chair of the cac, i was a co-chair. my co-chair was a stay

at home mom. i had a very flexible sales job. and the way that the two of us felt like we were engaged and we were representing was, as i think i've given the example where i ended up my calendar and like one month i was in 30 hours of day time meetings as a parent representing that cac voice that is not sustainable for any parent representative or any family engaged group. to be doing that to commissioner. bogus point, you know that that takes a certain level of. the not not all of our families can do that and not and none of our families should be expected to volunteer that amount of time to provide feedback on behalf of families. so for me, that my frame on this is how are we getting that level of feedback. and a lot of that informs my work here today on the board, too, and makes me a stronger commissioner because i've been

there. but how is this guardrail and the work we're doing actually, how is. i'm in too many places because i'm on too many. can i maybe can i help with, uh, let me try it first. let me try it first. so so i was the cac chair. we also at the district level have the lcap task force. we had the high school task force. we have the fcac, the cboc. we now have a district advisory committee. we have the various different, um, you know, the dlac, the we have all of our different groups representing others, a pac matua pac, all these. we have our school site councils, we have our ptas, our toes. we have all these mechanisms for families to potentially provide feedback. and it's all complete. it feels completely siloed. there's nothing at the school site that necessarily it there's no

strategic overarching plan in how all of this is taken and what we do with any of this data. and we really struggle with how we reflect it back. and we when we do the board community listening sessions, um, we have in some of them where i've been, we've had six people and they're the same six people that show up at every single meeting, some of them who are paid to be there by their organizations, rather than the to your point, commissioner boggess, the families we don't hear from. um, so this is more defining the problem as i see it, than providing a proactive solution to the problem. but to me, in order to have an effective guardrail, i we'll get to the point of are we clear enough about our guardrail later? but i'm not sure that the guardrail, the way it's written and the rubric as we have it defined is really getting to that overarching issue of how are we strategically engaging

with families? and this is when we talk about the big overarching issues. what about the family? that's struggling at their school and doesn't really have an engagement mechanism other than to send us email after email after email as a board? right. these are so these are some of the issues that have been rattling around in my brain that i'm hoping this guardrail will eventually address. can i ask a. no. so i appreciate that. so i thank you for sharing the examples. and so let me ask the clarifying question. so let me like state what i'm hearing. so basically we what we have said and i appreciate the language aj has given us is we have said we have 50,000 families and we have particular groups of students that we want to make sure we're hearing from our groups of families who represent students. we want to make sure we're hearing from. so we think it's actually not reasonable to try to talk to 50,000 students and their their families. we need to talk to representatives, and we

have structures in the district that identify representatives from those communities. so we think it's reasonable to form a committee that has some of those leaders from those those parent groups that will reflect the students. we want to connect with. and then what you're saying is actually, that's not reasonable, because what the result has been is either it really requires that parent leader to take on too big of a burden to represent everybody, which is not what we should be asking parent leaders and or we're hearing from the same people. and it's just it's a mechanism that doesn't get you out enough into the community. so if i'm seeing nods, if i understood that correctly, my question would be, okay, because you're right in in the two examples you gave, there wasn't a i don't i didn't think i hear you said i heard you say like we're using the advisory committees as the way to get make sure some groups are represented. and so i guess i'm, you know, putting that out there like, okay, so if we go with maybe more of the quantitative

approach or um, you know, we're not relying on a working committee of representatives and placing too much on them. how do we make sure then we're connecting with those, those groups that we want to, you know, connect with. jenny's going to give us an answer. commissioner lamb will give us the answer. well, considering that i was deep in the throes of the two examples that commissioner martone gave, um, i think realistically and i appreciate superintendent, you trying to give us a little bit of a container from my perspective, is that we're going to need to be really clear about that two way engagement, because while i support what a core committee, we also need to ensure that we build in mechanisms where a parent or family staff member has five

minutes to fill out a survey. so the reason why i think we were successful, both in the superintendent search and the vbg, was that we simultaneously what we designed for it. first of all, we designed for a pretty comprehensive to, um, two way engagements. we designed for, um, leveraging all of our various. for example, cacks. that is why we had ended up between 8 to 9000 pieces of community evidence for vbg and a.j. and his team acknowledged that they had never seen. i've worked with another district in the country with the number of community evidence because of the dozen cacs that we had in place that had already we looked and examined their reports, let's say, over the last two years. so that's one aspect of, i would say to name around, um,

how where we want to put it within the rubric another. so that's one aspect. and the other aspect that we've heard, and i just finished up a nine month process of, of um, communications when it comes to parents with families from birth through five. and we've had some really amazing learnings there that realistically, not one size fits all when we communicate with our families. and we know that. so that is why the surveys is that is why interviews, the interviews has actually been a really key, um, aspect in this nine month process that that the department underwent. so i'm curious because that may not necessarily have been a strategy we've had in the past. um, interviews we did perhaps, um, with state leaders through the superintendent search. that's why we had over, what, 63 of those, um, of those, um,

interviews or kind of focus groups. so i guess all to say is, um, strategies of what i think is working or what needs to be able to, um, is not only limited to the core committee, i think it's represented, i've sure at the same time, um, i do think we want to be able to engage with families or staff and students. um, that may engage through a different type of vehicle. why you go to commissioner boggess? i just so what i hear you saying is that because i was asking the question, what role does the core committee is? you're saying you really can draw from their work rather than give them more work. maybe it's another way to say it, right? uh, because they the reports you looked at, right? we just had an amazing i mean, this was from ali, but that was definitely informed with, you know, working with aipac. like, we can draw from those things as evidence. their

