jose cisneros. i am sure we will of some great results. commissioner: we really do have to work together to pass the dream act so we can bring all of our dreams to reality. thank you. treasurer cisneros: thank you. president mendoza: you are welcome to come any time. we have one speaker on this. >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to follow treasury -- treasurer cisneros. another thing i would like to call your attention to is affecting very, very young

children. i like following treasurer cisneros, because as a recent grandfather of triplets, this program is very important, and when you sit in the back of the room, and you do the math, when he says it really gets you going, that is really all that it does. we need special incentives there. if you look at the very bottom of page 23 on your agenda, you see there is $1,310 being given to the toddler program, and that is essentially to help the folks that are not our members. these are folks who are currently under represented in who works in the family service agency. they are attempting -- and who work in the family service agency. i think it is very important to look at what we are doing with these people who work with the very youngest children that we

have, the children literally of our children, and try to provide for them so they can do as good a job as possible. and then if you look at the bottom of page 24, i have a concern there for the transfer of funds. at lincoln high school, that is going from certificated certified hours to consultants' fees. the building representatives and i asked the principal kirsten to look at the figures for these, and it turns out -- principal there to look at the figures for these. they have money left over. they are allocated towards a summer funds, despite that, we of consultants' fees of $29,000 that have been going additionally, it seems, from this, and then there is some confusion about when this was

actually put in, whether this was put in last may as a change back then or if this is something that has been requested more recently. and also, the involvement of the school counselor in the rearrangement of this money remains murky, in my mind, also. you have $29,000, and with that money, they were doing after- school programs. they were doing things like credit recovery, and those things, you should have certificated employees doing that kind of work. now, we are moving to a cbo that is funded separately through the city. through the school district. and it seems unless all of their credit recovery is taking care of, unless everything is already in place, i do not understand why this money is being shifted

over. speaking of credit recovery, part of that is the cyber high school program, and as i program the high schools, i have not found a principle yet who can tell me who is in charge of cyber high-school, or what the directions are for running cyber high school. they are making a valiant effort to make sure the kids can use the program to recover from failed grades, but there does not seem to be a uniform plan throughout the city on how to use that and what we are doing with that program, so thank you very much for your attention. president mendoza: thank you. item g is the consent calendar. i need a motion. >> we have one item to withdraw. in 1 is11-25k8 on page 83.

president mendoza: any items removed from first reading by the board? seeing none, any items severed by the board? commissioner murase? commissioner murase: i would like to sever some. president mendoza: i am sorry. b2, and what was your other item? commissioner murase: w16. president mendoza: 2f. i am sorry. b2 -- item 2b and 2f.

commissioner murase: and 2 1 -- w one through 16. president mendoza: ok. any others? so i need a roll-call vote. i am sorry. item h. item h is the superintendent's proposal. this is item 111-11sp1, the approval of the public education enrichment fund expenditure plan for the school year 2011-2012. we need a reading of the resolution. is that going to be done by cathy?

>> good evening, commissioners. my name is kathy fleming. i am the program administrator. with your permission, i will read the item into the record and skid down to the result. -- skip down to the result. do what have your permission? president mendoza: any objection, colleagues? >> ok. 111-11sp1, be it resolved that we commend the hard work and thoughtful recommendations from the community advisory committee, the arts education steering committee, an advisory committee, the physical education master plan steering

committee, and all of the staff members who contributed to the success of these, and therefore be it resolved that the board of education of the san francisco unified school district approves the spending plan for 2011-2012 school year after examining the recommendations from the staff and advisory committees, and be it further resolved that this spending plan may be amended during the district's development, budget development process, based on availability of state funding. the superintendent has requested to inform the board of supervisors that such amendments could occur. i would like to have the of the presenters to they introduced themselves, please. -- the other presenters. >> good afternoon. i oversee this program within our office. >> hi, my name is walter chang.

