we're going to need that for public prior to that, so i think if we can -- either possibly materials from this meeting can be on the website and it should have the original motion and the substitute motion because if you only have something that you say is the substitute motion and it is there, people are going to want to know what has changed and one following the other so they can check on that. then i want you to try to -- if you can, give us as many specifics as you can about what the timeline might be but more than that, tell us how we can public lissize the timeline so that people can know this. first of all, i just think we need to be telling people as much as possible now, they are proposing transportation changes for next year. so don't make your choices based on prudgeses that the

transportation will be the same --. this is one of those things a people have since we have -- as we have reviewed the historical many times, not only have they not paid attention to that. they just presume that things going stay the same. all we have done is add buses, not take them away. i think this is a huge thing for the public, for the family s that aregoing to use the system and they are unprepared for this, no matter how much we have been saying it, we can't say it too much. >> i want to echo that and i want to say -- has this gone out -- do the administrators know this where they can start warning their families? i continue to feel like we should at the very least if

we're eliminating after school transportation for families that we should make some guarantees to them so this they are going to have after school care tr their children if they are preparing for that and they are already prepared for a school. my suggestion was at the last meeting was we should guarantee them on site but if we can't do that, we at least have to guarantee them some ufsfd care. we can't leave them with no options. we can't do that. >> excuse me, commissioner. are you talking about families that go to privately run after school programs or -- >> because when there is not enough capacity at school sites. it is one thing to say we're going to eliminate transportation at an off site program whether -- none of them are private. they are all nonprofit. the point is -- if there is not capacity at their current school site and they are going to that school site next year, they need

something. most people who -- not always, but most people who get -- who take transportation to an off site program do so because there isn't capacity at their school site for them to enroll in either low cost or any -- >> oh, really? actually that wasn't my experience. my experience was they choose to go to an off site b then if we don't have the capacity to do the after school program for everybody, which i believe is sort of the goal to do now, but if we don't have it for everybody, that we should be giving the transportation to privately run after school

programs? we want to make sure that the transportation policy is aligned with that and supportive of that and in terms of so at this point we can't give any more specifics but for the question about the timeline and what information we can share and how, we are going to be presenting information of the enrollment fair on saturdays, there is a couple of workshops about transportation. the feedback that you have given us today is going to get folded

into these documents. asking folks put it on -- and just kind of getting it out as broadly as possible. we're presenting information at the select committee on the 18th talking to the -- on the 16th and we have met with and talked with a lot of individuals from different city organization m.t.a., the biking coalition, the department of public health, they are on a mailing list that we have. we're going to have another meeting with them in a few weeks. at the same time, the questions that we have and if you look at the last -- the last page of the document, it is -- it has -- the first piece is alternatives to yellow bus transportation because through our discussions, we have learned about a about at parent-initiated alternatives. for example, there is a share a ride, a 5.1 school massing --

school matching program. instead of saying 555.org, it whoudshould say 511. some of our students to car shares through that. there are also walking school buses -- and by trains. -- and bike trains. over the next couple of months, or by december, we will inform the community about the objectives. because we do not have information available -- as soon as review, we will share that. in the meantime, with each week that goes by, we will have more information. the questions outlined on pages 6 and 7 will give us specific information, like which schools we should continue maintaining existing routes because they help create diversity. we will be able to a identify those by answering questions

away. speaking about schools that are under unrolled and racially isolated -- >> what are you talking about? >> on page four of the documentation that is the transportation policy. >> there is no page 7. >> it says page 4 of 6. >> i know. but you said page 6 and 7. [laughter] >> i apologize. port each of the goals in the board policy, there are a set of questions we will use to get this data that will name schools and give us information that will help them figure out routes and buses that we should establish. as soon as that information is available, we will make that information public. we are really trying right now to get answers to these questions. looking at the english loaner programs, where do the spanish- english lerner's live compared to where the spanish programs could serve them? is there a match with current

transportation routes? do you need transportation? do they live near the program? all of that will help us get an understanding of where we should think about creating routes. it also makes it clear that what we are considering at the routes -- we are looking at english lerner's having access to english lerner programs. -- we are looking at english learners having access to english learner programs. we are looking for students with low test scores to have access to accelerated programs. >> i want to be clear with you and with the board that i am not saying that i do not agree with the direction we are going, with the policy change. what i am saying is that there are a lot of families, and as we get deeper into the new policy there will be fewer and fewer of them who will make arrangements and decisions under an old system that is now going to change. those families are depending -- or believing the arrangements

they made are going to go forward. if we are going to jerk the rug out from under them, we need to tell them as soon as possible, at least to help them with some kind of contingency, because these are families that both parents are working full time and they are expecting their kids are cared for until 5:00 or 6:00 at these programs. >> thank you, commissioner. i think there are two things to share. we are doing everything we can to make sure we are not pulling the rug out. one is that we are having a plan. we are not imagining that a long-term vision will happen tomorrow. we are looking at gradually phasing out stops. we are looking to identify who the individual students are who are riding the buses. we do not know that. we are going to try to capture that data. then we will be able to engage in direct conversation with them and get more feedback about them instead of a speculative. there are two approaches on the table. >> i am sorry to keep going back to the after-school issue, but

it is a big issue. what is our plan for communicating with the providers? it seems to me one of the first things we should do is that we know what -- mr. darden kept response a while ago act to legalize this statement. -- mr. garden's response a while ago actually belies this statement. if we do not know what students need day care, we do not know all those things. but we can ask all our parents about that. we do have a core of major afterschool providers that are institutional organizations that we should be talking to, and they should be talking to their clients. they could be talking to us or other transportation providers about other ways to get kids from public schools to their programs.