evidence of what our community wants because they've shared with us and at times then have said we haven't used it in any ways. okay, okay. i think just to kind of go back around around the representative groups and kind of what data or information is kind of guiding the district and kind of utilizing those groups to represent the broader community. um, so if there are any metrics or anything that you use to gauge that, i'd be interested to hear that. but i'm also interested, since you've taken over superintendent, what is changed structurally to support these representative groups, to gather input from their broader community? and like what is in place to really support kind of that chain of information, of whether it's ali , whether it's the speakak like what is in place from the district side to support them, to kind of carry that weight of being a representative group. and for us to have the confidence that they're able to be in communication community with folks enough across the district to really fulfill that for us. i guess i'm really just

trying to get to understand that this is a decision that you made based off what you feel like is most reasonable. what is your how do you gauge the whether or not it's working effectively or not, versus just the fact that these groups exist means that these things work effectively and are able to kind of meet the obligations and commitments that we have that have been kind of set by this guardrail. so yeah. and i'm looking at, uh, uh, christina wong too, like when i think about the calendar committee. right. so that had representative from each of the other core committees. how if, if anyway and if we didn't, that's fine too, because we're having the conversation about what we've done, how, if any like so you know, we you know, we had representatives, i think from aipac and from speakak on that committee. how did did we set any expectations, like what did we do to say, like, you need to get this. here's what it means to represent that group. i think that's what you're asking. and here's here's how we're supporting you in representing that group. and again, if this is to set the baseline so set a

shared understanding. so what did we do. um from the very beginning we did orient every member of the community engagement committee, particularly for the academic calendar. and we made it clear that this was a new process and that their charge as part of this committee was to learn about the process, but also to go back to their community to gather input. um they were each each of them also were instrumental in actually increasing the number of surveys that we were able to provide to the community. they reached out, for example, i'm not going to name names, but there there were like key organizations that actually made an effort to send it out to their membership, encourage people to complete the survey. um, and then for those that weren't even they were not able to consistently come. we also held virtual sessions and also encouraged them to complete the survey as well. but it was always very clear that they represented, um, the interests

that they were advocating for on behalf of the parent advisory committee that they represented, um, and that you know, we also had the district has a joint advisory committee meeting that meets monthly as well. and so a lot of information was shared. all of the staff liaisons and even some parents are part of that meeting. and that information was shared there as well. yes. okay. yeah so i was just wondering, like given the time and efforts of these parents and students and representatives of a community coming together to give recommendations, actions, i was just wondering if there's a structure with following up with the recommendations and seeing if their efforts have been like if there were any results that yielded. um, i was just wondering if there's any like follow up emails or any like

processes so that they can see if there's any like, results from the recommendations. so we did do the satisfaction survey of the participants on the committee. right. um, so that that's, that's, uh, how we followed up with the in these two examples. um, but that was for the people who participated in the core committees. i mean, so i guess and i'll just i want to i'll ask commissioner bogus hearing that response and does that make you again? does that make it seem like, oh, okay. that's reasonable. like they asked the families to the representatives on the committee to we made it clear you were supposed to represent that group. and you help us get input. does that then indicate enough like, oh, okay, that group is represented. it's not for me. okay. so then what would be what would be different? so that's where i think for i can

just turn this on. okay. um okay. i am i am wanting to i know that okay. i'm going to say this is the first time we've ever talked about this guardrail. it's also the first time we've ever talked about community engagement. and i do want to draw a distinction between the two, because this guardrail is effective decision making for major decisions, which which is related to but different than a community engagement process or how we handle parent concerns, burns, or questions about the district, things like that. so for the purposes of this conversation action, i'm hoping that we can do two things. one is really focus on when we're thinking about major decisions, because what like the examples that commissioner lamb and myself gave are not something we're going to do on the daily for any thing that comes, you know, just any minor thing that comes up. and then also, i do think that there is a lot of valuable

structure that's been put forward in this monitoring report. that would be good to highlight what was is helpful to see even if it wasn't necessarily done through, you know, the particular lens or frame. so um, i just so i would like to spend some time there, but do you have a burning question there, lee. yeah, just so the overarching point that i'm trying to make is that this guardrail doesn't go far enough to do what we need to do as a district. that's the point i'm trying to make is that if we are only putting guardrails around 2 or 3 major decisions that we're making a year, um, then i don't think that that's really going to drive student like, for example, we have a huge we have two new curricular, um, math and reading curriculums that are going to be implemented this next year. and i think we actually in the reading curriculum adoption and in the

piloting, we have done a great job of including some of our focal population families, you know, with the sped, caac, the apac mature pack that like we've had the folks there. so i think we should give credit where credit is due. i would also like to see us have a system in place to make sure that the engagement we're doing, um, and the feedback we're getting from families, i mean, if i were writing this as an iep, you know, and i were the advocate for our district and this was an iep goal around, i mean, only monitoring twice two major decisions isn't i mean, that's in my mind. that's not sufficient. first of all. so um, and to go back to the surveys, i just i'm, i'm, i'm, i have to admit i am very, very skeptical here around this and saying that we're using survey data to i mean, i heard after the calendar

