coming. but what are you saying at the outset in terms of what you want to see by the end of the year, and how is that being tracked? just so we know. we do not know currently what is supposed to be happening. that was supposed to be given to us at the beginning of our time on the board for this year. commissioner maufas: is that because that was not a part of what was put you as a part of your practice, or is that because the program was already up and running so that was not part of your historical knowledge? >> it was not part of my own personal historical knowledge, and it is a bit outside the scope of what we set out to do this year. but having that additional information does help give a more broad, you know -- it helps when you see and are asking questions under supposed to know

exactly what is supposed to be happening. commissioner maufas: it sounds like a bit of both. >> it is a bit of both, yes. commissioner maufas: thank you for that. president kim: any other comments or questions? as a former member of peef as well, i really appreciate your dedication to this process. as we talk about potentially bring this to the ballot, i know there are a lot of different discussions as to how this is going to come back. it is important message to voters how this impacts our schools and benefits our communities. i think an important forum would be to go to the select committee on the board of supervisors before final approval of the budget. this is where the funding comes from. it comes from the city. the voters approve city funding to come to the school district to help us to enhance our programs, to build stronger leaders, to have a more well- grounded curriculum in our

schools. the can continue to do that. thank you for your time, and thank you for being here. commissioner yee: i do not want to spend a whole lot of time, but this is an issue with the select committee. if we are going to have representation at the select committee, not only should we be talking about, you know, our two-thirds that go into the school district, but we should invite the people that administer the piece that is the third of the funding to be part of that discussion, because we have to look at the whole package. even though we are not administering the preschool portion of prop j, our children's fund, the idea is that the other third the goes into preschool would have an impact, a positive impact in terms of the kids coming through the preschool programs into our system. so i would like to have that

discussion. president kim: thank you, commissioner. and thank you very much again. [applause] our next item is item l, special order of business. there is none tonight. item m, discussion of other educational issues, there is nine tonight. item n, consent calendar resolutions -- there is none tonight. item o, but on consent calendar -- that has arisen been moved and seconded. [roll call vote] >> six ayes. president kim: our next is item p, consent calendar resolutions. that has been severed. there are three. commissioner wynn, would you

like to hear two first, or all three together? k2 -- commissioner wynn. commissioner wynns: i appreciate the information here, particularly the sort of perspective on the proposal on this program. but the reason i severed this is that a few meetings ago i had asked for an overview of professional development money, if we had a plan for spending the professional development money that we retain, since we have cut that to such a high degree. and i have to say that i think that we actually postponed action on a number of professional development contract when i asked that question. i was told of a debt before the

next meeting at least an outline of some kind of strategic plan for professional development and how the resources we have in the various programs we are funding would be aligned with specific academic goals we have this year, or whatever. what i actually received by e- mail on the day of the following meeting was just a list of some things that were funded only through the same source of the things we had severed at the previous meeting, not in any way, and that is one of my main interests. i would like to know what all our professional development resources are. i know it is germane to the discussion we just had about prop h because of resources that were formerly categorized and restricted to professional development. under the so-called flexibility, the state allows us to use the money to back fill schoolteachers more core activities that we said we have

lost funding for. i know the resources that remain are limited, yet we have still some small amount, or i do not know exactly how much, although i can see some listed in the tier 3 list of formerly restricted professional development money being spent that way. we have mostly federal resources like are being referred to in a number of contract we have tonight. that is one of the things i want to see. as much as we can say, i do not need the specific amount, but generally what do we have left from what resources to target and strategically focus on our academic goals and other kinds of professional development? i have not seen that, not even a summary of professional development resources. i severed this just so i could ask for that again and hopefully get some updates on some of the status of that, if it is taking place at all.

