are valuable. it is the impact of the stories like you gentleman shared with us today. we hope we are compiling this so we can show the voters that this has been a good thing for the children of san francisco. and also, to address the transparency, i agree that we need to do a better -- we can always do a better job of transparency. but one of the frustrations when i was on the committee was that we had some evaluative measures but we never sought impacts. that means that the numbers -- the device which and we got back was never about how this money -- we could say so many were served. we could say so many. but we never really talked about the evaluation around impact. when we talk about the violence prevention, for example, you

remember perhaps that commissioner maufas and i came to address your committee to explain where the money it was going and where we saw it being used for, somewhat redirected from the school sites. but you might recall that when i was on the committee that we did get reports of what the money was used for, and it was not showing impacts for violence prevention. so we saw some trips to the real world. we saw some other things that we did not know how it was impacting actually violence prevention. i am going to ask the public to be patient with us on the restorative justice monies that we are using. and i would like to also noted that it is not the entire amount of violence prevention funds that were allocated previous years. 911,000 was put to violence prevention funds the previous year, and this year to restore to justice money was cut by

close to -- this year the restorative justice money was cut by about 300,000. so i think that when we look at where the money is being spent and how it is being spent, i think what the board really wants to know is -- is this really having an impact? and what impact is it really having in our students' life? we can do quantitated numbers about how many we serve, but we are also looking for that qualitative -- what are the measures we can use that really show impact? i think what you put in your report today about a lot of experiences, and the voices of people on school sites that are serving, the parents, and the students, that is a type of very voluble information that we really love to hear, and i think the public likes to hear, too. the moneys are being spent and children and parents are really appreciating these extra moneys, particularly in this hard budget

time, that there is this fund that is actually going to serving our students. i want to also say that i hope that we will, when we do more evaluation around this, that we will be able to measure the impact as far as the other programs, like our arts and libraries and sports and athletics. what is the real impact it is having? in the next budget on the 15, we are able to show some results of that. but i really want to thank you for being part of this committee. i know that i still have one more point, but everyone i have asked to be on this -- my other appointee has said this is so much work i cannot do it. when i see you here tonight and know all the other nights you have been at these meetings, i really want to extend our heartfelt appreciation and gratitude for all your time and service to the children of this district. thank you. commissioner wynns: actually,

some of my comments will follow and be in line with some of the things that commissioner fewer said. i want to thank all of you. a particularly thank you young men for testifying this evening. i think it is a difficult thing to do. we thank you very much for that. this is what i have been thinking. i appreciate that we have -- we are evaluating the individual program funded through prope h, to the public in richmond fund, as much as we can. but i do not know and am interested in the staff meeting representation to us about how we actually can look at the -- the goals we have set for the district and how we think these resources are helping us reach them, if they are. because what i think is that there are -- most of the things,

and i appreciate the work and recommendations of all committees, going back to the beginning, because really it was the committees to came up with the recommendations for the areas we should fund, especially with the third third -- the were all mostly things that we all wanted to have in our schools. student support, mostly. the enrichment part through the first third. and help with our efforts to focus on improvement for the whole district. however, it seems to me that within that large tent or umbrella, where these are things we know are good in schools and students can use and will benefit them, and all the evidence in your report of otherwise tells us that -- we know all that. but it is not in context. that is what i am hoping that we will -- i know it is hard to do,

but it seems to me we need to have a way to try to put in context all those resources, particularly the very limited resources we now have, and to say we think this is getting us toward those goals, or we think this is nice to have but maybe not getting us toward those goals. and then we would be able, with the committee and the community, to have -- to ask different questions about the overall effectiveness, and we think this is the kinds of things we want to continue to fund. for instance, i cannot imagine we would not want to continue to fund the enrichment parts, which are restricted. i personally have been grateful that they are restricted in recent years, because we have not been able to cut them when things are so desperate. but when we go to reauthorize this, i would like to be able to see as much as we can in the broad context, so we can decide as a community but things we want to continue doing, what

