>> i'd like to strike it. and in addition to that, i -- here's my problem. which is by the way, that's -- that language is an integral part of this. everything i know about teach for america, there are many highly capable people who have been in it. their retention, you know, it's not a lifetime commitment to teaching, as teachers have. but -- so i -- and it is part of the, you know, what has been characterized by some as the kind of corporate reformer movement and it is in my view, at its core, it's anti-teacher. it's anti-professional. it's anti--- this is something that undervalues the commitment of people who actually think of teaching as a profession. so i have supported these things

other the years reluctantly back and forth. but i don't think i want to support it anymore. i think the message that we, you know, i guess i -- just like i sort of had enough of this. and the language particularly, the rhetoric is offensive to me. >> could you provide some explanation, to understand the two k resolutions how they're connected so all that information that you gave us in the last 10 minutes -- >> i'm happy to do that. >> thank you. >> so i also support

commissioner wynn striking the first paragraph and just focusing on what the resolution is about. and then i guess my question is about timing. because we have, you know, 200 and -- what's the number of layoff notices we sent out? people in limbo, waiting to see how much money we'll get, rainy day funds, any additional state money and i'm uncomfortable with the idea that we're privileging this group of teachers to other teachers who are in limbo. so i'm not sure how to handle that situation. >> but we're not. in reality, these are hard to fill spots. anybody who is in these positions right now did not get a layoff notice. was not pink slipped or anything. so -- but people retired in these areas. so we do have some vacancies. so -- but you have to be credentialed in those areas. the reason why we're only hiring 10 is we're only hiring people

to go into those specific areas. they won't bump anybody else at all. otherwise we wouldn't bring it. i completely agree with you. we told teach for america we would not do that here. so that's why the numbers -- number is so small. we're only filling specific areas where we skipped people anyway because we need math teachers, we need special ed teachers, specific areas like that. >> commissioner men doe czar. -- mendoza. >> are any of these teachers -- are any of these teachers in our six schools? >> yes. >> they are in our schools and we're saying that they did not receive -- >> if they were in skipped areas, math, special ed,

bilingual and science, then like all other teachers, they would have been skipped and not gotten layoff notices. a lot of these teachers because they are filling jobs that we have difficulty getting others to take and we have difficulty filling because of the supply, they're in those jobs. >> so i, i want to just make sure that that's who we're bringing in. i'm actually -- i actually support, though, keeping them in our school district. i think that they do serve an area that we are deficient in. and i mean, i guess the way that i look at t.s.a. -- t.f.a., whatever perception others have, i think it introduces a cohort of people to the teaching profession that would not have come into the teaching profession likely otherwise. and i appreciate that.

and not everybody stays. not everybody who comes into it with the intention of being a teacher stays. but i do feel like they do, during their time, in our district, and with our kids, they are committed to them. and i feel like they do stay within the education field and oftentimes their intention wasn't to come into the education field. for somebody who wasn't in the education field previously, i can appreciate that. i do feel like they serve a purpose. i do want to keep the relationship. i think it's a relationship that -- that is a respectful relationship and that they do, i actually wish we could do more for our teachers what the nonprofit does to support the cohort that comes through. and you know, we need to kind of

be thinking about that and maybe even learning some things off of that. but i think it's an investment in a group of teachers willing to go into places and i do feel like they come in with good intentions and really work hard and are committed to our kids and so that's -- i will support the -- having them continue in our district. >> if i could, i'm not advocating at eex--- at the expense of our teachers. the offensive language, i am very sorry that that, you know, that that's in there. i'm for taking that out as well. but if i just could, part of this resolution, our second year group of teachers that we're

committed to and come out of the first resolution. >> thank you. i want to ask you, mr. bushman, we have a contract with teach for america, is that correct? >> yes. >> and when was the contract signed? >> 2008. >> and we are bound to it for how many years? >> it expires the last co-heart -- cohort is going into their second year this coming school year. >> ok. and was that a partnership that was approved by the board of education? >> yes. >> ok, thank you. >> if these teachers only teach in hard to fill areasing why do we have data about english language arts achievement? >> we have some exceptions. i can list where they're at. go ahead.

