education and intervention as possible with our students. i know you had other slides in here but showing that early intervention, preventing substance abuse and memory loss, so many things are important to us to make sure we're graduating adults that are ready to be committed members of our community and i know that in particular, there is a stig in a around mental health issues, particularly in our communities of co-loffer -- of color, which is the majority of the school district so any outreach is great. >> thank you very much. prep does have bilingual capacity too. >> that would be great. thank you. >> our next item, item n, consent calendar resolutions. there are none tonight. item o, vote on consent calendar, which has been moved and seconded under section f.

may we have a roll call please. >> this has fan. >> yes. >> ms. creer. >> eyes. >> ms. mendoza. commissioner maufas: yes except -- vice president mendoza: yes except on items k-1, 8 and 29. because they're retroactive. >> thank you. ms. norton. commissioner norton: yes. >> ms. wynns. commissioner wynns: yes. >> mr. yee. commissioner yee: yes. >> and ms. kim. president kim: yes. next is item p, consent calendar resolution zehred for speakers, there are none tonight. item s, board member reports. our first is from the budget committee, commissioner yes.

commissioner yee: there were no -- commissioner yee. commissioner yee: there were no action items at our last meeting. we discussed the state budget updates just to get rolling in terms of our next school year budget development. of course at the time, the state had not passed the budget yet, so that was a very quick discussion. one of the concerns, and i still don't know, this should be a concern, but there was the governors' suggestion to cut all the unaccounted government funds which would have meant as much as $25 million that would have been cut out of our budget and so i don't think it happened but i don't know at this point. >> you would have heard. commissioner yee: i'm sure my friends would have notified me. and the nice thing was, you know, our local reps assure me

that was not going to happen. so the other thing that we talked about was revealing the -- reviewing the administratively approved consultant resolutions that we talked about, making sure that we, first of all we said we would allow for administrate orrs, for the administration to approve certain contracts, that's under $25,000, i believe and cumulatively up to $50,000. so there's been a mechanism, there was a report, but there was also some loopholes we had to look at in terms of how do we actually know who is keeping track of the accumulation, what if -- and commissioner wynns sort of brought this up, what happens when different sites are contracting with particular

vendors and they don't actually know who is contracting what and yet we're finding things that are showing up that are contrary to our policy. so the staff said they'd look into it and see how we can close those loopholes. the third item was talking about resources for the superintendents' zone and as you know, there's 15 schools in those zones and the biggest piece of the resources besides some of the title one funding we moved around to support that effort will be the improvement money, state improvement grant money. because 10 of the 15 schools in these zones are going to get funding in the number of $45 million over three years. that's going to help a lot. then the discussion really becomes, how do we make sure

that the other five don't have a lack of resources, and i think one of the things that is key, i mean, to all this, was in terms of the priorities, in the work areas, a lot of it was consistent to our strategy planning and so forth and it's a matter of move regular sources wrong and doing it more efficiency so without going through all the priorities, one thing we talked about as relevant to money was that there was one of the priorities said resource alignment and so there was a little confusion, what do you mean resource alignment? it could be at a high level but we also, what we found out from the staff was, we're also talking at the site level, too, a lot of times we might know what's going on at the higher level, not we, but the staff,

and -- we know what's going on too. but at the site level they don't know what they can move around and what resources can be used more efficiently. so one of the ideas was that there's going to be a lot of coaching around this particular item. so one of the things -- so the report was good, but it was not complete. and we wanted to know more about the title one money in terms of what was flex and all this, so what really are we using to support the central staff to support our effort with these zones and we asked for a report for our next meeting for that one. so our next budget committee meeting will be october 28, and one of the items we were hoping to discuss for information on was the budget around special ed and there was a conflict of staffing in terms of her --

what's her name? cecilia dodge, being able to attend because she had already committed to some other venue system of we're going to postpone that discussion to make sure she's there for november and we're going to move up some items and we'll be getting -- all of you will be getting this -- the unaudited actuals and we'll have some brief discussion around this because where it's going to be showing, actually some positive results that we weren't anticipating and we'll have that discussion in our next meeting, ok? >> thank you, commissioner yee. the next report -- commissioner yee: deputy superintendent lee. >> thank you. i wanted to make one addendum to commissioner yee's report, this is maybe a sore subject at this

point but on the issue of the administratively approved k resolutions, so what we reported to the committee was the loopholes that i think the commissioners are all familiar with have been addressed so we should not see, and this is true as of the last regular board meetings, as well as tonight's regular board meeting, we should not see items of multiple sites or multiple departments submitting k resolutions for the same contractor in excess of those cumulative thresholds or the $25,000 thresholds. i think the committee discussed wanting to have more information about how we've done that or evidence that we've done that or seeing some of the tools we've used to handle that. we can do that for the next committee meeting but just in case people are wondering if, in the meantime, the loopholes are still unaddressed or if they had been addressed, the answer is they have been addressed. commissioner yee: thank you.