other things we might want to add, or the balance or what% we are spending on these kind of areas, and what on nos. the thing now is the perfect time we start to think in those terms. we certainly have not -- our efforts toward the implementation and assessment of our strategic plan have been pretty specific. what are we going -- how are we going to develop data that will tell us about this specific goal and that specific goal? and that is hard, so i appreciate that. looking at the available data and what we need to develop to get to the specifics is good, but while we are doing that we need to talk about the big picture and how those things fit into reaching our goals. i am hoping the committee will be able to keep that in mind and work with the staff to be able to figure out and help us get that larger context. i would like to think everybody again. i appreciate your coming here again tonight. that has taken more of your

time. thank you. commissioner maufas: again, let me echo what commissioners have said around your time and energy to this service. we really do appreciate it, because the board room is lonely when it is just you in here doing your work. i know that. thank you very much, especially when you are plugging away and your family is home, and you are not there with them. thank you, young men. you are fine examples of whatever school district has provided and what you have learned from it and are able to go out in the world with that information and learning, and continue to do that. others will learn from you and model their lives after you. so please do not stop. you are on the right path. thank you very, very much for coming forward today. you know we appreciate it.

president kim: are you done, commissioner? commissioner maufas: no, but do you want to speak? >> i am sorry. i apologize for interrupting. i just wanted to remind or note to the commissioners and to the school community that an important part of our work is not just looking at these programs and recommending the things, but is to go out into the community to inform the community of how these enrichment funds enriched our students, make the culture of san francisco that much broader, that much more cultured, if you will, and that it is going to be an important part of this coming year and the next two years or three years until we come to the next reauthorization. but that is going to be an important part, and that was not stressed. i did not want that to be lost in the other comments. excuse me.

commissioner maufas: i appreciate that, because that is one of the things i was going to inquire about, and how we can hear more about your community conversation. i would like to figure out with whoever our leadership is going to be threat the coming years how you can come forward to us with what the community is telling you so we can continue to be impressed as time goes on. in a quarterly meeting, i would like to hear from you more often, the committee members, about what you are hearing and how these funds are impacting students and families' lives at school sites and making differences, and how they operate. i hope that that can be a topic of discussion within the committee and we can figure out with the leadership of the board how you can come forward and related information for not just the board members, but also the public, so that messages back to the broader audience. i think that is key so they understand and hear that schools are being impacted by these

funds and they're being used in the way that schools -- because for some reason, and i just think we have not messaged it well enough, i continue to hear from the public that schools do not have music, schools do not have libraries. and i think what is happening across the state and across the country is playing like that is what is happening in san francisco. and that is not the case. but a lot of the general public do not understand that. things are very different here in san francisco. the generosity of our citizens has helped us be different. again, there are lots of folks out in the world here who do not understand we have done something quite unique, and many of our students benefit from that. again, i think all of you coming to the board meeting and sharing these stories helps get that message out. we just need to continue to figure out how to get that

information to the broader public. i am very interested in hearing more about what their conversations are, but i also would like to hear from the committee in regards to how we can present information to you. because part of it, i think, is many of you do not have the historical knowledge about the peef committee, so some of the knowledge about what happened before your time is missing. so when you hear frustration in the communities, you do not have the answers for them to understand what happened before and how it transitioned. you just know what it is now. and i get that. that makes sense. and possibly that is some of our work, to somehow make a package of the history and win it transitioned into what the committee work should be going forward, which is really doing more community engagement, which is a piece we were missing. but also what we can provide from you -- for you in regards to the budgeting process.

you are explaining that to the community in context. so you have a context to explain, you know, why you are up there communicating and trying to gather information. i think that would be helpful for you. but also helpful as you explain to the community members. so i would like for us to work on how we can provide that for the cac so they can do their work with assurances, instead of in a vacuum, if that makes sense. does that seem like that would be helpful? >> yes. but just a bit on that, in addition to the things you discussed and the things commissioner few were discussed about students served but not being able to gauge the level of impact. the think additional information -- i think additional information on exactly -- we work closely with walter about getting additional information and evaluating what

is being measured for impact, so we have a detailed knowledge about what is supposed to be happening and we can ask more pointed questions to people running these programs around what is working, what is not working. the platform currently is to hear what is going on from people in the programs, but a detailed knowledge about what the program entails and the evaluation process is going to help inform us as we go out into the community and are able to address nuances of age-specific programs on that and, and ask more questions around, you know, you have this amount of students 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 dls