committee, for example, that, you know, the way that the, the survey for the calendar committee was written or the some people found those questions very confusing. right. and so making sure that you know, in a lot of these cases, making sure that we've piloted our surveys with our families before we send it out into community to make, you know, making sure that we've we've vetted some of this stuff, that we've got a core constituent that's involved, you know, like the joint advisories, as you mentioned, like making sure that i mean, i'm getting too far into the weeds. i know, um, i'm happy to hand it over, but yeah, just my overarching this guardrail doesn't go far enough. thank you. um, i, i, um, president muhammadu, thank you for clarifying that we're sort of because i did i leaned over to vice president alexander. i was like, i'm are we talking about decision making, effective

decision making, or are we talking about like, what we want our community engagement process to look like? and i agree, they are related. but, um, coming back to this, i guess if i can just share one, maybe two things in terms of some feedback, it seems like there is a question slash discomfort with what constitutes a major decision. first of all, and i know here in this list, like there are these one two, there's five listed here. and so is the idea that every year there's a certain number of that's listed out at the beginning of the year. and like we're all on board is this, you know, the superinten ant and team saying these are the major decisions. i think one of the issues that comes up is might be that there's not consensus about what constitutes or doesn't constitute a major decision. obviously, every thing cannot be a major decision like it just can't. so where what what is one, what isn't one? and what happens when there is a difference of opinion? i think that's one thing that would be

really helpful to be if it could be sorted out, or even if we understand what the process is to identify. um, and then the other thing that i, i think that one of the things that i actually found really useful in the reporting on the academic calendar, um, the report that we got was all of the steps that have been taken. i thought that was so helpful. and so i'm wondering if one of the measures, i don't know if this is a measure, but like there was transparency there. like i understood what was done so i could see, you know, or maybe if we're talking about vr, like we knew what we had done, you could see what the inclusivity you could see the two way engagement. i don't know that we saw the satisfaction in that moment, but is there a way where any time we're presenting on, on, um, these decisions and how they're made, whether there's a sort of some type of bucket for, for or you all can just make sure that we know what has gone into the decisions, because i think that is really, really helpful for a lot of us. so i think transparency is sort of like baked in there, but maybe

raising it up a little bit and having it be more explicit. can i ask a question about that? so i want to i want to come back to the, um, the monitoring report and, and this issue that's been raised around the, the not wanting to measure the quantitative impact. so in the monitoring report, it says we define community as the parents, student parents guardians, students and staff who will be impacted by major decisions of sfusd. i think that's i think that's a great definition. and so i guess i'm just curious to hear more. and i also want to say i really appreciate, um, what you all said around representation. that makes sense to me as a theory of, of action. right? so that it i hear that quite. um that seems quite reasonable. i think what i'm missing is why not met like like why not have some measurement of community as opposed to

participants? it felt like it like we went very quickly to the participant s were the ones we care about. you know, we surveyed them, um, we engage with them. so we're going to see how they felt. um, but, but but why not have some metric? i guess i'm curious around community, whether it's number of participants or survey of the people in the community or something to understand. because if community is all those people , how do we know if they feel meaningfully consulted or not? does that my question? i feel like i'm not saying this very clearly. it does make sense. can you explain more the difference between participants? well, you i'm using your definition and may tell me if i'm not doing it right, but i was i understood from the monitoring report that you defined community as on page five. as i mean, it says community are the parents, guardians, students and staff who will be impacted by major decisions. so that could be

50,000 people, right? it could be the calendar. it was right. 50,000 people literally are impacted by that decision. i agree, you can't talk to every single one of them. so i'm not and i don't think i don't think that's what commissioner bogus was saying either. right. but but i think we i think our question was sort of like, well, is there no minimum number like what if you talk to 250 of them? what if you talk to 200? would that be okay? now we did talk to 1400. so i think our question was, well what's the i guess my question was what's a reasonable number of them to be able to say, oh, we did consult. and the answer we got was, well, there's no you can't quantify that. so i'm just curious why not? i'd like to hear more about that. well, i'm going to say, as i'm hearing you talking, here's here's what i'm hearing, i think one. and in the examples you're giving, we want multiple ways days. we are collecting input. and so i heard, you know, there's the survey but there were interviews there was, you know, the meetings. and so maybe among those it's um, you know,

having some targets would be appropriate. right. so i so re2 is not thinking so, but like, no , but if we're doing so i did a quick look. you know you got 2900 surveys from the superintendents search, right? we got about 14. what did we say? 1400 1480 from i mean, so, so, uh, you know, so for a survey, um, and, you know, do we want to say you need to at least get 1000? is that right? reasonable. and what does that get us? you know, and then i'm thinking statistically does that is 1000 representative enough to say it's representative i don't know. that's but but maybe in looking at the different areas what's that. and is it from the people. well yeah. and that so she's saying is it from the people you want to hear from. and that's my question too. so does it matter like how many of how many parents, how many students from which schools? again, i'm not i don't think it's our role as a board to

answer those questions. i'm just curious why not answer them? like why not have a standard around there? that's i guess, what i'm curious. so the main thing was that there were four different approaches used. so some more intensive, some like a general touch. so within the four approaches there was a representative group within each approach. um, and representing a whole body of people which we've not even counted. but i'm still happy that, you know, you gave us two exemplars because now what i can do is i'll be happy to work with christina and do like an along side to say what were some of the processes and numbers that were followed in your two exemplars, and what were the numbers that we had, and what's the discrepancy so that we can come up with a number? if those two are your exemplars, i'd be happy to put them side by side and look at