president kim: commissioner fewer. commissioner fewer: the curriculum program committee met on october 4 we we had one action item, which gave it a positive recommendation and forwarded it to the board and we had two informational items, one oo-- on the clip grant and one about shape up and what we are doing with shape up with our p.e. department and we actually have agreed that we would call the clip grant back in the spring for an update to find out more about it and also to see, because there's sort of -- they're sort of in a planning stage now to get an update on that, and also we spoke about shape up and our p.e. department collaborating on getting a sur -- on doing a survey on how well we're meeting the needs of our studenting concerning p.e. and the p.e. master plan. the next curriculum meeting will

be on november 3, wednesday. we were going to hold it the first monday of every month but that monday, there is no school, there is a furlough day, so we are now scheduling a meeting for wednesday, november 4. thank you. president kim: commissioner norton. commissioner norton: i wanted to announce the next meeting of the rules policy and education committee will be october 18 at 5:30. correction, november 3 -- wednesday is the third. right. thank you very much. president kim: the day after election day. item t is report of closed session actions. as of october 7, 2010, the board of education by a vote of five ayes and two absence approved the expulsion of one high school student. they have approved the filing of one civil action. the board of education by a vote of seven ayes approved an amendment to the superintendent of school's contract which eextended the term by one year.

altered the terms of the additional retirement clause from a contribution to a supplemental plan, to contribution to a retirement plan as selected by the superintendent which includes an option to purchase the nonqualified plan. there are no other changes to the existing contract and thank you, carlos for staying with us at least one more year beyond your contract. we're all excited that you are committed to sfusd. yes, go ahead, commissioner wynns. commissioner wynns: i want to congratulate the superintendent and express my support for his contract extension and provisions but i also need to ask a question. i have been concerned since we took this vote because unless something has changed in the law, i have been told for a number of years, and we have behaved for a number of years, and it was changed five or six years ago and in those

intervening years we have voted on the superintendent's contract in open session. having been told by our attorneys that we were required to do that. so if we -- i need to have something in writing that tells me either we were wrong before or the -- we're wrong now or the law has been changed, i need a legal basis for that vote to be valid. i think we need that for our record. too. i have no issue with the vote but i want to make sure we did it legally and if we didn't, if we did, we've been doing it illegally or unnecessarily for years and we need to know that. president kim: i will absolutely provide you that. generally, you cannot discuss compensation itself in closed session and any modifications to compensation has to take place in open session but since that was not discussed. president kim: item u, other informational items, it is

pested in the agenda, quarterly report on williams uniform complaints, now we're at item v, meeting is adjourned. have a good evening.

work to explore the different

options that were being considered and sent -- policy was approved in march looking at understanding what the implications for transportation might be. and the membership of that working group includes kakiharo, myself. and dennis garden. and we've had preliminary conversations with ellen broussard and kevin traout. that pertains to the after-school program. we have broader conversations after tonight's meeting. with much larger groups. once we get feedback from the group. and the next topic is the outreach plan for 2011-2012 and work discussion and feedback. so i'll take a couple of minutes to go through the first few slides of the presentation. we did make copies of it available for the public to -- and we will post it on our webpage. and our objective tonight are to review and confirm the goals

and objectives for transportation, approach that we're taking, and the time line. we want to share that information with the board and gather your feedback to incorporate it into the work moving forward. and so i'm going to hand it over to susan kagi haro who will present the information. >> hi. so the first question is why change transportation? we do have a transportation infrastructure. the main reason is that we believe that our transportation policy should reflect our strategic plan commitment. and our current bus routes are really vestiges of past immigration efforts and requests from schools for additional services. and they're not really aligned with the board's current priorities. so what does our current transportation look like? we have -- we utilize 44 buses and making about five to six trips a day.

so that services about 3,300 students, 59 different elementary schools. elementary schools as well as 358 students to seven middle schools. and in terms of afterschool, that 950 students from 50 elementary schools are transported to 19 s.f.u. child development centers and over 30 nonsfusd after school programs. so that's what we do now. one of the questions that the board asked us is well, how did we get here? and so janice guard won couldn't be here tonight -- janice garden who couldn't be here tonight gave us a little bit of history how we got here. he explained that in the 1970's, we had the horseshoe plan where the school district was divided into seven zones and students were transported

to support a 4-6 configuration. in the 1980's we launched a redesign and schools were reconfigured into k-5, six, eight, and alternative schools. and the district was divided into feeder areas with walk areas and noncontiguous areas. transportation was provided from the noncontiguous areas to the assigned school. and initially, with the alternative schools, they didn't have a feeder pattern so no transportation was provided. later on, bus service was added from elementary schools to these alternative schools. later, in the early 1990's, they did some minor changes to the feeder pattern. and then in the past decade, we've added routes to enhance