i am the evaluator. >> i would like to read a report to you, and then i will turn it over to walter, who has some information to share with you tonight. president mendoza: i am sorry. walter, you are the program evaluator from -- >> i work with the accountability department. president mendoza: ok, thank you. >> commissioners, a brief description of the information that was placed before you tonight. we have a packet, and the first is the 2011-2012 proposal, and that is followed by the information you have requested, which are a detailed side-by- side comparison of the 2011-2012 proposal, as compared to the 2010-2011 proposal, followed by detailed information on the new in kind services that are

included in the 2011-2012 plan, and finally, a summary of the 2009-2010 and extended funds per program in that area. and it just for the members you or the folks in the audience, we do have the materials in the doorway for you, copies. ok, in march 2004, san francisco voters, with the approval of over 70% of the electorate, passed proposition h, which established the public education in richmond fund -- in richmond funds. -- enrichment fund. funding at the state and federal level was decreasing. this provides critical funding to improve the quality of education for the youth in san francisco.

the first third of the total fund is allocated and is overseen by san francisco first five to support preschool. the remaining two thirds is overseen by our district. the second third is sports, library, arts, and music. and the last third, also known as the third third or other general uses, funds in general support programs, including wellness centers, translation, interpretation services, restored to the justice, and custodial services. -- restorative justice, and custodial services. it also has a detailed budget for the entire allocation. the allocation for 2011-2012 is

anticipated to reflect a 25% reduction, and this would be the fourth year of the reduction, as stipulated in the charter when the city's budget had a shortfall of $100 million or more, 25% can be deferred. in addition, we have a second reduction this year, and this is the second year this is in place, because the charter says that for the fiscal year 2010- 2011, until 2014-2015, the contribution shall equal the total contribution for the prior year, adjusted for the estimated increase or decrease in the city's discretionary general fund. the estimated 2011-2012 allocation of $29.30 million, which is in this budget -- the 2010 allocation estimate of june 2010. which would represent the prior year.

the 2011-2012 will be finalized by the comptroller's office in november of 2011, when the city's discretionary revenue is finalized. district staff has prepared the 2011-2012 expenditure proposal based on proposals submitted by each program that received funding for the 2010-2011 year. each proposal received a review and approval by the appropriate superintended as well as the executive team. proposals are based on master plans for sports, arts, and music, for the slam plans. general infrastructure and others are funded at the same level as 2011 in order to maintain current staffing and programming. the budget also includes reserve funding to address the continued reductions at the state level. sf board resolution stipulates

that each year, with support, the public education enrichment committee will provide recommendations to the superintendent to inform the impact of this and to assist in his development of the spending plan. on november 1, 2010, they submitted their recommendations to the superintendent, and later, on november 9, presented their recommendations to the board of education. the 2011-2012 from the superintendent reflects the input from all program managers, the district staff, and are based on anticipated revenues from the city as well as the district's needs. the total amount is $29.30 million, which is an increase over the budgeted amount for 2010-2011. i would remind you that these are estimates and not final. 2011-2012 allocation, that will

be finalized in 2011. the proposal includes approximately 194.4 fte's certificate, who provide services to all k-12 sites. there is no sin to the increase over last year's plan. -- no significant increase over last year's plan. this includes 2.2 million in in kind services. the in kind services represents 7.75% of the total allocation, which is consistent with previous years. this will be the fourth year that we have had this percentage. the remaining funds and other general uses, a total of $4.80 million, are to be directed to the reserve fund to help reduce the impact of state budgets.

this does not affect any of the salm, which is to reserve one- third of the allocation -- this does not affect any of st. -- of the slam. there are questions raised about the proposal before you. we submitted three detail reports over the weekend, and you have them before you. there is the side by side budget comparison of this year's budget to next year's proposal and highlighting significant changes. the in kind services report, which itemizes and discusses the new in kind services, and as i mentioned, the carry over report for the third programs only. so at this point, we will turn it over to mr. walter chang, and after that, we are happy to

answer any questions you may have, and all of the fabulous program managers are here tonight, so we want to thank them for showing up again, and we do appreciate their support. thank you. >> hi, so if you could refer to the landscape sheet, i will basically go over the three sheets that we put together for you guys. just to get a sense of the first -- well, the landscape. it deals with the evaluation process, and what actually has been happening in the past and currently, so, basically, we start out with the 14 different programs that are pretty unique. so we develop a logic model, and that consists of monetary

outputs, program activities, and through the program activities, we come up with and then those c model builds the program performance measures chart. we use some of the outputs for the comptroller passport. -- the comptroller's report. the evaluative measures are more apparent a piece to the measures.