>> we in the beginning placed them a lot in multiple subject areas in english and social studies and those areas. the years went be, we started really fine tuning it so it would be in the hard to fill subject areas. right before school starts, many times we find out about teachers that are not coming back, they're relocating or whatever. if we still have a t.f.a. person out there, we'll say, do you have an english person? we have placed all our consolidated teachers, our laid off teachers, there are ince dinses where we have these teachers. but that is absolutely the minority. >> i mean if the whole cohort is 14 people and we've only put them in a multiple subject or

teaching english because we're -- how many people is that? two? yet we're doing comparison databased on that. >> we have more than 14 people. >> we've done over the five years we've done 112 t.f.a. teachers. you're right, that's a small sample. >> ok. here's my other question. this is actually our second go-around with teach for america. and the first time, we had a lot of political pressure and i don't think i realy supported it then, although i did some offensive things to me by meeting with people but at that time their condition of the contract was that they be placed in underperforming schools. we refused to do that. and that was why the relationship ended after two years, i think. as i recall. so i still think that, and one

of my issues with that, and this doesn't mean i don't appreciate the dedication of the people who do this, but one of the reasons, one of the other things we found offensive about this program, politically and philosophically speaking, is that its leaders get up and say, we're going to save the urban schools of america by putting teach for america teachers in every low-performing school in a big city and i'm unwilling to support that. and if that's what we're doing, in fact, and in fact, i think that when this was brought to us in 2008, we were told that we weren't going to do that this time either. so i'm not going to support this and i won't support it anymore unless we -- a lot of things have to change. >> so it sounds like, and i think mr. bushman, that we would

normally hear this in the personnel committee and have a lot of discussion back and forth so would it be possible for you to provide us with a report that talks about, because this reminder of these questions seems like we need a reminder report of recent activity or a brief history with teach for america, how many teachers are still with us, sort of what are the subject areas they are teaching in now, you know, over time, maybe they've moved into areas that are not hard to fill. but either way, it seems like all us board members could use a reminder of their history with sfusd, where they are and where they've been today. that would help, i think, all of us. >> happy to do that. we can talk to ms. norton. >> we have a personnel committee coming up on the seventh.

maybe add this to the agenda as a sort of look back, what is our hist -- what has our history been with the program. maybe the memo the commissioner asked for could be sort of gone over at that meeting. maybe that's the thing to do. >> teach for america was not that recent. it came in when our former superintendent brought them in and i only remember that because i was not on the school board voting for it but i was on the foundation side. and there were many people on the board that wanted it funded so it was funded.

it's not new to the last few years. ok, roll call please. >> if you're going to remove that first paragraph, i think you need a motion to amend. >> i move to amend the resolution to take off the first paragraph and the two words beginning the sec paragraph, more specifically, so the summary will start with this resolution is for -- >> roll call please. [voting] >> is there a motion to move

this? >> as amended. that's 125- 2 k 10 as amnded. >> is there a motion? >> there was a motion at the beginning. >> thank you. [voting] >> point of information. even though we voted on the whole consent calendar by consensus, could we agree to remove that language from k 58 too? >> yes. >> ok. >> stop playing parliamentarian.

>> we are in -- on item what? q? yeah, q. none tonight. item r, board members first read, i believe we did everything already. item s, board members reoh -- board members' reports. let's start with the what is this one. augmented curriculum and program committee of may 14. ms. fewer. commissioner fewer: we voted on one action item, the authorization to grant or in the alternative petition for kip pmbing high school. i think they are working with us to

>> the next commel will be on june thrsh the next committee of the whole will be june 14 where we will have the budget. june 14? is that day right? >> you've got the date right but i believe that it is going to be not a committee of the whole but an augmented budget committee. >> oh, an augmented budget committee, not a committee of the whole. >> it's june 19. >> so i'm whereon on both counts. ok. >> commissioner mendoza. restate it. the budget committee.

we were talking about the meeting. fine. we're good. >> can i ask a question about the committee of the whole thing first? the reports we heard at the committee of the whole meeting posted online? the superintendent's reports? the superintendent's own report in particular was comprehensive and different than anything we've had before, much more, i think, accessible, coherent, so is it posted online and if it's not, could it be? thank you. >> report of the augmented rules policy and legislate i committee on may 16. commissioner wynns? >> how come the rest of the agenda doesn't apore here? the informational items are not listed in the meeting in the committee sum mear. >> it's on the next page. >> ok. thank you.