the numbers exactly. well, i want to be clear. i'm not making a recommendation. i was literally just asking no, but i was literally just asking a question. trying to understand your all's. you're all thinking on this question because i don't i'm not sure whether and don't take it as a recommendation because i don't know where the board's at yet. i think this is, as president itami said, this is really the first conversation we've had about this. so i think we also need to we need to slow down. don't take please don't take things that were individual commissioners are saying as recommendations, because we really need to think this through. and this isn't a this is a real conversation, a real time conversation that's happening. so while you hand it to mark, so can you explain a little bit more then because you said you had we had four exemplars just getting to the answer to the question and with these different groups, right. so what were the groups that you were referring to? i think you're referring to the core committee, which were the, um, the individuals that made the final recommendation. right. um, and then depending on which project we had, focus groups or

community engagement committees, um, and then there were some interviews that were conducted as well as we went through the process, we realized we really need to touch base with certain individuals to that were impacted by that particular outcome. and so in partner interviews were conducted. um, and then for the calendar, we did do a district wide survey that was another touch point, um, for the community. i'm sorry for the algebra one project. we did a huge town hall and so that was the touch point for the general populace. so it's like the difference was that is that for yes, for okay. yeah. so yeah. and so then why not you know, don't need to answer this now. we'll go to mark. but i think the question is still outstanding. why not quantify why what you we got in each one of those. yeah. and again literally a question it wasn't. no i know i know i'm trying to make sure we're. yeah just you can hear us thinking this. yeah. like it's not like we're. yeah

well it still gets back to the point always that, you know, commissioner fisher was alluding to when she said, who are we reaching the voices of? so even with the exemplars, you know, when we met in person with people, we were not meeting reps tentatively with families of color, of any. you know, we were over represented with families that are there more over the time than others. that's just the reality in those live participatory, you know, conversations in general. that's what's happened, in my view. and so it's always to me, how can we actually reach the families and the students who are going to be affected by the decisions that we're making in a meaningful way, so that their voices are really heard? and even if they're they feel like they're heard, they're not necessarily going to get what they want, obviously. but we need to make sure that we're actually reaching to those families in the percentages that we're reaching other families and i don't think we've done a good job of that. i don't think any

major urban district has. um, but to me, that's the core issue in this process, real quick of a counterexample or good, i wanted to give real quick, give a good counter example because in the i was in one of the sessions, i'm pretty sure it was for vision value schools and guardrails, not for super. yeah. it was. it was the vision values, goals and guardrails in the bay view that was organized by a pac that was really strong and it wasn't it weren't i don't remember exactly how many people were there, but there was a real focus on the needs of black students. and it and it provided a space for community folks to really talk that through in a meaningful way . and i. doesn't like me. i saw that being reflected in the report. and again, it may not be that no, no, no, i agree, but i'm saying i think it was an example. there was targeted outreach done with one of our with a group that had connections in the community. it was held in the bay view and

there was other folks there too. there were some white parents. there was some asian parents, but the majority of parents were black. so there was like there was a diversity of viewpoints and topics, but but the needs of black students were centered because there were so many black families there. and it was, i thought, a real and important conversation and example and so i think but it was very intentional, clearly. right. so i think that's and maybe this year you talked about this commissioner lamb in terms of the intentionality of how that process was designed. and so i'm wondering also if we can then again name what those things were, were that that we think are high quality features. i guess for me, what what's still is missing is i think, enough intentionality in real clarity around how we're measuring things, how we're gauging things. what is acceptable is us . for us as a district, um, to

kind of move forward. it feels like a lot of the things that we're putting forward are based off of vibe, you know what i mean? like our trust that these groups are representative, that they have capacity to go out in community and kind of talk to folks. um, and i would say, i do believe that our advisory committees are representative and do a good job of representing the needs of our communities. i just don't know that we have a way of verifying that. and if we are relying on that as our primary method to kind of reach out to folks, it doesn't feel adequate enough for me. it doesn't feel like a real serious commitment to having meaningful engagement unless we are sure that these groups have the ability to reach out into that larger population and have a significant engagement opportunity with folks. um, so even if everything that they're saying is right, their ability to go out and reach folks and interact with folks seems to be very necessary for us to successfully accomplish what we're trying to do. if we don't feel that it's important to have numbers representing that, um,

from us as a starting point. and i think for me, it's hard to envision how we consider ourselves being, i think, really aggressive in tackling some of the issues we've had around lack of, um, engagement around major decisions. if we don't have numbers and standards that were set in ourselves to and really set in a bar of what we feel like engagement should be, i'm really happy to hear about what we are doing, but none of it seems to me to be based off data and what we feel needs to be put in place. and i think my question to the superintendent is, is there additional clarity you feel like you can provide to staff because i would rather have us not have to change the goal and to really be able to refine it, because it did feel clear enough to me and i don't. and i think i would just love to see more info about the data that you're using to gauge your analysis, and why you feel that it will be successful. understanding the conditions that make that the best option.

but i guess i don't see that matching up with my mind with best practices for the results that we want to see and so i guess any way that you could address that would be super helpful to get a better understanding? yeah, i'm looking at figure figure five on page eight. i mean, so i hear what you're you know, i hear what you're saying about the quantitative right piece. so just when thinking about again kind of what to expect and to show we're measuring the guardrail and meeting those expectations. figure five gives a visual of like here was who was on the committee for the calendar okay. and you know so you're like so you see hopefully you see the intentionality of identifying different groups that we want to make sure we were hearing from. so your question is, you know, if we have dlac on there, how do we know that dlac was dlac was representing our multilingual learners? right. well if they're

