funds from the puc or wherever, to get back to 11, we feel it would be appropriate to pursue rather than the course of relinquishing. it will take a long time to happen. we can only do it as the trees are prepared to do so. the sooner we can get real funding in place to fully maintain our forest, the sooner we can stop -- supervisor avalos: we are going to end hearing very soon, but i think if we could look at some hybrid approach, a joint response. as a person mentioned folsom street, there are some trees that are very difficult for property owner to maintain because of their size. those protected by the city. the city maintaining that it is probably what makes sense.

i have a small tree in front of my house and i can easily maintain it. that is something that is completely viewable. but there are probably hundreds of others who have a tree in front of their house that cannot do that. they need an option. i can see the property owner had been added responsibility, and also for the city. that is where i wanted to go. thank you. if there are no other comments from colleagues, we can adjourn this hearing. maybe we can set up a meeting with friends of the urban forest to talk about this in the future. appreciate it. this is the last item. we will continue this item to the call of the chair. we are returned, thank you. -- adjourned. thank you.

ok, i went to call this meeting of the ad hoc board of education for june 13, 2011, to order, and if you could notes that the three members of the committee are present, commissioner of fewer, commissioner norton. we have four informational items on the agenda, and so, we are going to -- how do you want to do this?

do you want to do of for you are short or three short presentations? do you want to do them all at the beginning? do you want to do that? >> yes, i think that would be great, commissioner. commissioner: ok. >> i have copies for the public, an idea of some eight copies. so the focus tonight, we wanted to give the board an update on the approach we are going to take to revise the attendance areas as well as the timeline and provide some feedback to a couple of elements of the feeder patterns that were raised at prior meetings, particular transportation, and the order of the tiebreaker process, and then to talk about the monitoring of student assignment, just giving an overview of the scope of work that the advisers are

helping us with and see of the board has any specific questions they would like us to explore in the annual report, and then the future meeting schedule, so the first couple, the first slide, is kind of a reminder of the guidelines of revising the elementary attendance areas that are in the board policy, so the board policy calls for staff on an annual basis to review the attendance area boundaries and make recommendations to the superintendent if any modifications are needed, and if the superintendent would modify -- notify the board, and in reviewing the attendance areas, these were the factors that steps should take into consideration, the neighborhood demographics, where students live now and where changes are expected in the future, the availability of facilities, traffic patterns, the availability of programs, and

the prekindergarten to 8. this was in p5-101. this was developed with working with demographers, and we gather data and got feedback from the community and evaluated that, and the board approve the elementary attendance areas, so it has been less than one year since these boundaries were approved by the board, so we think for the first annual review, we are recommending that we look at how the number of kindergarten applicants from 2000 -- for 2011 compared to the number used when developing the boundaries, so when we were developing the boundaries, but the average number of kindergarten emesis residents, so we thought we should look to see that for those in attendance

areas, is there was an attendance area that had 385 residents, that is so many poor grade, how many kindergarten applicants did we have, and what is the difference between the two, and then do them for all of the 58 attendance areas and then recommend any adjustments based on those findings, so if there are two attendance areas close together, and in one case, the number is greater, and in another, it is less, we would obviously explores ways to balance that. the second thing we would do is review suggestions from the community, and we have already received as suggestions in particular to look at the mckinley boundaries and also looking at another, and what is important to remember is you just cannot adjust one attendance area, right? if you get a suggestion a just one area, it is also a

suggestion to change another because it would be changing the boundary between two, and we also got some others, like near loma -- muir loma -- mira l;oma. we will look at the recommendations. there was a type of maybe in some of the documents that said 2010, so i just want to make sure that everyone understands we are talking about 2011, so in the next two months, and if anyone wants to email specific suggestions and to meet and talk about it, they can send it to the email address, and we will about d. wade any suggestions that come in to that forum, as well. commissioner: can i just ask --

most of us got the same recommendations you got. because the suggestion said this, which i know to be true, the neighborhood and at 30th street, not 29th street, but here is a problem with that. if you just moved it one block and drew it on 30th street, then the southern side of the streets would be in the other, so what i'm interested in as an example is what we do about -- do we always run a line down the middle of the street, is my question, because it is an interesting question. i mean, the issue of the kind of coherence of the neighborhood is a good question, but, of course, in that case, you'd want to draw it sort of between the backyards. >> so i think maybe these will help highlight house staff is going to vote all of the requests, and one is can the law

to be consistently applied to all suggestions? so the suggestion to keep all of the neighborhoods together cannot be consistently applied. school district attendance areas. but it is definitely a factor that we look at where possible. we want to see how suggestion would impact the number of kindergarten residents, and speaking of one, it would make it bigger, and there is already a concern that it is already too big, so we will look at the impact on the average number of residents. we also looked at how it would affect the diversity of each attendance area. obviously, in this case, it would impact the attendance. just to the south. we would see it changing it would affect the size and diversity of enrolling. if it is making one bigger and one smaller, is that helping balance perfect and then the barriers.