enrollment at certain schools. so an example is we added routes to support certain high schools. we've also, because of budget deficit issues, we've eliminated -- we eliminated services to high schools. we also did some changes on the margins. so when there were unused stops, we eliminated those stops. and where it was possible, we -- yeah. where possible we added stops to when schools called and requested a stop, if we could add that stop without increasing transportation costs, if we could accommodate that, we did. so really what we have right now is a transportation system that was really set in the 1980's and has just sort of

slightly changed over time and over time and over time. so looking back at where we want to be, we would really like our goals for transportation to align with our strategic plan and our new student assignment policy. in our new student assignment policy we identified two goals. first, is to reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school. and the second is to provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students. so we took those two student assignment goals and we built transportation goals that align with these student assignments with these student assignment policies. so if you look in the blue box, we have the corresponding transportation goal. so the first is to support the

use of choice for creating integrating learning environments. and the second is to support equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students. so what does that look like? what we tried to do was then take the objective and build what we're calling a sample baseline. what would it mean to implement this objective? for that first -- for the first goal, to support the use of choice as a tactic for creating integrated learning veerments, we have two objectives. provide transportation to racially isolated schools that have traditionally been underenrolled. and two, to maintain current routes that help create diverse environments. enrollments. so in a sample baseline, what we would do is first maintain

our strategic bus routes to schools in the superintendent zone and other schools that are in racially isolated neighborhoods and serve large numbers of underserved students. and then to deal with the second objective, we would maintain limited transportation to schools where enrollment is more diverse than the diversity built into the surrounding residential patterns. so, for example, lakeshore is a fairly diverse school. but this diversity is not mirrored in the neighborhood -- in the neighborhood demographics. and it's currently supported by bus routes coming from bayview hunters point, which is creating the diversity at that school. so in this sample baseline, we may want to consider continuing to support lakeshore's bus transportation.

so moving on to goal number two, which is to support equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students, we've identified three objectives. provide students living in ctip one which is -- i don't think -- ok. with access to k-8 schools, language immersion programs, and f.f. public montreal sorry schools. -- monisorri schools. and literacy and immersion programs and the third is to provide newcomers with access to newcomer schools. and so what a sample baseline might look like, let's take one of them, so just take the first bullet, to provide transportation to enable students in ctip one areas to access at least one k-8 school. and at least one elementary school offering a language immersion program. so that a ctip one

neighborhood, students in the ctip one neighborhood, would have bus transportation to at least one k-8 and one language immersion school. in terms of supporting equitable access to the range of opportunities, we also had two more objectives. so provide reasonable access to attendance area schools, and the fifth is to provide students living in densely populated attendance areas with reasonable access to schools in less densely populated areas of the city. so for number four, if you remember, there was -- webster attendance area was very geographically large. so in a really large attendance area, we may want to look at where students live and if it's really far away to provide a transportation route within

that attendance zone. and then in terms of reasonable access to attendance area schools, another classic example is treasure island. those students would need transportation from treasure island to sherman and elementary schools because the bay is a top graphical area. so we created this baseline and then we took a step back. and we said, well, what are the implications of that baseline on our current transportation services? the first thing that is pretty obvious is this represents a major shift in services. so what this would mean, the biggest issue here is the majority of the current riders,

elementary school riders, would possibly lose bus service. so currently 3,300 elementary school students ride the yellow school buses. in this sort of baseline example that we created, approximately 900 students might continue to have service. but 2,400 students could lose service. while additional riders would probably gain access through new routes, it still does mean a major shift in who gets served and who may not get served. so here's -- we wanted to try and provide an example. so here are the current routes to rooftop -- rooftop

alternatives. and i don't know if you can see them. but the lines -- the lines on -- put my glasses on -- the lines on the map represent -- represent five bus routes. ok. and so they all come to that one little red spot in the center that is rooftop. so the potential implication of moving to a new system that completely alliance with our objectives would be to -- we would eliminate the stops that do not support objectives. so, for example, we would eliminate the stops or routes outside of ctip one.

so if you look at this, it could possibly mean eliminating three routes. and then -- and it would also mean -- potentially mean adding stops within the ctip one areas to efficiently support our objective. >> i would like to ask the same question. this looks like the same map. >> yes. it is the same map. what we're trying to show is -- so sorry. it is the same map. what might move away, the purple line that doesn't touch any of the ctip areas. the orange line, bus route, that doesn't touch any ctip one areas, and i think it like the pink or red line. pink or red line. >> yeah, this is the same map,