doing that, like there's a touch point with the larger community and like if communities come out of this and feel that they haven't been heard, they haven't been seen, then i guess what would be the district's response to that? because i do think that there were groups who were involved or listed in this group for the calendar process, who didn't feel that they were adequately represented, noted or heard or really able to participate in that process. okay and see. um, yeah. and that's where i feel like we need to get what's the reasonable expectation? because if it's that somebody comes out and feels like they haven't been heard, heard, you know, that seems almost too, um, unreasonable. all right. but i hear your point. i can't say for sure. multilingual you know, like the way you're saying it is, i can't report to you that. yes dlac represented multilingual families in a way where they all feel heard. and that's maybe why you don't quantify it. because i don't

know how i could say all could be here. we aren't defining what that standard is for anybody. yeah, right. okay. i'm going to. yeah because you're also not on a mic and there's people listening it. okay so i am i am watching time. i don't think we're going to resolve this tonight. i and i also i'm just going to be fully transparent that i expected this to be a messy conversation. i didn't know how to make it and messy because it's the first time we've had this conversation. i also want to say i, i want to say the reason, too, that we've been able to have this conversation is because this was actually a really well written monitoring report, provided a lot of data and examples and specificity about you know, who was talked to, how many, what type, what was reviewed. so i want to say thank you. and i know you've taken your evening to be with us and mostly have listened to us talk back and forth. so i want to be appreciative of the work that went into this. i really want to emphasize that. i think what you're observing is the fact that you know, the lack of the

lack of clarity from the board, then affects your ability to be successful in these conversations. so the question then, um, and i actually don't need an answer to it, but when i look at the rubric is the innovative implementation all the way through the question i have is, how do we know that if we if we complete innovative implement action all the way through, who does this rubric actually provide a definition that we can feel confident that we've made an effective decision on, and we've had meaningful community engagement and i think the modifications that have been made get us there. so rather than push on staff further, because lord knows you've heard a lot from us on this topic. um, one of the things that i did was i stepped back and i just would like some board feedback as we get close to wrapping up. so for me, um, the, the two three

things that were not clear in this were the definition of major decisions, what meaningful , um, community, uh, or meaningful consultation is. and also the difference between consultation and a decision. so can i just read like some wordsmithing i did and see if this feels at all like there's progress being made, in which case, you know, because i think board leadership will go back and work with the superintendent and think about what to do with this conversation and how to improve it, because we've got a lot of major decisions coming up. um, or some a couple significant ones. so the superintendent will not make decisions that affect 25% of students or 25% of schools, without utilizing a process that includes engagement of parents, guardians, students and staff who will be impacted by those decisions through meetings at school sites, town halls, surveys, and student connected

groups and or community committees. at the inception, adoption and review a summary of community engagement opportunities, participation rates and feedback and findings will be made publicly available prior to proceeding with decision making. so i don't know if this helps to advance or if it just gets things more messy and either way. but, um, you know, in okay, so yeah, aj yes, please. so before you all go down the path of talking about what's next, you all need to address the monitoring report before you on its own merits. and so the next step of the conversation is, is the board going to accept or not accept the monitoring report as the board considers this a reasonable interpretation of the existing guardrail and it provides evidence of that invitation, or it is not the reasonable interpretation is to

not provide evidence of that interpretation. but the board needs to render judgment on this. either you accept the monitoring report or you do not. so that will be a first time we do that as a norm. we haven't we haven't parsed. just so you're aware, we haven't passed that as a board. um, as part of our monitoring report, conversations . but aj, can you explain? so if they accept it what happens? and if they don't accept it, what happens maybe what's the difference? they accepted that. they're saying that it is a reasonable interpretation of the guardrails that exist, and that it provides the necessary information on what's expected in a monitoring report. if they don't accept it, they're saying either is lacking the information that a monitoring report requires or is, uh, unreasonable. interpret action. first of all, we don't do action at these meetings. no, no, but

yeah, um, well, i think what the reason why i'm interested in that assessment, because where you went to, i think was revising the guardrail. so that's but but i think he's having us go back for a second because just to again, i don't think it needs to be an action. but on the record like, okay, if you're saying it's not reasonable, then he gave there's two ways to proceed. there's either revise the guardrail or or i revise my understanding of how i'm interpreting the guardrail to operationalize it into interim guardrails. right because that's that's the thing. and so i feel like you know, maybe, you know, if you if you go down the road of you're not accepting it or however you want to go, like that's where i feel like you've given some insights into how we can have what we agree is a reasonable interpretation in. but if it's

not accurate, okay. the job of the board in this moment is not to determine whether they like your interpretations or not. and it's certainly not to provide you with advising on what your interpretation should be. the job of the board at this moment is to take the action of either accepting it or not accepting it. to accept it is to suggest that what you have provided is a reasonable interpretation of their existing guardrail, and to provide the expected information in a monitoring form to not accept it is to say that they believe that it's not a reasonable interpretation in the whole, or that you did not provide the information. an expected in a monitoring report. it means nothing else except for those things separate. and apart from that, the board would then be eligible to have a conversation about what, if any, action it wants to take. but that is not part and parcel of this conversation. this is lisa.