that is particularly pertinent to, for example, the valuation of the suggestion for rosa parks, because there is one that is a huge traffic pattern. so we have looked at but have not even begun to evaluate this suggestion is that we want to actually do the valuations at the same time and looked at all of these factors, and then based on that come back to the board and recommend revisions its provisions would have minimal impact or would improve the demographics and the balance of students in each attendance area and avoid topographical barriers and if the logic could be consistently applied, so we will definitely look at all of the logic and avowedly everything that is suggested, and then we will oppose suggestions and staff findings on the web, so there would be an opportunity for people to see what we found from the revision, and then we would share a recommendations on the august 8 ad hoc committee meeting. et commissioner: i just want to

clarify, and then commissioner norton has something. i appreciate this. analysis is always a good idea. however, none of those necessarily address the issue that was raised about álvaro. i am not advocating that we try to keep all neighborhoods in a coherent attendance area pattern. it is impossible, and you are right. not all neighborhoods have very clear boundaries, so when they are -- i just want to know where in those principles can you take that into consideration, and will he report back to us on this issue, or have you already looked at that? of course, it is easier, and all of the attendance boundaries that i know what actually go down the street, the middle of -- street.

people live on both sides of one street generally should go to the same school, unless it is during boulevard -- geary. >> we will look at that, and we can superimpose city boundaries on our boundaries and see where they change, and we can explore the difference between having the majority of our attendance areas are down the center. i think when we were doing it, there were a couple of exceptions, and they were actually an exception to keep city neighborhoods together, and there was one, i think. at any rate, one of the revisions we made was looking at how we can do this to a-as best as possible, so where possible, we try to do that. we just cannot guarantee, so we will do it as part of the evaluation.

commissioner: commissioner norton? commissioner norton: it seems to me that we want to look at what the pools were like. >> thank you. yes. the last part of this presentation tonight is actually specifically around monitoring, and one of the questions on there is what would the board like us to review as part of the process so that we can fall back in to see what impact that has, so maybe we can maybe even go into more detail about that. commissioner norton: the composition seems to be part of it to me, too. if you can adjust a line and have a more diverse pool, that might be something we want to

look at. >> that was in the original design and will continue to be as we look at suggestions, however impact, not just the size but also the demographics. thank you. commissioner: commissioner m urase? commissioner murase: no. is very different from south, and you end up concentrating a particular group by using that line. >> ok, thank you. i will definitely.

so we will plan to come back to the border with august 8 meeting using this process and timeline that we have just outlined, and the next section of the presentation is about. peters, and it is responding to two areas in particular that have come up, but just in case some of audience members are not familiar with the background, i thought i would take a second to provide some context. i think, in march 2010, the board approved a policy that included the development of elementary feeder patterns for elementary schools to feed into particular middle schools, and there would be an initial assignment based on the process. in august, the staff recommended which would feed into which schools, and then in

august and september, we received community feedback through lots of different forum s, and based on that, the substitute motion was presented by the superintendent, and that was to delay the feeder patterns for a year and to the interim year have a tie-breaker involving its siblings, so that is the process we use this year. in february, staph submitted revised kindergarten through eight feeders, and throat march and may, groups did a lot of work, community engagement, and we got a lot of feedback, and based on that, staff presented revised items to the board, and those are scheduled for their second reading tomorrow. some of the revisions included

instead of having an initial assignment straightaway and then going to choice, we would have a choice process through 2006, and then starting in 2007, go to initial assignment. we also had modifications. thank you. i am having problems. >> i think everyone knew what you meant. >> and that we would also remove the attendance area boundaries for middle school and a few other elements based on the feedback, and so these are the recommended feeder patterns that are before the board for action tomorrow night, and i just wanted to touch on why some of them are non contiguous. proximity was definitely a priority, but it was not necessarily possible given where students live, and we also wanted to make sure that we maximize the infrastructure that was already in place and built

around the strings rather than try to recreate something calm so we wanted to align and this was middle schools that already had those language pathways, epically -- pathways, and this was to have enough students to have viable programs and also to allow all students to attend the same middle school who were going to a high school. so, for example, hoover had chinese and other pathways. you may remember the first proposal, and it did not contemplate maintaining those language pathways, and it was agreed that we should do that, so we looked at some high schools that offer spanish and another, so it made sense to feed them into a school was offered both of those programs, and we know it is not feasible to build both of these pathways in every neighborhood, and

mosconi and monroe already had a robust kindergarten through five, and pathways already existed. so the transportation, the board approved a policy for transportation, and in that, it concentrated the feeder patterns, and the board policy actually said it would provide limited and strategic transportation to support the middle school feeders, so based on what is before the board tonight, it would require a shift in rows for middle school but would not require an increase in resources, et so we would, under the new proposal of the feeders, have transportation for the presidio, francisco, and another, and hoover would have two bosses, and the number is really

important though, the weber, to say that the number of buses would be constrained by the budget, and it is not clear what the demand would be, so it is full choice from 2011 to 2016, so while we are hoping that through the tie breaker of the middle school feeders with improvement we can do and that we will 3 choice create these feeder patterns, but that is unclear, and it is also, given the fact that children attend all of the city and live all over the city, some of the feeders, it even though they live far away, some of the students may be closer to their middle schools, so these are the factors that make it difficult for us to know how many buses we will need. we are assuming there will not be an increase in resources because we are not imagining that we are going to guarantee that we will put on as many buses as we need in order to make sure 100% -- we just know