the data collection method needs to be established by each program to ensure that date that is relevant. that speaks to some program goals. the next one, we actually come across barriers. it is a question of how this is impacting the students. that is setting the stage for evaluation that needs to be in place for what i call research

questions to be addressed are examined. lastly, once those are all in place, impact can be assessed. the second page, the page with the arabs -- that is pretty much the building blocks. i like to refer to them as layers in order for impact to actually be measured. the third sheet, with the five different points -- this is an example of a program, athletics, but i just used, because this is sort of the rundown of the five steps. it runs down the details of the five steps.

president mendoza: i am sure everybody has questions. commissioner wynns, the you have this material in front of you? do you have questions? commissioner fewer? i am sorry. this is clarifying questions before we have public comment, so just clarifying questions. commissioner fewer: i do not see in this packet a summary or a report on the impact of the funding on the spending. is that not included in here?

>> i think there is a link to our data center for all the impact. we sort of ran statistical analyses and ran more formal analyses. commissioner fewer: step five is analyze and summarize impact. what we had been asking for on the board for a couple of years. that is in a limit to our strategic plan. i have never seen any analysis or summary of the actual impact

that $30 million has every year in reaching our plan. i think this is what other commissioners had said at the last meeting. i expected at this meeting to see some of that. we have asked for it, and we have asked for it from the board. we have never received it. i think the other commissioners, and correct me if i am wrong, have not seen that impact either. we approve this plan every year and we do not know the impact. we are coming into a horrible budget year. it is the impact and evaluation that allows us to approve $30 million every year with a clear conscience.

that is taxpayer money, hard earned. it must be expensed the right way. i am a little concerned that we do not have that in front of us. i wanted to know -- before they made these recommendations, did they see any summary of analysis of the impact and how we are meeting our district goals of access and equity to student achievement and accountability? did you actually see that and then make those recommendations? >> the outcome measures -- it measures different strategic plan concepts like student engagement, joyful learning, and

access inequity. that is another goal. some of those outcome measures are described and have been listed on the performance measure chart for each program. commissioner fewer: does that mean the cac were able to see all this information before they made the recommendation to the superintendent? >> it is available for them to get that background information. commissioner fewer: was this a topic of discussion before the cac made their recommendations to the superintendent? >> i am going to defer to my colleague, cathy fleming, who supervises those meetings. she will get back to you in detail. >> cac has at almost every

meeting had a discussion on impact and evaluation, and has requested information about performance measures, and has received logic models with data, with performance measured charts, from the beginning of the programs. but i do not recall specifically what was shared with them beyond that. commissioner fewer: are you saying to me that they did not receive the performance measures? they saw the logic model, which is what i saw when i was on the cac. we have not progressed beyond that? the cac has said for many years that if you want us to make a recommendation we have to see the data on the impact $30 million has on our district goals. i think the board has also said

that. i want to say right now that it is hard to approve this without data to back it up, because every year we just repeat what we spend and we do not have any impact at all on whether or not it joins district schools. we have had a program by a waiter for the last four years. i would -- we have had a program evaluate foor for the last four years. i would expect the report. it is hard to say ok on this when we are looking at 2014 having to go back to the taxpayers and say "will you please reauthorize this charter amendment to give us the money again when we do not have hard data to show the impact it has had." i just want to say personally that i expected to have much more data in front of me,

because we requested it at the last meeting. the website does me no good right now and i cannot download it right here. if it is volumes of information, in no way am i an expert to analyze that. we rely on staff to give us that information. i want to point out that we have come at a rate of $105,000 a year, funded a program to evaluate her for this program. today, i am very disappointed they do not have that information in front of me for me to make a sound vote on this proposal. president mendoza: thank you. vice president yee: i must say i am a little confused. i am almost in agreement with commissioner fewer. at the committee as a whole meeting, we talked about needing

to see some evaluation on this and what is the process, and so forth. we asked a lot of questions on this. we really did not get much of an answer. i specifically at the end of the discussion said, "if we do not have this in place yet, we should at least within two months come up with a plan of how to perform an evaluation." i think at that point somebody should have said, "we have some data. we have some evaluation." this is the first time i heard it was on-line anywhere. for us to look it up right now and figure it out seems a little -- i totally agree with commissioner fewer. if the information was there, why wasn't it given to us? if we had the information and we asked this question is, why didn't somebody say we had it?