um can we i guess i because i understand that there may be a desire to edit and adjust the guardrail. maybe, but it seems like that's not it's not mutually exclusive. i could say as an individual that i accept this as a reasonable interpretation. and because and i think we might need some clarification around the actual wording of the guardrail, is that completely accurate? okay. yes okay. i'm so is that is that where you're at? that's where i'm at i just yep. yeah so we can't we're not taking action like in a vote. but i think the board can provide that guidance as um commissioner whiteman ward just did. so if others want to share where you're at, i think i agree. i'll just say i think i, i agree, i think the staff has done, um, a reasonable job of

interpreting the guardrail. and i think we weren't explicit enough in saying what we meant by meaningful consultation. and so i would say support, i would i would say that i would accept this and support some sort of revision to the guardrail that along the line. i don't know if along the lines of the type thing that president muhammad was talking about in order to clarify what we mean by meaningful engagement and what constitutes a major decision. okay i can't capture what everyone is saying and type and think on the fly at the same time. i'm i'm so, um, uh, i again, appreciate this report. like has been said, this is a first. um, and i would agree, um, that there isn't the specificity, um, that i would expect from a monitoring report. i agree with the comment about

needing more data. um, and better defining, um, some of the metrics. um, um, and i also appreciate where you were starting to go with, with better defining the guardrail as well. president muhammad. so i will leave it at that. so as it is, no, i would not um, i think we do need more clarification. um, and i would say this is a good start at a first report, but i wouldn't accept this as a full monitoring of what we expect from guardrail one. you do or you don't agree with them. i was typing, okay. um, yeah. yeah, i will. um, third give a third to, uh, commissioner weissman ward and vice president alexander for. i think for now, um, the committees i feel like, are a

good representation of our efforts to incorporate more voices within decision making or within advising. um, there are improvements that need to be made with more inclusive, um, more inclusive voices within our committees. and within consulting. but for now, i agree that it is a good first draft. i don't think it's a good first draft, and i think it doesn't provide enough information about the decision making. the data that is guiding the decision making made by the district. it doesn't provide a clear strategy to accomplish what i think we intended with the goal. i don't think there is a clear understanding of what we meant by, um, meaningful engagement. and it's really hard for me to envision vision, meaningful engagement without some type of number gauge. and especially with our focused on targeted universalism, something that's looking at the individual

student populations that we need to focus the most. and i would encourage commissioners, even if you already spoke, to reconsider , um, telling the superintendent that we need to see something different and better in regards to this report, i feel that, um, if we feel comfortable with what we received today in regards to this, it will be reflective of what we receive in the future. um, and i think that's very problematic and does not provide nearly enough detail or information or clarity on our strategy or how it gets us to our ultimate solutions. and so i definitely would ask folks to reconsider and to give the district superint the opportunity to present something , i think, more reflective of what we hope to see. all right. so, um, in summary, are you all all having had this conversation again, are you all comfortable with, um, board leadership group working on providing, um,

getting more clarity around you know, doing some wordsmithing, um, and then working with the superintendent about how to approve. so improve the process so there's more alignment. okay. oh you didn't you got skipped. i just wanted to comment around, um, just kind of initial gut reflection, like when you present when you put out there, like the 25. and i know it was just kind of putting out there. i think for me, it's not necessarily the like we must engage x percentage of participants. i think it's the quantifying the intentionality aspect of it. and i think i like to think a little bit more about going back to review. and apologies, i didn't do this pre work around the design of the two examples that we gave on the

vg and the superintendent. i want to hone in a bit more about why those rose to the top as, as aspects of being reflective of, of a community engaged or i'm sorry. yeah. like intent kind of fulfilling that guardrail. um, so i think that's my where i'm at right now. um, and i just wanted to be clear again on on. i really do see value in surveys and interviews as, as a working parent, i don't have although i'm on the school board, it's the intention of like engaging in the what i hear when i speak with parents directly as well. they may not be as entrenched in like the policy development, but

certainly, um, if it's a survey or interview process that they can, you know, be captured in that moment and engaging either at their school site. i think that's oftentimes what we've seen over the years. it gets released, let's say, into a link as your parent newsletter. well, sometimes i read the newsletter, sometimes i don't. so i might have missed a click right. um, but i think sometimes what we've seen a disconnect. if we put it at all on oasis and we said, hey, we sent it out, but maybe the parent leaders or or whomever was supporting the parent leader at the i'm sorry, the site leader. it wasn't like, quote, socially ized or ran as like a quote, campaign. right? like a campaign of saying like, we really value and need your input. like, i think that's what we when i think about that's what we drove. it was really clear for those two campaigns of the superintendent search and

the vg, like, we absolutely need your input. like i think that's maybe some of the thing that has been, as i'm hearing this conversation is like tactically, yes, you know, i think in the two things that were outlined in this report part. yes. but i think if we think about the rubric around meeting the greatest, um, innovator give that's the aspect i think i would like to do a little bit more digging in. to be the first to answer your question about board leadership taking a deeper dive into this and coming back with something, considering that this is all about major decisions being made by the whole community, i think it deserves a very transparent, you know, maybe even something like a committee to work on this. um, and i would be happy to help, um

, of course. um, whatever i can do to support in that, um, and i know there's a lot of other community members who would be right there willing to engage in the work to, um, and like i've said many, many times, i really appreciate everyone who who is actually getting us to the point of reaching cohesion on this and having this conversation. so thank you. yeah, that's a good segue to say anyone in the public who's listening who has ideas about this, please reach out. as you can tell, this is when we're we're struggling together through it. um, and i just want to second what commissioner lamm said around the purpose here. this idea of we need your input is obviously really important for us to communicate to all members of the community so people feel engaged and valued and like they belong. but it's also literally true. like we need your input in order to run the district effectively. and i think that's what we saw in these processes.