that would be a false promise, that we do not have those kinds of resources to do that, so while we are going to be providing transportation, it will be constrained with -- by whatever is happening in the budget, and our ability to provide services will diminish if the budget diminishes, but based on the assumption that we're going to maintain the current level of resources for middle school transportation, we will be able to provide transportation for the non contiguous cedars, and here are the gottas questions we are looking at. is the distance between elementary and the middle school more than 3.5 miles on the muni? does the muni require a transfer? is the munich travel time more than 35 minutes? how would the trip time on a bus compared to a munich trip time -- muni trip time?

with this includes stops beyond the stops of the elementary school and began/or reduce the amount of time children have to spend on the bus? so this is some of the work we are doing over the summer in terms of building the specific roads and considering the school start time, and here, this matrix, you may have seen it before. it was indeed -- in the fq -- faq. it shows what the muni might be, the transfers, and the number of schools, so based on this preliminary analysis, we would redesign the middle school bus route starting in 2013 once the board approves the pathways. we would shift to redesign as soon as possible so this transportation is available. as i mentioned, it would not be

an increase, but it would be a same number of buses with different routes, so the next table just shows the names of those that received transportation, including her over. it would be the same schools with the addition of presidio, but the routes which shipped based on where the elementary schools are located. president mendoza: can you tell us what some of those are gray? >> there is no muni transfer required, and it is less than 3.5 miles from school. so we would want this transportation to be in place the first time this choice process was used so that families would be able to avail of that. the next element i was going to talk about are the tiebreakers, so this table here shows the tiebreakers, and i think it is

important to remind everyone that the superintendent's recommendation is still a choice process, and it would be a choice process for the next number of years, and that gives an opportunity to roll out all of the initiatives that they are planning for the middle schools, so in march, the tiebreakers were assembling and then random, and the recommendation of the superintendent is to add a feeder tie-breaker and to put it immediately following siblings, and then at the last board meeting, based on some suggestions based on the community, to look at swaping the order, and that is what number three is, the simulation putting it above the feeders. when we did the simulations, we found, and also looking at march, the number of students assigned to each elementary school and middle school did not change.

and this is for a number of reasons. the number of children involved in tiebreakers is really small, less than 20%. the highly ranked tiebreakers are highly likely to get their choices given the small number of students. the other thing is, are tiebreakers work in concert with each other. this is a factor. if you have a feeder and another, you will have a higher preference then someone who'd just as a feeder tie-breaker, because they work together. it looks at the combination of tiebreakers, so we are recommending that replace the middle school tie-breaker above the other because it supports changing enrollment patterns that facilitate the development of feeders through a choice process, so the choice process is actually encouraging families

to choose the schools that would build the theater patterns of choice. the kindergarten through eight increase the productive and the need for families and schools, and they support strategic planning and a more efficient use of resources, so we really want to be committed to creating these feeder patterns, and this continues to be a strong preference in the us climate. it is ranked after sibling, and under the proposal, the point of entry becomes kindergarten, just as when a parent applies for rooftop. they continue in that of the way through eighth grade, pepper so as long as this is the highest rank under sibling at the point of entry, which is kindergarten, and actually all of the way through fifth grade, even if a child names in in fifth grade, then whenever affected has, it will be reflected in this, because that enrollment pattern

will be created at elementary and will continue through middle. it is also important to remember that the middle school feeder is a one-time thing. it is just for children going from office into six. it does not exist for children coming into the district. it is actually designed to support children to all go to the same school together into a particular, and the students with the middle school feeder tie-breaker, i mention that, live in this will have a greater preference to get in, and it is such a small number of students with this, but so it is these reasons that the superintendent is continuing to recommend tiebreakers, and this is a review of what the superintendent is recommending, that from a transition period to 2016, we use a choice process that would have st. tiebreakers,

including siblings and feeder. there would be an initial finding, and then in the choice process, if the child was aside, for example, to spanish immersion because they were at a spanish immersion program at the elementary school, but at that point, the child would rather or the parents would rather not be in that language pathway but they want to stay, that is what this tie-breaker is, and in the choice process, they would get that initial tie-breaker. then, after the initial assignment -- sorry, the initial assignment would be the tie- breaker, and then it would be siblings and then ctip. and then siblings would have priority.

it is the same tie-breaker as initially, but if there is someone in a program pathway applying for a program pathway, then that would get preference. so that is the section of the presentation that is on the middle school feeders, and with the board likely to keep going and talk about the monitoring? commissioner: i have some questions about the middle school feeder, but we will come back. >> ok. prudence carter from stafford and another from uc-davis and one from stanford, a group of experts that the superintendent has convened to ups staff with identifying questions which should be explored, determining which data should be analyzed, and how it should be analyzed, reviewing the annual report in sharing observations with the pe