all of our schools are offering the best program and as robust a program as they should for i think it is really -- i think a lot of what i have heard from parents who are opposed to this program is how are you going to make the school that my child will feed into a quality middle school and i don't think that we have laid that out yet. we have talked a lot about the -- i know staff has created a tool and done some walkthroughs and evaluations of here are the programs available at this school and here are some programs that need to be -- whatever, fixed or improved or whatever. i think we need to be a little bit more transparent about that. i think we really need to lay out in terms of a plan saying here's what we know about the following schools and here is

what we're going to do to fix that. so i would like to ask the superintendent if you could within a reasonable time frame bring back to the board here is our planning how we're going to work on some of these schools that are lower achieving, that parents are not sure they want to choose to put their children into. >> thank you. commissioner nguyen? >> i want to commend them for doing this matrix of the programs at the middle schools. it is a curriculum committee, particularly it is titled what parents look for in the -- and so the questions asked are this i think is one thing we should really commend about this. not necessarily the questions we usually ask. so i appreciate that and their willingness to share that with us and have us work with the

district on making that more robust. i do have to say that i was very impressed by this. truthfully the schools do not look as different as people think they are when you look at what is available at them. i'm asking all the parents and we have posted this on our website. is that correct? people should look at it. it will help us to get a little more reality and prudges in terms of people's attitudes in schools. i wanted to say that i actually am -- i really like the three recommendations made this evening by the pack and p.p.s. or whoever was making -- articulated -- i am particularly interested in changing order of the -- of the equity mechanism. i think a good -- a good title. i don't think that we have support on the board to do that,

obviously, but i do want to say that i think that we should consider that and that we should also think a lot about the second recommendation that they made about clearly articulating a mechanism for assessing the progress toward the goals that we have. and do want to say that i have to say that i think that the goal of -- what is articulated isn't really a goal but what it says in the policy we passed last year that we sort of are supportive of the k-8 model and want to have virtual k-8's i actually am very conflicted about that. and as i said last night and as

i said before, i think that we don't know very much yet about the -- we also made a lot of other prudgetses. predictability was the most important thing to parentsened that appears not to be true on the interim results we have on the process this year. i am -- totally understand and am supportive of not making any changes yet because we would need to give it a few years to work but preliminary evidence tells us that predictability was not really that important compared to other factors for parents using our choice system. therefore, and it is on that presumption, we presumed predictability.

i think that presumption upon presumption has left us with a weak foundation for some of the policies that we are proposing to put in place. i also wanted to say, and nobody did talk about the changes that were made in the proposal from when it was first introduced to now. i am more inclined to be supportive of this proposal though i would have liked to change those priorities because the staff responded to the request to remove the middle school attendance areas, which i still don't understand where they came from in the first place. they just kind of popped up in and luckily they popped back down. because i think that that is one of the things that did lock in some of the segregating influenced that we saw. so for me that is a major change. that's a very important change that makes me more inclined to

be supportive of this. so i still have huge doubts about this and i believe that for our -- as i said last night, i'll just repeat this very quickly, you know, if you -- because it is the only data that we have, if you look at the simulation and see that there is no difference, then i think that we should put the -- that the main purpose of the order in which we put these two tiebreakers is philosophical. it tells -- it sends a message about what we think is more important. i would like to put equity at the top of that list. it could be because that's what i think is more important. but of course over time, this may change. we may see different results and if we do, then i want us to be able to and i want to put on the record here that we should very seriously, if we are unwilling to change the order of those tiebreakers before we pass this, it is something we ought to look

at every year and consider changing. if we begin to see that there -- that unlike and i want to also appreciate the -- some analysis that was between yesterday and today for us that makes this look to me like the c-tip preference seems to be working. so there does seem to be a more equitable access for disadvantaged kids and kids who have less opportunity in elementary school this year for middle school and that's what i want. therefore i'm at the moment thinking well, the c tip, it worked the way they wanted it to and if that is true, i don't know why we don't want to make it our highest priority. >> thank you. >> again, like everybody else, i want to thank all the individuals out there that participated in this process in the last two years. including p.p.s. and a staff

that has been willing to stick it out this far and having all this discussion. in fact, we didn't pass this piece of our enrollment process last year was a response to the public in saying slow down. think about it more. and we have developed something that looks quite different from a year ago. i'm actually pretty proud of our staff's effort in presenting something that really does look different from -- what we would have accepted last year. this is much better than last year's. i think one of the things that we're walking into is that we would be voting on something that is going to be new to us in how we're going to do things and as most of us know, any time you try something new, you could

process that -- that new thing to death and try to get a totally correct -- without knowing all the factors. when you do that, you realize a year later you forget certain things or certain things didn't come up. i'm willing to take that risk. because we're not going to continue doing what we're doing at the present. and what really helped me in terms of putting full support behind this particular recommendation is the analysis that was put forth to us two meetings ago at the ad hoc committee on may 31, i believe, the -- the analysis of the presidio school in showing that if the incoming sixth grader were following this process as a