um, you know, in the superintendent hiring report, it was a very honest assessment. there were some some there were positives and there were a lot of negatives in there. and what that meant was when we went into the hiring process, when we, you know, our, our candidates, our superintendent came in with eyes open, understanding what he was walking into because of that report. and we wouldn't have ever had that if there hadn't been an authentic process of engaging people in order to make a decision. right. um, and then we were able to say to the superintendent candidates, hey, this is this is the reality you're going to come into in sfusd. right? and it may have even been even more challenging because maybe a few things weren't in that report, but but again, to the but i think that's the point is like we need to be able to as a community, be honest about where we're at. what is what are your real lived experiences in our schools? whether you're a staff, a student who's experiencing that or families, and then how are we going to work together to make them better? and that's i just want to remind us all that that's the point here is like, we're not this isn't some sort

of ideological thing. this is actually essential for the functioning of our district. and so and it's not easy because as commissioner sanchez said, a lot of, you know, not many places have figured it out, but i think it's a worthy effort to struggle through it. so appreciate everyone for this. at times, challenging conversation. thanks for wrapping us up. do you want to. yeah, i know we're trying to wrap up, but i do want to ask because this is the guardrails that i'm not supposed to violate. so i feel like i need clarity. so are you saying are you saying you accepted the monitoring report? but you're going to work on revising the guardrail? or are you saying you accept as reasonable this interpretation? yeah. is that what you're saying? that's what you were saying. that's what there was consensus. no no, i don't think there was. there was was there a majority? there was a majority. sorry. let me just

ask a clarifying question to rj. you might have already said this, but if, if there's if let's say we they had done they don't accept the report. there's two ways to proceed. then i thought you were saying one is i consider the i think through how to interpret the guardrail. and so for example what meaningful consultation means. so the guardrail doesn't need to change. but my interpretation of it needs to or they change the guardrail to better reflect what it is they want. is that accurate rj that those are the two ways to proceed or no? yes. most often, if a board says that they they don't accept a monitoring report. uh, what that typically means is they reflect the superintendent's interpretation. was completely off and that you need to do a better job of being collaborative. um uh, of being

aligned with what the board's intention was. so as an example, in this case, i think something that would clearly have not been reasonable if your interpretation of this was i sent an email to my head of staff and asked him his opinion, and that is how i got input on major decisions that would have clearly not been reasonable. and so had that been when you presented the board should in fact, um, not accept this, um, and tell you you need to come up with a more reasonable interpretation instead said what you're hearing from your board is based on what they gave you to work with. you came up with something that was reasonable, but upon seeing it, they are not comfortable with it, which means the ball is actually in their court, not your court. that they need to make the decision can we live with the interpretation we've been given? uh, since it's

reasonable or can we not live with it? in which case we need to take action? and so, because they said it is in fact reasonable, which honestly, this is a fairly easy one to call. um, unless. san francisco is just radically different than the rest of the nation on almost any board would view this monitoring report, um, as a reasonable interpretation. uh, that is not to suggest that any board would be satisfied with the results. they probably have the same reaction that this board has had, which is, you know what? we probably want to be a little bit more specific with our guardrail. if we didn't like the results. but this is a fairly easy monitoring report to be called reasonable as an as a example, um, for the board, this , as you said, major decisions in your guardrail. the superintendents interpretation

of major decisions was is here are the five major decisions that we have to make this year. is that what the board wanted and hoped for desired? clearly not. based on the evenings conversation, but is coming up with tangible examples of what the superintendent thinks. the most major decisions are for the year. would be. is that a reasonable interpretation? it's hard for me to imagine anyone not seeing that as a reasonable interpretation. is it the one you desire? clearly not. but is that a reasonable way of going about it? i think most people would say, yeah, if we said we want major decision, and you give us a list of all the major decisions, that seems reasonable. and so that's the challenge that the board has before you. is it sounds like they're accepting the work of the administration is being reasonable. um, but it, it challenges the challenge that they're experiencing is it doesn't match what they wanted. and so the work is now on them. okay. so that's fine. then i, i so thank you for that

clarification. then i just need to insert some real practical concern here is, is we have some major decisions coming up that i think i'm looking at the i don't know if you can see their faces. everybody agrees as we are. two of them are listed on those five. we have, um, you know, our budget coming forward. and then we have the aspects of resource alignment. we've identified some of them are included in our budget, like our staffing model, and others are not like our school portfolio. so that work like we don't get to say, oh, board, we're going to approve the budget on january 1st, not june 1st, because we still need to figure out what reasonable engagement community engagement is. so either then there needs to be some real work on getting this resolved quickly, or the board's going to say, you know what, we're not going to hold you to this guardrail when you bring forward the budget. we'll wait till we get this settled. and i don't think they're going to i don't think they're going to oh, you you actually really do need to say that. otherwise we're going to need to resolve

this really quickly because we have some major decisions coming up that i want to feel confident that we've engaged the community in, because it's a priority for me as well. so that's yes, you will get on it. you i get to you'll get on your homework asap, is what you're saying. hello. okay. i think. i think tell me if this is right. yes. um and we'll collaborate on this process so that i mean, obviously we're not trying to do it in a vacuum. right? so we're going to collaborate with you in . the edits that we were going to then propose to our colleagues that we will discuss in a public process. and i think that might be the reason, i guess that's the other thing is, i just want to say around the ad hoc committee, i think the reason to not not that we don't want to do an ad hoc committee on this, but i think there's a need to get this clear for this

