>> i think we are ready to start. >> ok, i went to call this meeting of the ad hoc board of education for june 13, 2011, to order, and if you could notes that the three members of the committee are present, commissioner of fewer, commissioner norton. we have four informational items on the agenda, and so, we are

going to -- how do you want to do this? do you want to do of for you are short or three short presentations? do you want to do them all at the beginning? do you want to do that? >> yes, i think that would be great, commissioner. commissioner: ok. >> i have copies for the public, an idea of some eight copies. so the focus tonight, we wanted to give the board an update on the approach we are going to take to revise the attendance areas as well as the timeline and provide some feedback to a couple of elements of the feeder patterns that were raised at prior meetings, particular transportation, and the order of the tiebreaker process, and then to talk about the monitoring of student assignment, just giving an overview of the scope of

work that the advisers are helping us with and see of the board has any specific questions they would like us to explore in the annual report, and then the future meeting schedule, so the first couple, the first slide, is kind of a reminder of the guidelines of revising the elementary attendance areas that are in the board policy, so the board policy calls for staff on an annual basis to review the attendance area boundaries and make recommendations to the superintendent if any modifications are needed, and if the superintendent would modify -- notify the board, and in reviewing the attendance areas, these were the factors that steps should take into consideration, the neighborhood demographics, where students live now and where changes are expected in the future, the availability of facilities, traffic patterns, the

availability of programs, and the prekindergarten to 8. this was in p5-101. this was developed with working with demographers, and we gather data and got feedback from the community and evaluated that, and the board approve the elementary attendance areas, so it has been less than one year since these boundaries were approved by the board, so we think for the first annual review, we are recommending that we look at how the number of kindergarten applicants from 2000 -- for 2011 compared to the number used when developing the boundaries, so when we were developing the boundaries, but the average number of kindergarten emesis residents,

so we thought we should look to see that for those in attendance areas, is there was an attendance area that had 385 residents, that is so many poor grade, how many kindergarten applicants did we have, and what is the difference between the two, and then do them for all of the 58 attendance areas and then recommend any adjustments based on those findings, so if there are two attendance areas close together, and in one case, the number is greater, and in another, it is less, we would obviously explores ways to balance that. the second thing we would do is review suggestions from the community, and we have already received as suggestions in particular to look at the mckinley boundaries and also looking at another, and what is important to remember is you just cannot adjust one attendance area, right? if you get a suggestion a just

one area, it is also a suggestion to change another because it would be changing the boundary between two, and we also got some others, like near loma -- muir loma -- mira l;oma. we will look at the recommendations. there was a type of maybe in some of the documents that said 2010, so i just want to make sure that everyone understands we are talking about 2011, so in the next two months, and if anyone wants to email specific suggestions and to meet and talk about it, they can send it to the email address, and we will about d. wade any suggestions that come in to that forum, as well.

commissioner: can i just ask -- most of us got the same recommendations you got. because the suggestion said this, which i know to be true, the neighborhood and at 30th street, not 29th street, but here is a problem with that. if you just moved it one block and drew it on 30th street, then the southern side of the streets would be in the other, so what i'm interested in as an example is what we do about -- do we always run a line down the middle of the street, is my question, because it is an interesting question. i mean, the issue of the kind of coherence of the neighborhood is a good question, but, of course, in that case, you'd want to draw it sort of between the backyards. >> so i think maybe these will help highlight house staff is

going to vote all of the requests, and one is can the law to be consistently applied to all suggestions? so the suggestion to keep all of the neighborhoods together cannot be consistently applied. school district attendance areas. but it is definitely a factor that we look at where possible. we want to see how suggestion would impact the number of kindergarten residents, and speaking of one, it would make it bigger, and there is already a concern that it is already too big, so we will look at the impact on the average number of residents. we also looked at how it would affect the diversity of each attendance area. obviously, in this case, it would impact the attendance. just to the south. we would see it changing it would affect the size and diversity of enrolling. if it is making one bigger and one smaller, is that helping balance perfect and then the

barriers. that is particularly pertinent to, for example, the valuation of the suggestion for rosa parks, because there is one that is a huge traffic pattern. so we have looked at but have not even begun to evaluate this suggestion is that we want to actually do the valuations at the same time and looked at all of these factors, and then based on that come back to the board and recommend revisions its provisions would have minimal impact or would improve the demographics and the balance of students in each attendance area and avoid topographical barriers and if the logic could be consistently applied, so we will definitely look at all of the logic and avowedly everything that is suggested, and then we will oppose suggestions and staff findings on the web, so there would be an opportunity for people to see what we found from the revision, and then we would share a recommendations on the august 8

ad hoc committee meeting. et commissioner: i just want to clarify, and then commissioner norton has something. i appreciate this. analysis is always a good idea. however, none of those necessarily address the issue that was raised about álvaro. i am not advocating that we try to keep all neighborhoods in a coherent attendance area pattern. it is impossible, and you are right. not all neighborhoods have very clear boundaries, so when they are -- i just want to know where in those principles can you take that into consideration, and will he report back to us on this issue, or have you already looked at that? of course, it is easier, and all of the attendance boundaries that i know what actually go down the street, the middle of