frankly, i just wanted to -- i think that the board and the public needs to know more. i just want to put in a pitch for us finding out as much as we can about the realignment as early as we can, because that would be good to know. [laughter] what we -- i am hoping that this is going to get better over time. but i do not -- it is november. it is not made. but still. -- it is not may. but still. we are telling people we are going to change some of our transportation program next year. we should have as much information as we can, and show should the families we serve. any other -- and so should the

families research. any other questions? commissioner fewer: a lot of parents are used to having transportation even getting kids to school in the morning. they have really depended on this for years. even some of our high school students. i think getting the word out as quickly as possible. because it leaves not just after school parents of elementary school children who get their kids to an after-school program. it is even our teenagers who are taking the high school buses that we are going to eliminate. i know that parents also, you know, in some cases, their children will be on a muni bus for up to 2 below hours a day, or even more than that. -- for up to two hours a day, or even more than that. i mean logistics of raising a family in san francisco.

commissioner wynns: is there any member of the public would like to testify on this issue? please come up to the microphone and speaker quickly. i would like to get through this as quickly as possible and go to the next item. >> ruth bucket, parent advisory council to the board of education. there was a committee of folks working on this when the question first came up almost two years ago. we have been meeting with district staff to talk about the community engagement process at this point in time. i do want to highlight some of the agreements of on some things the commissioners are saying about the need to get the word out to families as immediately as possible, and to make it possible for people who want to to be part of the conversation about the policy part, and not just waiting to find out about is their record to be affected -- their route to be affected. we have to give people an

opportunity to weigh in on the policy part of it. i do not know the status of the "school times" publication that comes out a couple of times a year. i am hoping that what the packet suggested was a little box of information about key policy things that are going to be changing, that were in discussion this year, and ways for families to get involved in those conversations. that publication is something that we feel already exists. it is already in three languages. if we could just get the schools to send it home with the students of the families actually saw that information, it would go a long way to getting a lot of information about what has happened in the district home in ways that a community organization has access to all 50,000 students. that publication could get home if principlealsals and school sf made it a priority to get it

home. that would be a concrete suggestion we have made a lot of times and want to continue encouraging. thanks. >> i am todd david, parent. just to speak anecdotally about the afterschool issue, it does seem that it is really important. in eldorado, there is a wasteland a mile long for people to have after-school care after school. at the beginning of the year every year, families are scrambling to find places for their children to go. and so, you know, i guess i really want to speak in support of commissioner norton and talk about how important it is and how much families what the after-school program at their school sites. if that cannot happen, not providing a clear place for them to be able to send their children and a clear way of how they are going to get there -- i

think that is really problematic. also anecdotally, i know of no family that has afterschool options at their school that chooses to go somewhere else. i know of, just anecdotally, i cannot say i know that for sure. but that is kind of, you know, it seems to me that everyone's first choice is the program at their school. thank you. goodbye. commissioner wynns: i did want to say a couple of things. we know there are a lot of people who have options at the school site who do not choose them. a lot of that is that we have had free transportation, so it was not an issue for a lot of people. but also, i was talking to mr. david earlier today. one of the things that occurred to me -- this is again in the town of working with providers, which is not so much the job of those of you who are working on student assignments, but more

the people who are working on the realignment, the single issue person, but also our program people who work with elementary schools as well as with child development. all of our people who work on partnerships with community- based organizations and city agencies. the existence of this transportation system, among other things, as well as, in my view, the way we assign people to our own child development programs that is wherever they land, as opposed to where they live or go to school, has contributed to this. we are complicit in this ourselves. the school district is. that is the kind of stuff we ought to be working on now. there are plenty of places in noe vallate where there are places we should have more capacity on the site. that is our goal through the

realignment. but also, if people knew they were not good to have this transportation, we could be working with partners to have this programs. the capacity for after school is in the neighborhood, not just after school sites are getting in a bus to go across town. people rely on the transportation system that we simply cannot afford to provide any more. it may be the most efficient or best way of doing it anyway. it is not just going to be a sendoff that is brutal. for those of you sitting here, we will align all the initiatives taken place. i think we are ready to go on to the special education item. thank you very much. thank you for this work. thank you.