>> we can certainly provide that for you, and it will take a very long time to do. as you have said, the resources are much more limited this year. commissioner wynns: i appreciate that. i am not talking about the specifics. i do not want to know every contract. i want to know what we got from what resources. i hope these contracts, as they come to us -- this is not the only one this evening. there are a few others. i would be able to say we are spending this much on technology relations, professional development. for this reason, we are spending this much on reading. i do not know what they are. but i am presuming we have such a plan. if we do not have it written down, at least it is conceptual. i think the board -- it would be helpful for us to know that. we will be making more cuts and i would like to know how we are deploying it. president kim: roll call, p

lease. [roll call vote] >> six ayes. commissioner wynns: thank you. for some of you, this is repetitive. i wanted to, if you remember, discuss some of the smaller contracts just like this during the supplemental educational services under no child left behind, contracts in the administrative law approved resolutions for the same meeting, and was not able to do so. that is something we have referred to the rules committee. we want something on the agenda that will allow us to discuss administratively approved actions on the agenda. i did bring that up with members of staff. we talked a little bit about how

we could get information about the process in the budget committee, because we were talking about administratively approved resolutions. i think here in a public arena where more people are listening to this, i want to bring this up again. here is my issue. as i understand this, we previously, when notre left behind first passed, -- no child left behind first passed, we had a limited number of contractors to work with. i had a few years to serve on the state practitioners for title one when those regulations were being developed, when the plan for notre left behind was developed in the state. most of the people in the committee, to my benefit, were title one directors. so i learned a lot about how districts do it. i have to frankly say there are people there who were concerned that we were limiting the number

of providers in a way that may be was not allowable. but there was a lot of discussion that there were a lot of less than effective providers in the state, on the state list. the committee was instrumental in having some kind of allowable, under the federal government regulations, evaluations. the pattern -- there was a huge list of providers. the quality of the services was enormously variable from the people who were reported by title 1 directors to take the money and never provide any

service for kids, which was apparently allowable under those regulations, to the people that we on the time were pretty much only contract in with, so widely recognized organizations. princeton review, etc.. these contracts here, and also the administratively approved ones, i saw, had a response numbers. one provider with for students or three students -- four students or three students. we at the budget committee said we would ask the curriculum committee to take this up, but i really want the board to be involved in a discussion about the process that we are now using, how we assess the effectiveness, how week -- for instance, one of the things i learned at the committee, years ago, was that there was a pop --

and i should say at least that there is a lot of -- you know, these are services many school districts did not think for a very effective way to spend these federal dollars to help students. it was a process or an opportunity that was presumed to, or known to, largely be the result of lobbying by private providers to the federal government when no child left behind was passed. we were setting up some rules for our own providers and our own schools that seemed logical to me. we asked that services have to be provided at the school site. many other districts were prohibiting providing days of the school site. we thought there was an opportunity to have alignment between these tutoring students as -- is to trim services and instruction at the schools. we thought that limit to the number of providers -- at the

time, we used a process that was take all the students that are eligible at a certain school, ask their parents to vote, and then have one provider at their school. we would not have four people being tutored by this service and six by this service. have we changed that? do we think it is better this way? do we think it is effective? do we look at effectiveness? have we had interaction with the state department or other regulators about how we do it? is it aligned with our instructional programs? do we think it is effective? all those kind of things. i want to caution the board that as we all know, no child left behind has not been reauthorize. given the recent political developments, it is anybody's guess when it is. and what that means, sadly, is that some of these principles of spending that are embodied in the current law may be with us a

lot longer than we thought there would be. -- than we thought they would be two weeks ago. president kim: let me say a couple of things, and then i am going to turn it to the person who supervises this process. as the law exists now, the department of education -- the california department of education -- is a body that approves providers of these services. there is a statewide list. and the parents have the absolute right, if their students are eligible, if their children are eligible, to be provided with these services. it is their choice which provider provides the services. and we are to inhabited -- we are prohibited from trying to persuade parents to go with one provider or another. that is the context. i think we all agree with you