feeder school, it would show where they were coming from, the ethnicity and so forth. it showed a lot more diversity than i expected so that helped me a lot in terms of wanting to sort this -- and i concur with my colleagues that we really need to achieve constant evaluation on what's going on with this because as i said, we will need to -- some of these things and look at it and bring it back before the board in terms of information and we're going to have real analysis in the year with real numbers so that is going to help us a lot. and the other factor is that we have to realize that we're making some assumptions about general -- the language programs and so forth. we're making aassumptions in -- in pretty much assuming that most of the language that we

have it is going to remain constant and we may expand a little bit -- a little bit but there is a -- there is a real possibility that two or three years from now, the expansion that we had anticipated for language programs, for instance, was inadequate. and that is going to be shown with the demand patterns of -- at the elementary school level of kindergarten. we continue to see the big demand that we're seeing now, we will probably have to discuss where are we going to place these new programs and what does that mean for the middle schools that they are feeding into with these elementary schools. that is something again that we don't have the answers for those things but we need to ask those questions and seek the answers. so that's what i want to say is thank you very much, staff, and the public in enduring this whole process.

>> thank you. commissioner furyk? commissioner furyk: one thing that i have learned being on this board and doing this assignment, there are always people who disagree with you and are not happy. it sparked a petition to put something on the ballot against what we agreed on in our original student assignment program. you can't please everybody. it is a very heated issue, i think, but i think that this recommendation actually we haven't tried this. and i've always said choice by the very design is ineck table -- inequitable. so we have choice in elementary school and we have choice in high school and we are just now putting in a little bit of more direction into our middle school. after having three children that attended middle school that went

from one school to the next, i think a feeder pattern really isn't a virtual -- but what it is is it is a support system. every feared system that goes into sixth grade and is being funneled into a school with over 1,000 students or so and changing, starts at 4-feet and comes out 5'6" it is a time of transition for them. it will help with instruction between the elementary schools and middle schools but i think the reason i'm most in favor of it is that the process that we had before isn't getting it through our strategic playing goals. so we're willing to try this. i just want folks remember that -- that this isn't really kicking into full force and also the c-chip 1.

so those are not constant. but if we keep the middle school as the second it is just a tiebreaker that i think actually that remains constant. as i said, i think the c-chip one will change. after looking at the results of where people are living, who is living there now, i think we're going to see some changes now. anyway, i think this is a really good effort on staff. i know there is a lot of considerations because i even went to orla about why is this school going there and there and there was always a very logical well thought-out reason why.

and so -- and i also want to thank pac and p.p.s. for their work too. i also wants to thank all the parent whors engaged in this process. if i could say one thing to all the parents there, keep us out there. keep us accountable to our quality middle school program. it pretty much looks similar, our middle schools. i'm just going to tell you i've been out to them and they are not similar. we have a lot of work to do. i hope that this board will have the fortitude to make those types of changes and our administration superintendent and deputy superintendents and then parents also. so we are building something for our children to be prepared for 21st century and push back on us and help us build it better. thanks. >> thank you. so i'll share just a few

thoughts of my own. there are three of us that are actually on the board who currently still have kids in the public schools so you know rpgs this is really trying conversation for us across the board. not only with our own personal experiences but as we have been hearing for the last several months now from families both personally and through email. i know that we have some concerns around timing so i'm actually really pleased that we were able to get through this in a reasonable a. of time after having kind of put the brakes on it and had to stop and think more clearly about the value and importance of the work that we are doing here. i think that there is going to be room to grow and to learn as we start to really analyze the results of this last round of student assignments. student assignments. and then with regards to c-chip over feeder, i actually

struggled with this for a little while also. i think the clarity came to me the last several hours because there is a couple of things that i think we're trying to accomplish. so orla said to us last night that really the entry points for many of our students who can take advantage of the c tip is at the elementary school level. they often do. information was provided to us this evening that showed that 96% of our kids on c-tip received a first choice placement. so c-tip to me is reaching the families that we want to reach. and then quite frankly, i think many of our students who are in the elementary schools that will feed into schools that they historically have chosen for a variety of reasons, one being that they wanted to be able to go to a quality middle school will end up feeding into those

schools and they will actually get blame anyway. so -- placement anyway. so i don't -- lastly, orla and the team showed us some of the simulations that we would do and whether or not -- and showed that there wasn't a significant change if we put the order differently. so that actually gave me some relief. if i felt like there was significant numbers being shifted then i think i would really lean towards putting c-tip in as a top priority but i don't think it discounts who we are as a board and what our values and the importance that we have put down in terms of portizing equity for our students -- prioritizing equity for our students. we started this journey to make that possible speaks to the importance of equity for those of us here in the school district. so having said all of this, i am

also grateful for all of the work of the staff and for all the parents that came out throughout the city in various places for -- at various times to really speak your piece. again, three of us are still going through these processes. so many of you realize and understand how personal it is when you're choosing a school for your children and so we are certainly severely thetic dsympathetic to everything you give your students and knowing that there are evaluations to follow and that we are committed to tweaking this as needed. so without -- >> i would like to make two requests. i would like a full report on the tiebreakers and, you know, six or nine months or a year to re-evaluate the placement of

c-chip as a tiebreaker. i think that is really important because i do want to honor the recommendations but we just don't have enough data to decide either way so i do ask specifically for a report on the impact of c-tip and the placement tiebreaker and the second thing i want to request is families came forward and were concerned about middle schools that don't have honors or visual and performing arts. there is a very good plan in terms of language pathways but i really ask that the vort that jean inventory that jeannie has been working on, so that families who are entering to into this and looking at middle schools have as much information as possible. >> thank you. i'll get the final words to the superintendent. >> i just wanted to thank staff.