>> good evening, everybody. i guess i would like to share briefly that we have got a proposal for you about how to begin to move some of the recommendations from the audit report that was shared with you in mid september. i have a brief power point.

i guess i would like to frame it before we start. essentially, you will recall that the outside of it really -- the outside audit called everyone's attention -- commissioner wynns: for the record, will you identify yourself? >> i am cecilia dodd, assistant superintendent for special education. one of the major recommendations in the audit report from the urban special ed leadership collaborative is that we begin to put a change in our thinking and focus on serving children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. we are not serving children in the least restrictive environment in the way that we really should be. so they recommended to think

about inclusive practices and an integrated set of services rather than inclusion programs. currently, we have students with disabilities whose iqs say that they need inclusion served in what we call inclusion programs that are not located in all schools. as a way to move forward with serving kids with disabilities in a more inclusive way and a more integrated way, we are proposing that we start small, so that we can be successful, and use an opportunity while we are looking at the student enrollment process to really look at how we enroll children and youth with disabilities and think about a way that more children can use the same

process, and families can use the same process, to choose schools as they do for their non-disabled children, and that we would essentially have inclusion, not inclusion programs, but inclusive practices in all schools. the way we are proposing to do that is to start small. currently, the practice is that students whose iaps already say that they need special ed in a resource setting or rsp and students whose iaps say they need special ed and designated instructional service -- that is children who are primarily -- speech/language is the primary disability -- those kids are

already accessing the school choice process that all the typically developing per se access. we are talking about adding the kids whose iaps say inclusion. we are talking about on a small scale here -- we are talking about 100 students who will be in coming kindergarteners, 45 students who will be in coming sixth graders, and 35 who will be in coming-- incoming 9th graders. we are talking about just the transitional grades to elementary, middle, and high school. that way we can really focus on development with principals and special ed staffs of these kids can be successful. commissioner wynns: to clarify, you are -- this is the current

year. we presume there are the same number of students next year? >> exactly. we are estimating. it is always a moving target. there will be iap movements -- meetings between now and the end of the year when different students will be found eligible and different students will have services recommended. this is carving out what seems doable. it is a way to move toward a more inclusive model. it is students entering transition grades. commissioner wynns: i just want to clarify that we presume the numbers are about the same way and that is why we are going to use those numbers. >> right. one trick to this is withholding some additional spots in our schools so that as kids need those services throughout the course of the year that we will not have to ask kids to -- who started a school year in one

school to go to a different school. commissioner wynns: ok. but can you tell me how many? i mean, we will not know what schools that are choosing until we go through the process. -- they are choosing until we go through the process. how are we going to figure out how many spots each school needs to hold? >> what we do now for assignment is we do pre assignments. they submit their choices. there are students who choose different schools. we pre-assigned those students ahead of time. we usually, for kindergarten for example, if there are three kindergarten classes, we usually assign one into the classroom. that is a general rule, given the capacity of the entire population of kids. what we are planning to do in this scenario is probably to set

capacities that are specifically for inclusion students. we might go with three for each kindergarten class or we might go with the cluster, given what the population of students are presently at the school. so we would hold those seats. through the assignment process, we would have students who are inclusion -- they compete with each other. commissioner wynns: and will we tell people what the capacity is that we are holding? >> we will not be able to anticipate that immediately because we have to do an assessment before the process, before we actually do the assignment, what seats would be available. we have a working group and a team of content specialists, and we have the program supervisors that are going to be involved in determining how we are going to be able to determine how many

seats are available. commissioner wynns: i am not sure i understand. [laughter] the schools know -- we are proposing to change. right now, we use the one kindergarten class model, right? so we clearly know what -- right. so if we were to use that threat the system, we would have -- if we have 100 kids, how many kindergarten class is do we have? anybody know? -- how many kindergarten classes do we have? anybody know? if we say 1 per class, we should have plenty. the problem has always been that certain sites are popular. people like them. they want them. under the current -- under this proposal, which would use the same tiebreakers, there would be the same -- what you are proposing, as i hear it, though

you may use a different model, a cluster model -- what you are saying is you have to get these people together and figure out what school is going to use what model and how many seats would be set aside in that school. that is my question. when are we going to know that? are we going to tell people that? my second question is, tell me if i'm wrong, what i am hearing is that first that school is going to have preschool kids, the first siblings of the preschool kids, then people in the intendants area -- in the attendance area, and that would apply to all the seats except for the one set aside for inclusion. then a similar process would take place just for those inclusions seats among the people who apply for inclusion seats. is that correct? ok. so are you going to tell them how many seats are set aside and how many people apply for it? >> the team has not determined

how we are going to be able to determine how many seats at each school site. but if we decided, for example, to hold one kindergarten class three seats, there would be three seats for three glasses. depending on the capacity at that school and what the rest of the enrollment was like, we would go with that rule of thumb. what we would do that is different than what we are doing now is that we would continue to hold those seats throughout our placement process. commissioner norton: ok. so i still want to make sure i understand this. it is not like let's just use the back of the envelope calculation we just did. let's say we are talking about holding 200 seats throughout the process, even though we would expect 100 kids. right? so we would be holding 100 seats empty throughout the process until the first day of school. or