ok. so we had two action items, legislative overview. we again had, i want to report first of all that we had, as i've been saying, we have these fabulous lobbyists who come down and do these things for us and then this time, we had a lot of people in the audience, big delegation from coleman that was terrific, i was happy they were able to be here and hear this. we have the legislative overview, i hope you all got a copy of the positions the district has taken. that was made available to every board member and as well we have an issue with the posting so we want to ask that the -- actually we wanted to ask that it go to a committee of the whole? or board retreat. we want to refer to the next board retreat the issue of how we notice and define the

standing committees of the board. we've had an issue with the notification requirements the -- and the dates required. those were the two action items. action items. there's the update on the online board of education policy, so the series 1,000, if you note, remember we did the 9,000 series some painstakingly long detail, thank you to the commissioner who chaired the me last year and the 9,000 series actually is the translation or the online version of cfba facilitated version of the pf-120, the rules of how the board operates. but the ,000 are the general policy thrs the school district some of which are mandated rirptes, some are not and that

is coming back to the rules committee with recommendations from the staff. we felt like i think i reported on this already at the last meeting but we felt like the descriptions, there's a lot of policies we didn't have that most school districts have, yenized policies and yet we felt that the sort of boilerplate ones that cfba provided don't describe the practices we use in san francisco so we asked for staff enput on that. that all exists in a redline version and i ask you all to look at them and we're going to go ahead and do them in the committee the next toim and if nobody gives inputtering we'll do it without you. and then in addition there was board policy 51 -- 1111.4, the nondiscrimination policy, it needs to be updated. so this is not -- has not appeared on the board ayen da

but has been reviewed by the rule committees. . we are asking that it be ayen diesed for the next board meeting in june. and for it to be included in the notification that we suspend the rules and adopt it that night because it's been renewed in committee. the other thing is the assignment of all the other series to other committees and we have actually, we checked the minutes of the march rules meeting so we have recommendations to which committees they should go and we'd like you to refer them to those committees so the faciles, buildings and grounds, finance, budget, etc.it has been assigne.

>> the last thing is we talked about the budget. we have the budget experts here. the policy implications, other big things about the budget. really good. really grateful for our contract it advocates. >> the augmented buildings, grounds, and facilities. >> the staff report on page three proposed a lease of the property. this is the second time we have heard a presentation. they really spent a lot of time

in the interim addressing our concerns. they have done a considerable amount of the region to the committee. there are still some questions about enrollment and hell it bill ritter reflected in the neighborhood, -- and how it will be reflected in the neighborhood. they have come with a resolution to authorize staff to begin at least negotiations. that is the beginning of a process of discussion and back and forth. we had an amazing presentation on the proposed middle school campus. i know our facilities chief extended an invitation to all of the board members. when you do have an opportunity, it is stellar, the work that has been done.

the incredible amount of time that has been invested. in hearing from the community, reflecting the views of design. it is a different way of building a new school. the former mayor was also briefed separately. he was pleased with the work of the committee. it is really quite something. finally, the director of sustainability reported on bottled drinking water. he reported that we have contracts amounting to $50,000 and the goldwater in the district -- in the bottled water in the district. it is not an essential expense. one of the proposals is to replace these with filters. so that tap water, even though the water does not made -- does not need a filter in, some

people feel more comfortable. we would like to start with our own office in eliminating our bottled water. we do have a filter system. to inspire other floreors and encourage greater participation and then go out into the community. >> can i ask, we asked that the board office remove the water bottles. right when you walk in, there is a dispenser. you go a around the corner, there is our filter. we have asked to have the water bottle -- the one mike that removed. it is not necessary. i did not know if it is a president approval to have it removed. you said you were going to ask

the president. let's get rid of it. >> i am glad i did not have to make that tough decision. [laughter] >> i am sorry, before we go on. we have a committee meeting. is that ok? thank you. i wanted to announce the select committee meeting is this thursday, may 24. we are in city hall, room 16. the topics, at 3:30 to 5:30. our topic is health services, provided to students and adults. we will be discussing. we will have a presentation of our budget and also a

transitional kindergarten. the members of that committee by the chair supervisor. president david chiu and school board members. thank you. >> any other committee meeting dates? >> the representatives of the world committee is going to meet on june 20. that is the third wednesday. >> personnel is going to be june 7. at 5:30 i believe. 6:00. ok. maybe we should have the reed of all of those. budget is the 19. >> june 19 at 6:00. >> the budget committee meeting

is augmented. we ask that all commissioner show up. -- commissioners show up. >> i would like to add, the curriculum meeting will be on june 4, i am hoping commissioners can make it at 5:00. gluck's 5:00. curriculum meeting. >> i think afterwards, we have a closed session. >> why did you not e-mail us. we can figure it out. csba commissioner.

>> we attended the delicate assembly provided over by the president. i would say for the board, the most interesting item was what i mentioned about taking positions on the tax measures. we have chosen to take a yes-yes position. we hope it is a strategic way of ensuring that one measure passes. the aftermath of neither measure was described as a nuclear winter. none of us want to experience it. there was nothing sort of amazing parliamentary set of maneuvers. if you have never been to a delegate assembly, he cannot quite appreciate the noem -- level of minutia. anybody who wants to know the ins and alex