process. relative quickly. like with the whole board. and then we may want to have a committee that looks more deeply into various aspects of this. but i think this is a really urgent one for the reason the superintendent said, thank you. um, and thank you, aj, for listening into that, um, meander ing conversation. um messi, we appreciate you. um, and go get some sleep and we'll and same for you all. thank you for really i do want to convey and i think i can do so from the whole of the board that we are very, very grateful. we are appreciative. we know the hard work and, um, and we are going to do better so that you don't have to work so hard and guess and guess so. and madam chair, okay, hold. okay. wait aj, were you about to say something, though? i was just going to say whatever support you all need. um, for next steps, let me know

if the intention of the board is to delete or adopt an entirely new guardrail or goal. you would need to go back out to the public and do listening around that. if the intention of the board is to create more specificity around an existing one, and you don't need to go through that full process, but you do need to use some considerable discernment and arriving at what is the more specific version of that guardrail look like. and so i certainly recommend some type of process that engage ages more than just 1 or 2 board members. thank you for that clarification, aj. you should have seen poor president muhammad's face when you were explaining all of that to, um. um, i wanted to end with an appreciation for our board leadership and district leadership because this conversation wasn't scheduled to happen tonight. um, but based on

, you know, some of the conversations we've been having about, you know, calendar, as was mentioned earlier, like the, the, the fact that this is happening tonight is really responsive and i think shows that, you know, we have a really responsive leadership team and is working to answer the questions that we have in the community have so just thank you for doing everything you did to pull this in. and i just wanted to end on that. so thank you very much. i appreciate all of you for rescheduling the agenda to make this happen tonight. thank you for taking all the notes again. okay. and then we're going to we're go into public comment now. so we're going to move back. um, so we can actually see you when you speak. and appreciate the appreciation. thank you. staff is working really hard. so thank you all, um, for your hard work.

we'll start with excuse me. we'll start with in person. i do have a few cards. we're just going to speak to all the items at once. i see that some people submitted two cards, but you can just come up and go ahead one minute each. supriya. ray uh, jeff. lucas and sorry, i can't read this. medina, i think is the last name. yeah come on up. one minute each. good evening everyone. um, this is supriya ray, and i'm thanking you again for doing these monitoring meetings. i really appreciate

it. and it's good to see engagement. um, among the members of the board as well. i wanted to comment on the item that was just discussed. i have some concerns about committees representativeness and surveys. it seems to me that many of these core committees have been put together are not actually representative all the time of people in sfusd. just thinking back to, for instance, to when we had the pac and the pac was essentially nobody in the pac was talking about reopening schools when most of the parents wanted to reopen schools. that was a shocking thing to me. um, another thing is that being representative is not simply being diverse by race. there are many other ways to be diverse, including by gender, ability. you know, sexuality and so forth, and viewpoint diversity. a lot of the times you can have a very racially diverse area, but there's it's not diverse in viewpoints. and with regard to surveys, surveys really need to be real. they need to be things that make sense to parents and

have actually asked questions people want to answer. thank you . hi jeff lucas here. um regarding the monitoring of or guardrail number one, it's the first time being done. appreciate it. we all learned a lot tonight. um, the struggling that you guys are doing through it is fantastic because we're going to get better. um by comparison, there was a decision made a few years ago that had almost zero input that was changing of school start times. so we're making progress. we're not quite there yet. um, one of the big things on providing input community input, um, is what are our concerns? what are we missing? um, as you guys put forth new policies. all right. second topic i want to talk about was the monitoring report. this year's ninth grade class is a class who will be graduating that you'll be using for their outcomes to determine if you meet the goal or not. um, and what was missing tonight was

tying the interim goals to the bigger strategy. how if we succeed at the interim goals, how is that going to make sure that we actually meet the goal? i didn't see that tonight. thank you. good evening. my name is del del medina. i'm co-president of latinx democratic club. um, once again, a couple of more questions. more than feedback. um, i am curious about as we're looking at restructuring and we're having conversations around resources, how are we making sure that those resources are equitable? and what we're looking at, data and feedback from students as well as parents, what are some actual well known interventions that you should all be taking a look at? also, we are really good at the school system of being able to give a whole bunch of resources to one specific school, but we consistently see that there's a lack of consistency of spreading that out across the school system. and when we're looking at making sure that our students stay in

school, how is it that we're making sure that the consistency actually lies upon us? thank you . that concludes in person. we do have one raised for, uh, virtual. we will take virtual public comment on the information on the agenda items. can we each speaker will have one minute. can we please have that repeated in spanish and chinese. and it's going to start los comentarios publicos acerca de la informacion de los puntos de la de cada persona tendra derecho a la durante un minuto. muchas gracias cantonese. in michigan, hawaii, dutch. thank you. thank you. however i um,

just a couple things. number the first thing is what age is suggested. i'm wondering if you could do that for all progress monitoring, at least until the, um, i guess the process is completely finalized. i know you can't go backwards, but maybe moving forward. the second thing is, we just had this lengthy conversation about two way communication and feedback. and so i'm going to say again, um, not including low income or special ed data in these presentations. i'm going to be honest. it's it hurts at this point. so please, moving forward , i'd like that data and i'd like to know that my son is included in this process. um, and the final thing is i'd like to invite the early commissioners district staff to attend these, um, monthly

meetings of parent advisories regularly throughout the year so you can really connect to parent voice. and i think that's it for now. and i just again, i want to thank you for the work that you're doing i am grateful. thank you. have a. that does conclude, uh, public comment for our virtual participants. this. um, so that this meeting is adjourned at 925. thank you.

>> how are you feeling? long hard day, it's so good to see all of you today. i know people had to get through traffic but as i scan the audience, i'm excite today see so many familiar faces. we are here to celebrate san francisco, there on your hill,