-- street. people live on both sides of one street generally should go to the same school, unless it is during boulevard -- geary. >> we will look at that, and we can superimpose city boundaries on our boundaries and see where they change, and we can explore the difference between having the majority of our attendance areas are down the center. i think when we were doing it, there were a couple of exceptions, and they were actually an exception to keep city neighborhoods together, and there was one, i think. at any rate, one of the revisions we made was looking at how we can do this to a-as best as possible, so where possible, we try to do that. we just cannot guarantee, so we will do it as part of the evaluation.

commissioner: commissioner norton? commissioner norton: it seems to me that we want to look at what the pools were like. >> thank you. yes. the last part of this presentation tonight is actually specifically around monitoring, and one of the questions on there is what would the board like us to review as part of the process so that we can fall back in to see what impact that has, so maybe we can maybe even go into more detail about that. commissioner norton: the composition seems to be part of it to me, too. if you can adjust a line and

have a more diverse pool, that might be something we want to look at. >> that was in the original design and will continue to be as we look at suggestions, however impact, not just the size but also the demographics. thank you. commissioner: commissioner m urase? commissioner murase: no. is very different from south, and you end up concentrating a particular group by using that line. >> ok, thank you. i will definitely.

so we will plan to come back to the border with august 8 meeting using this process and timeline that we have just outlined, and the next section of the presentation is about. peters, and it is responding to two areas in particular that have come up, but just in case some of audience members are not familiar with the background, i thought i would take a second to provide some context. i think, in march 2010, the board approved a policy that included the development of elementary feeder patterns for elementary schools to feed into particular middle schools, and there would be an initial assignment based on the process. in august, the staff recommended which would feed

into which schools, and then in august and september, we received community feedback through lots of different forum s, and based on that, the substitute motion was presented by the superintendent, and that was to delay the feeder patterns for a year and to the interim year have a tie-breaker involving its siblings, so that is the process we use this year. in february, staph submitted revised kindergarten through eight feeders, and throat march and may, groups did a lot of work, community engagement, and we got a lot of feedback, and based on that, staff presented revised items to the board, and those are scheduled for their second reading tomorrow.

some of the revisions included instead of having an initial assignment straightaway and then going to choice, we would have a choice process through 2006, and then starting in 2007, go to initial assignment. we also had modifications. thank you. i am having problems. >> i think everyone knew what you meant. >> and that we would also remove the attendance area boundaries for middle school and a few other elements based on the feedback, and so these are the recommended feeder patterns that are before the board for action tomorrow night, and i just wanted to touch on why some of them are non contiguous. proximity was definitely a priority, but it was not necessarily possible given where students live, and we also wanted to make sure that we

maximize the infrastructure that was already in place and built around the strings rather than try to recreate something calm so we wanted to align and this was middle schools that already had those language pathways, epically -- pathways, and this was to have enough students to have viable programs and also to allow all students to attend the same middle school who were going to a high school. so, for example, hoover had chinese and other pathways. you may remember the first proposal, and it did not contemplate maintaining those language pathways, and it was agreed that we should do that, so we looked at some high schools that offer spanish and another, so it made sense to feed them into a school was offered both of those programs, and we know it is not feasible to build both of these pathways

in every neighborhood, and mosconi and monroe already had a robust kindergarten through five, and pathways already existed. so the transportation, the board approved a policy for transportation, and in that, it concentrated the feeder patterns, and the board policy actually said it would provide limited and strategic transportation to support the middle school feeders, so based on what is before the board tonight, it would require a shift in rows for middle school but would not require an increase in resources, et so we would, under the new proposal of the feeders, have transportation for the presidio, francisco, and another, and hoover would have two bosses,

and the number is really important though, the weber, to say that the number of buses would be constrained by the budget, and it is not clear what the demand would be, so it is full choice from 2011 to 2016, so while we are hoping that through the tie breaker of the middle school feeders with improvement we can do and that we will 3 choice create these feeder patterns, but that is unclear, and it is also, given the fact that children attend all of the city and live all over the city, some of the feeders, it even though they live far away, some of the students may be closer to their middle schools, so these are the factors that make it difficult for us to know how many buses we will need. we are assuming there will not be an increase in resources because we are not imagining that we are going to guarantee that we will put on as many buses as we need in order to

make sure 100% -- we just know that would be a false promise, that we do not have those kinds of resources to do that, so while we are going to be providing transportation, it will be constrained with -- by whatever is happening in the budget, and our ability to provide services will diminish if the budget diminishes, but based on the assumption that we're going to maintain the current level of resources for middle school transportation, we will be able to provide transportation for the non contiguous cedars, and here are the gottas questions we are looking at. is the distance between elementary and the middle school more than 3.5 miles on the muni? does the muni require a transfer? is the munich travel time more than 35 minutes? how would the trip time on a bus compared to a munich trip time -- muni trip time?

with this includes stops beyond the stops of the elementary school and began/or reduce the amount of time children have to spend on the bus? so this is some of the work we are doing over the summer in terms of building the specific roads and considering the school start time, and here, this matrix, you may have seen it before. it was indeed -- in the fq -- faq. it shows what the muni might be, the transfers, and the number of schools, so based on this preliminary analysis, we would redesign the middle school bus route starting in 2013 once the board approves the pathways. we would shift to redesign as soon as possible