that this is not a very effective or efficient use of these resources, which amount to quite a bit of money. but that is the law that we are living with and now we have to abide by. i am going to ask jorge to provide the details of the process we are using now and what sorts of resources we have in terms of evaluating services and so forth. >> good evening, commissioners. i am glad to be here again. i had the distinct honor to now serve on the committee of petitioners' myself. i was appointed last year. i am happy to report that things have advanced in the state. as of last year, there were new rules and regulations executed that allow the state to actually eliminate providers who do not have data provided to the state that document the effectiveness of their work with california students. so they are monitoring and assuring that everyone on the

list has been vetted by them in a much more thorough process than the past. on the local front, we also are working with our parent liaisons' directly, or other designees as dedicated to this task by the principals, and they are reporting to us to assure the service is quality. anytime the parents are not getting services or the tutors are late, etc., we monitor the quality of services going in and going out. there are not that many hours provided by these dollars. the services and of being spent -- a number of the vendors want 5 students per session in order to want their ends meet. i too am troubled by the way in which these things are set up. it is a federal mandate. under our current contract system, we are able to eliminate providers for any number of infractions. thanks to the legal office, we have a tighter contract than

either before. that allows us to throw folks out who are not doing what they need to for our kids. at this time, as we will continue throughout the year, you will be getting constant amendments as we chase down what families tell us, which providers the want, and providers telling us the will or will not serve. obviously, there must be a better way of doing this, but at this point the fed will government depends on this system instead of trusting the district or the schools to set up their own tutorials. commissioner wynns: are all these services being provided on school sites? >> the providers have now three options for providing services. one is the can be on school sites. they can also be in a publication agreeable and allowed by the family, such as a library or the parent's home. what is a new or growing phenomenon is there is also on mine tutoring, where there is

nobody there, but there is tutoring services that caused a great deal of issues. that was turned to the petitioners about the legality. if there are any issues about student harm or the person is not within state lines for the country, that can be controlled. the new age of the web-based support services have caused a new angle on things. another phenomenon we have seen happening is that a lot of these companies are starting to use resources the giveaway, such as a laptop at the end of the tutoring service, to be an incentive to be recruiting families. we have made sure they understand that is legal. you cannot offer more than $50 up front, but families talk. when someone got a resource, a lot of phillies will go down this half -- a lot of families

will go down this path. that is a new phenomenon as of last year. commissioner norton: wow. i apologize. i am going to ask some questions that some people have the answers to. how much money are talking about? >> is roughly 1300 to $1,400. the figure changes each year. i have to look it up on the internet, but it is around that. per student eligible. that is right. depending on the amount of dollars per tutoring session, anywhere from $20 to $70. you can do the math there about how many hours of the bill we are provided. commissioner norton: i was interested in the answer to commissioner wynns's question. you said there were three options for where they can provide the service. did we change our policy?

it sounded like the previously said it had to be on the school site and we are not saying that anymore. >> there is a right to allow the tutoring to happen in a location that is amenable for the parents. if that is the way in which tutoring is offered, the parent selects that tudor to be in that kind of set up, we have to abide by that. commissioner norton: if the parent chooses an on-line service, there is nothing we can do with that? >> that is correct. it is the parents' choice. in this district, we send out a letter and ask parents to rank their top three choices. you can imagine with 40 providers and 25 schools, and thousands of kids trying to make it all worked out, we can calculate the contracts and renew the amendments each time. it ends up being a full person's job just to manage the work, which probably could be better done if it was allowed to be an

option within the districts control with one company we trust, but that is how we set up -- but that is how it is set up. commissioner wynns: could you tell us, just for the record, just how much the whole amount of money is? >> yes, i can. but i will have to look up. it is something to the effect of $800,000. commissioner wynns: the state does not recommend providers. the state does not say this is a good provider. what they are mandated to do, if they make it on the list, they can become providers. the me thresholds which have very little to do with effectiveness. it has to do with filling out the forms correctly, asserting that you are going to do this.

