-- not to do this separately, so i am coming up with something solid in terms of a policy are rounded or a plan around it? >> it was due yesterday, or last week. the way that we wrote it up was that more information would follow. that is when we decided after the conversations that we would have a supplemental died. we were hoping that we would have most of it rolled out by the time of the fair. how we're going to implement it, how we are going to enroll, and how we are going to apply. we have to offer this program. it is mandatory. but we don't know how the implementation is going to be at this point. >> any other questions or comments?

think you all very much. the next step is getting back to us on another round of questions or another plan? you're going to get back on the questions that were asked? >> he made a statement that caught me a little bit by surprise. you said this program is mandatory. how can it be mandatory when kindergarten isn't mandatory? >> is mandatory for the district to offer it, it is not mandatory as for families to take advantage of it. >> when you say it is mandatory for the districts to offer, i am not sure i understand that statement in relationship to kindergarten period quote >> is it offered to everyone? or are we offering it and we have 25 slots?

>> we will receive -- average daily attendance funding for students that qualify based on their birthday. for next year, just to those children that were born from november 2 to december 2, i guess. >> we would have them anyway. we would likely have kindergartners that would fill that spot. doctor because the date is changing, our group of kindergartners for next year would be reduced by one twelfth the because a month would have been taken out. the total number won't grow until we get to the fourth year because then we will be serving a whole year of kindergarten and another month. and it will begin to get bigger by 25%. >> we want to talk about

something else now. >> i am sorry. the president has been saying she is worried about them taking spots from k kids. there are not a certain number of seats at any given school. we're just saying that we are going to assign kids the way we always have and kids land where they land. and we say there are 10 at this school, for at this school, and depending on how the numbers come out, where do we place them. >> and will they get first priority? will they be in the same pool of applications? are we going to take all of them that apply and offer speech to anyone that is left over? or are they going to be part of the poll. >> that may not have the opportunity to come into the

program. >> great question. i know you are wanting definitive answers, but the one thing everyone keeps saying is that it is just not rolling out the way they thought it would. they don't know the numbers. next year is the year that we look at who opted in, what happened with the seats. if you asked me what are rolling out, i must say this. we are saying that we need to have a classroom if possible at every site which is what we have now. this is the year to do this. that is exactly right. and people say i don't know what it is, these very children that you already have in the school and going to continue to be in the school, they are now given the option to do a two-year program or not.

and i think some parents will say, i don't want a two-year program. >> it is defined differently. the idea is that it is an option for them is what is making it a little crazy. >> the next thing that we need to roll out is to say that this is what we are saying. all 76 or 75 schools being open to having a tkk model like now. identify the tk'ers and make predictions about the next year and parents will have the option at that point to say, do i want my child to do two years or do i want my child could do one year? and those things that are very clear, what we need to work through, what are the numbers? >> what you're hearing from the board are things for you to consider as you are developing a

more solid program. one last comment. as we are thinking about having them leave it to your calendar program, is there not an option for us to have them be two-year 3 k programs? having them stay one more year and going and to convert instead of having them do two years of candor? and we are trying to get our families to do prepay. if we want them to do pre k and we offer them to stay longer, the auction is, -- at the option is that you're no longer eligible. and did not have this transitional so that the kids that would normally be there anyway. now there is a cut off.

can we also consider doing the longer pre k versus an earlier kinder? >> i wonder why we didn't do it this way, but i think commissioner wynns answered the question, as a compromise to make sure the district kept ada. >> we can't do predictions, but we're likely to get -- we have had great enrollment. we don't know how many of those will siphon off, but i guess we will see. thank you. meeting adjourned. [laughter] all right.

you are right, i did not. it was informational. do i need to do public comment? >> it's ok. >> is this the appropriate place for her to do it? >> thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about this, it is very near and dear. united educators and our state affiliate's have been working on a program since its inception. there is a lot of the motion and energy about what was said, but i only have a minute and 45 seconds, so one of the things that i really want to share with this commission, good evening

and i forgot to say that. before things that the state affiliate's are asking every district to do is to make sure the curriculum is developmentally appropriate. that the ratio will be one to 10 with a maximum of 20 students per class. that the program the self- contained, a full-day program, and not a two-year kindergarten. it defeats the purpose. we have argued and we compromised with legislators on this issue. number seven of the transitional kindergarten set is very clear and says that the law is to provide a separate and unique experiences for transitional kindergarten children.