i all the parent organizations, i have to tell you. i especially want to think orla. you have done the heavy lifting here. you have put in so many hours and it takes a lot of patience. i think you deserve a nobel peace prize or something because the amount of frustration that people have and voice to you because -- because the most important thing in anybody's lives are their children. so you folks, you know, you did a great job with that and i just want to commend all of you for doing an outstanding job. thank you. [role call vote] >> it is unanimous. >> thank you very much. and staff thank you.

really appreciate it. ok. one big one down. one big one to go. to our next item. 115-24. amendment of resolution number 9. students to utilize independent study for physical education credit. students through 2012-2013 school year. current policy 9526282 and this is the amendment. it was moved and seconded on may 24. a report back please from the criminal lunchtime commissioner? commissioner norton? commissioner norton: they forwarded it to the board with a positive recommendation on a vote of 2-1. >> commissioner do you have any

comments on this? >> no. we didn't hear it because it didn't make the timeline. so we agreed that we would hear the budget presented at this meeting in front of the full board but before we hear a report, i would just like to address something that was brought up at the last board of education meeting and was brought to my attention that there was some comments made questioning my leadership as the budget but chair i just want to assure my colleagues and the public, especially the parents and students that we serve that i take my responsibility as a chair of the budget committee very seriously and that i do my best to review sometimes with a very critical eye and that doesn't make you get very many friends, believe me and i'm

really focused on how we can -- prepare all of our students for the 21st century and how we can serve all of our public schoolchildren in san francisco and meet the goals of our strategic plan and close the opportunities gap that we have in our schools with less and less resources. so although as a board we do have some difference, i would say to my colleagues that those differences haven't prevented us before from moving on and doing the work, the hard work that we must do, especially during this time of dwindling resources. having said that, i would like staff to give us its report for this item, please. >> thank you. >> this is -- well, actually miss wilson? we were going to hear this at the budget committee meeting but

we didn't do it there. do we need to read this into the record first before we have a presentation from deputy superintendent lee on the budget piece of it? ok. all right. why don't we have -- is it -- ok. >> thank you. 11524-sp 2 amendment of resolution 95-26 a-2 permitting students to utilize independent study to receive physical education credit through 2012-2013 school year. requested action is that the board of education determine whether it is appropriate to amend the resolution to extend p.e. independent study option through the 2012-2013 school year by editing the second to last paragraph as follows.

old language is stricken. new language in bold and i talics that if the instructors do not receive the certification by the 2013-2014 school year the physical education independent study option shall terminate immediately at each school site where there is not at least one instructor who has obtained the necessary certification. >> thank you. so deputy superintendent lee, could i -- >> thank you president mendoza and commissioners. what i think i will do is just walk through the memorandum that was distributed to commissioners and there are -- i apologize to members of the public. i don't think we produced quite enough copies. there were a number of copies of the document that i'm about to summarize in the -- in the entrance but hopefully people will be able to follow along as

it is fairly straightforward i think. what i have prepared is a high-level fiscal analysis of the cost of the jrotc program and also at a high level compared it to the cost of the instruction through other teachers using the average teacher benefits cost for our district. so as all the commissioners are aware, the cost of jrotc program are partly reimbursed by the federal government, so specific think federal government shares on a 50-50 basis the cost of the salaries of our instructors. right now we have nine full-time instructors. the costs of the salaries are just under $8,000. and we pay half, which is about

$398,000 and the federal government pays the other half or reimburses us. the other cost item, the distribute pace 100% of the even benefits estimated at $277,000. our total cost is about $675,000 and then federal government pays just under 74,000. just under 75,000 per and for our -- for our other john jrotc instructors -- nonjrotc instructors. it is just under 85,000. 84,861. so this doesn't go into a great amount of detail, for example, side by side calculations, it doesn't anticipate all of the

various nuances that might be -- that might come up in terms of ways that the -- the program might be implemented or has been impolicemened in the past. i have determined that the fiscal impact is not material in either direction. that is consistent with what we found in the past although i have to admit that it does, so some extent, depend on some, you know, variables that could depend on implementation, so for example, i -- i understand that there have been in the past professional development sessions related to the independent study option. that might be a category of cost that are not addressed in this memo. just noting that the difference between the net cost for the district, for jrotc instructors s