there are very little -- there is no, "have you actually helped kids do better in school?" just so the parents -- just so the community understands the intention of the law here. do we have something in our contracts that requires them to align their work with the construction all -- the instructional program in our schools? >> it does say that, but of course it is a stretch. there is a computer-based mathematics program that does but a difference with our kids. if the school means a performance with mathematics -- at the present time, the degrees of control are not what i think would be significant for what we are after in our strategic plan. so i am hoping that there will be changes in the law that will

allow us to have much more authority over what is happening. commissioner wynns: my last question is are we conducting -- are collecting data about the performance of students who take advantage of this service, and also the various providers to kids who do not? >> all the contracts require pre-published data, but of course it is according to their measure. commissioner wynns: i understand, but that is not what i am saying. within our own data collection on a student basis, are we looking at -- we are going to need it -- i appreciate the delicate way that we have all been talking here about what we think is some kind of, at the very least, poorly, you know, poor judgment on the part of the federal government, saying we

are going to take a large part of money to support poor kids and say it goes to private providers, regardless of the effectiveness. however, when this hopefully eventually comes up for reauthorization and you are looking at this method of this -- supposedly helping kids who need extra help, we are going to need data to show what we think of it, even though there will not be -- there will be very little disagreement among school districts as to the effectiveness of spending money this way, in my experience. but we still are going to need that data, because the providers are going to assert this is just a great idea and we are doing so much better by spending money in this way. >> definitely, we are collecting data. whether that data can be compared from one source to another source, when there are different ways of collecting data -- whether that data is useful is a different item? we are more than happy to do an analysis of the data collected.

it does have interest to us. there can be a correlation made with substantial statistical liability, probably, the would allow us to compare scores and see if there is an aftereffect. that would be in our best interest. commissioner wynns: ok. we will explore that. thank you. president kim: thank you. roll call, please. [roll is called] commissioner norton: reluctantly, yes. president kim: our next item is item q, superintendents proposals for first reading. we have won tonight, authorization to grant or to deny the international school's petition for a new charter school. i made a motion and i need a

second. commissioner yee: second. president kim: this will be referred to curriculum committee and budget committee. the next is board members' proposals, item r, for first reading. it is in support of denouncing the deportation of shing ma "steve" li, a dream at student at city college of san francisco. we need a movement to suspend rules. [roll call vote] >> five ayes. president kim: may we have a motion and second for a formal introduction?

i will do the reading of the resolution. our resolution is in support of denouncing the deportation of shing ma steve li, a dream at student at city college of san francisco. this is bipartisan legislation addresses the plight of young people brought to the united states as immigrant children, who have since kept out of trouble. each year, 65,000 united states- raised students to qualify for the been -- who qualify for the dream act frederick from high school. assistant senate majority leader dick durbin asked the u.s. department of homeland security secretary, janet napolitano, to halt the deportation of immigrants students who could earn legal status under the dream act. it has the support of the house

and senate leadership, all the relative committee shares, and our military leaders, including colin powell. in 2010, before the national hispanic caucus, president obama stated he would do whatever it takes to support the efforts to pass this bill, so he can sign it into law on behalf of students seeking a college education and those who wish to serve in our country's uniform. it is the right thing to do. steve li is a junior in city college who aspires to be a health care worker. he graduated from george washington high school as well as hoover middle school, where he was an editor and reporter for the school newspaper and ran on the track and cross-country team. he is scheduled to graduate in september 2011. he entered the u.s. when he was about 12 years old and was ordered removed from the united states to peru when he was 14. he has no knowledge of the

deportation because he was a derivative beneficiary of his mother's political asylum application. when the judge denied that her status, that denied his status in the u.s. where he was a minor. he was never reformed -- he was never informed he was a fugitive in the united states. he was arrested along with his parents pursuant to an ice directive called the fugitive program. it was intended to target dangerous fugitive immigrants, but instead has swept up young adopted children who never knew they had been ordered to move. this does not serve any national security progress. where as he is dream act eligible, and his deportation to peru should be halted, we should read his application for deferred action and allow him to remain in the u.s.. protect children -- deporting dream our children is unfair and a violation of