i cannot say lauder what the implications of this combined kindergarten program will have on our kindergarten teachers. first, we're telling them to be developmentally appropriate and we have taken away the ability for them to be developmentally appropriate. and now we say, it is ok. you have to open in your program, but have them for two years. this doesn't make a sound sense. sound decisions for young children. this is a unique opportunity to close the gap. you call in the educational, you call its social justice, the gap is there. this is an opportunity to take those young children, separate them with the developmentally appropriate practices, and let them sore.

thank you. and >> let's get back on track, students, thank you for saying. i will see if i can move around a couple of things because you guys need to get home and do your homework. n is pulled so we're ok on that. so item o is a vote on the consent calendar. it was moved and seconded, so roll call, please. >> it's on. it's on. yes? thank you. [roll call vote]

>> can i ask the superintendent on the consent calendar, there were several items severed? is that a quick discussion? no? so these are the items? >> i think it would be appropriate to have the students go first. >> i would like to have the

students come forward and we can have a discussion on this later. the superintendent's proposal, there are none. the board members proposal for first reading, i need a motion and a second. on suspension of the rules to have this item heard tonight. roll call? >> [roll call vote] >> i need motion and second for item r. the reading?

>> a student delegates will read this into the record. >> of the resolution supporting the implementation of free fast passes for all used in san francisco. whereas there are 75,000 live in san francisco, the remaining 23,000 attend private schools. out of 11,512 middle and high school students who responded to this question in the spring of 2011 used a vote student survey, 42% take muni to school. those and respond to this question in the spring of 2011, 58.4% take it home from school.

36,000 riders per month according to the budget and legislative analyst support. while the price has increased 110% in the last two years from $10 to $21. and whereas a 61% of students that completed the lunch forms for the 2010 to 2011 school year qualify for free or reduced lunch. and the board of education approved a three-year plan in december to reduce the number of school buses serving 59 elementary and middle schools from 44 school buses down to 25. excluding the school buses for special education students. and because these and the it is unified school district aims to

promote an appreciation of the diversity that exists in every neighborhood and community, you should be able to access of the opportunities advances go has to offer, including but not limited to after-school programs, museums, parks, and job opportunities regardless of what neighborhood they live in. at the result of the elimination of school buses as a commuting options, all students that depend on school buses are forced to find alternative in node of transportation. and whereas free muni would eliminate the challenges of purchase and distribution that hindered the success of the life line passes. and whereas environmental awareness is important in the city of san francisco and allowing them to utilize public transportation systems advances our goal to a more sustainable environment.

and whereas the recent downturn in the economy places a financial burden on families making it difficult for them to afford the additional cost of student commuter fees, and whereas article 2 of the student advisory council states that the fcc is committed to providing a voice for the students of the san francisco unified school district by representing and presenting the interest of the students with administrative and policy making body is with the intent of solving the and that needs of the youth of san francisco. therefore, be it resolved that the board of education at the urging of the student advisory council supports faster passes for all you've residing in the city and county of san francisco. and further be it resolved that they support and join the work of the mayor's office, the municipal transportation agency and the board of supervisors of the city and county of santa it

is in order to implement the pilot program. including the exploration of providing free muni for 18- year-old full time students. >> i have one speaker. wendy, are you here? , and press the button. -- come out and press the button. >> my name is wendy, i am representing the student advisory council and behind me are the student advisory council themselves representing at supporting to show our support for the resolution for the past week. members have been a school's out reaching into collecting over 2100 signatures from all public high schools.

just to show the support of this resolution. thank you. >> you have how many signatures? >> over 2100. [applause] >> nice job. thank you. comments from the border? does everybody like my sweatshirt? >> i love it. commissioner fewer: i just wanted to say that i wanted to thank the student delegates for writing this resolution and bringing it before the board of education tonight. and also the student advisory council for bringing this forward and urging us to support the free fast passes. we are cutting transportation.

students do choose to go to school, and i think our superintendent actually said it best when he said that san francisco students should have the ability to use all of san francisco as their educational class room. to have access to that, they would need transportation to do so. i urge my fellow board members to support our efforts and improve this. thank you. commissioner maufas: i just think this really helps clarify that we care about our young people in this city. it sets the tone for how we should be thinking about young people, and hopefully other

measures that supported the youth in our city will come about with this as a fine example. i am grateful to the student advisory council. your ability to out reach is clearly stellar, and i just want to support it all the way. commissioner wynns: i want to thank you for bringing this, and it is a clause that we support. i am concerned again about the -- there is no reference in here to the cost. the last time there were free passes for public school kids, there is no distinction here between public-school students and other students. there is no distinction here related to -- there is a reference, but nothing in the result of making sure that our

immediate students are prioritized or any of the public school students are prioritized. nor is there any reference to -- the first time this was brought up, the idea is that we would take the money out of proposition h.. i think we would feel unable to do it this year. i really appreciate the resolution that came that is being put forward by supervisor campos, very much in the mode of urging all the agencies to have a discussion about it and try to move toward doing this. if i am totally in support of all that. i am a bit worried that such an unqualified language from us could be interpreted or brought forward in those discussions as we are willing to pay for it.

i am looking for some recognition of that, that we might revise it a little bit referencing the budget crisis and protecting the school funding. prioritizing, not necessarily saying that that this budget time we just one of kids and college students to have free -- i know it doesn't say that, but i am worried that might be interpreted or used in the discussions if it is without qualification to promote that point of view. >> i certainly agree that is definitely a problem if someone were to interpret it as the district taking complete financial control over the situation, but though it might not be written in the resolution, there is a verbal agreement that it will be a

multi-agency effort, so it will be both the cost of this new plan that will come from -- and the funding will come from both public and different private agencies to cover the cost. it won't just be one certain group having to cover all the costs. this definitely can go into a lot further discussion, but as of right now that's all i can offer. commissioner norton: i want to support what everybody else has said, i absolutely support the idea of our students be able to access it free. i am also somewhat concerned that how brought this is. i am a little worried, just because there seems to always be

misunderstandings when there are verbal agreement that they are not written down on both sides of the streets. and when i looked at supervisor campos's resolution, i think this first resolved cause is very clear about how this would happen. all these agencies get to the table, the design of pilot, they secure funding. i am just wondering if we could change your first results clause in some way to align it more with what the supervisor is laying out in his resolution. and to specifically give the board support for his resolution that i understand is coming before the board of supervisors very soon. i don't know what everybody else thinks about that and what the students think about that, but

it would be my suggestion. commissioner fewer: i think we may be able to add, supports the idea of free passes. for it to be resolved, support joined the work. what this resolution is about, the heart of it is that they join the work and be a partner in developing this work. if you feel compelled to write in a monetary number, i would defer to the delegates. what this resolution says is the support and joins the work. that means that we are at the table. that is the gist of what the heart of what the resolution is saying. if you feel more comfortable, we can say supports the idea that

supports and joins the work, and i think that means that we are at the table, so we have a voice in that. commissioner maufas: i want to be very brief in reading through this resolution and hearing from the city side. and myself as a member of the public, i don't ever believe that the school district could find any of this. i don't think anyone in the far reaches of their imagination will think that this is our burden, and i have never heard that in the back and forth conversation. it is about welcoming everyone to the table with an equal share of say and making sure that we participate, it will really be affecting our constituents. that has been my public impression, but that is also my commissioner impression.

thinking that we are going to take this burden on financially, we don't have any. commissioner wynns: i appreciate all the things that have been said, and if we have the idea, that would be great. i am fearful that if we say we don't want to pay for it, they will say, the idea, let's get them to pay for it. what is at issue here, we have the proposition h. money. we think of it as our money, the board of supervisors often think of it as their money, and we have had the situation where they have said, unless you spend it on this, we will not approve your spending plan. that is not his intention, i understand that. his language is release specific as only being exploratory. this language is not that specific. to tell you the truth, if we

take the idea of putting it in as language and have this conversation on the record, that goes along way. then just having the board of education be clear that we had no intention to be in support of spending money that could be spent for educational purposes. >> i think in your reference, particularly around proposition h., when we have this discussion around funds and who it belongs to, i think we have been able to rightly clarify that the citizens have said that the unified school district has control over that money with approval from the board of supervisors and we have had to go in and beat the