process. that is what we do here. that should not be something we are confused about or have trouble to attempt to start. let's not start muddying the waters with that conversation. i am very clear on that, and i think everyone else is. i do not want this to get any more traction. i apologize, but this cannot move any further along. i very clearly understand that our physical education teachers working in the san francisco unified school district have a credential, and they get ongoing professional development, and a further go to get national board certification while they are working, so it is not impossible. it is hard. that is true. but it is not impossible, and how badly do you want to stay working with kids in this school district prove that is your

testimony. that is your testimony. i want to work with kids so badly. i want to mentor kids so much, i want to impact their lives and have them go and do good things in the world, and yet i have been in the military for so many number of years, but by the way, i understand this is what is required here in the san francisco unified school district, that i need more education, so, yes, i have to go back to school, and i may be with people of what young bear with me and who do not have gray hair. so what? i want to work with kids, and this is the requirement. i know it has been said before, so i am not saying anything new. kids are here to say that they want to work with you and what you to work with them. so the idea that it is tough to do or cannot do it or i cannot muster a up, it does not make

any sense to me as a board member, because you do it because you want to work with kids and mentor them in impact their lives in a positive way. a positive way for those students. i absolutely, absolutely support this credential teachers in the school district, and i respect the work they do, and i believe anybody wanting to do that type of work with our kids need to make swift steps towards that, and that is inappropriate education and the appropriate credential. president mendoza: commissioner fewer? commissioner fewer: can i

comment on other things? >> we are having a discussion about the entire resolution and amendment only made by it vice president yee. i am one of those who did not support this. that we hire credentialed teachers to hire students to teach our students in the subject they teach. we asked -- ask our pe teachers to get a degree and then get

credentialed, and many of them are still paying off loans, as we would any history or math teacher, so i support this as a policy in our district, that we hire credentialed teachers to be credentialed in the subject in which they teach. it is very simple. they're able to give elective credit. i know we have heard a lot tonight. jrotc notan a g approved class -- is not cough -- is not an a through g approved class or elective. there are many who get credit through a credentialed teacher. that is very different.

so i also wanted to mention that we called at the committee meeting last june, and the fellow curriculum committee members may remember this, we called the independent study option at the committee meeting, and we heard a lot of problems. we heard it from teachers and students and some parents came. there was a lot of confusion. i asked at that time that the district staff support a reporter was on recommendations of what would make the independent study option easier to implement and more effective and efficient for students and for the supervising pe teachers. i never received that report, and i do not know why. this is a very political topic. hearing this again tonight, i

respectively requested the report three times and did not receive it. i do not know how this board can extend an option that we know has problems at the school site without even looking at the recommendation of how you make the program better for the next two years. also, we did not hear a clear budget. thank you deputy superintendent, but some of the teachers have to supervise many, many students in this option, and that was one of the issues at the school sites, saying who would do it? are they being compensated? how will they be compensated? what is the money? because actually, it is on top of their regular pe job that they are the supervising teacher for this option. i am with commissioner yee on this, it is not that they have completed the credentialing, they have not enrolled.

they have not enrolled. x -- human-resources did not tell me. i just do not buy it. this is board policy. i believe every one of the instructors knew what the policy was. i think that clearly people again feel very strongly about jrotc, but i feel very strongly that those instructors should be able to give the credit what they are credentials for, which is a jrotc elective class. and physical education teacher should be able to give credits for that class that they are credentials for, which is a physical education. this board adopted unanimously our physical education master plan, emphasizing the need for physical education, so i know

that people have their own feelings about pe growing up, and i was not very good at it either, but this is a new note -- a new pe, and i want our students in the 21st century knowing about their body. and i want them credentialed in the studies they teach. once again, i will say that i think i firmly believe that every teacher in this district at the basic bare minimum should be credentialed in the subject in which they teach, and i think our students deserved it, and as parents, i think we should demand it. thank you. president mendoza: thank you. commissioner? commissioner: i have three comments and want to make an

amendment. i had the opportunity to get to know a student, and she called to tell me about a promotion she got, and she comes from a disadvantaged background, and it meant so much for her, so i really want to thank the students who came out to share their stories with us. i really believe the program is training for leadership and life skills. i support racheal's idea about the position on jrotc, where it is a substitute for pe. i would welcome that change. i supported the amendment right now. given the current state of what the state is saying about jrotc, i do believe in long term fix is

to provide supervision, but i want to offer an amendment, et -- amendment, because i do not think this is there to oppose this on long time instructors who were playing by the rules, and the rules changed, and expect them to go out and get that pe certification. my amendment would be that the supply, obtaining the necessary certification, apply to newjrotc instructors as the old instructor's retire, as people get hired in, that those with pe credentials be hired into jrotc programs.

introducing this to teachers midway or later in their career is really too demanding, so i am offering an amendment that this applies only to new instructors hired into the jrotc. >> just for clarity, commissioner, what was voted in was to have anyone knew that comes in the already credential, so, yes, so we are already doing that. that is all you wanted? we thought you wanted to waive other people. we were all over your going -- ok. so you are ok with that. ok, perfect. president mendoza: commissioner wynnls. commissioner wyo -- wynns: all

of those that teach the art credentials, and i want to thank them for their work. building on what commissioner norton said, i remember when we were talking about the independent study option and try to sort of come up with this seat of our pants, that we had at the time some confusion about whether an independent study option of any kind would require a person credentialed in that subject to teach it. we were a little not clear about the interaction of the new state regulations, which were just coming up the time. also, what subject recovered under no child left behind, etc., because remember that hp happening. we weren't really clear that we

were going to say that it had to be a p.e. credentialed teacher. so we need toe be clear about that but at least we need to take that into consideration. even though we passed the amendment. i actually as far as i know and we should do some investigation, i think before we make such requirements because this is the way we get into unintended consequences. i just don't think there are people out there that have p.e. credentials and jrotc credentials and are looking for these jobs because this jrotc credentialing program, training program for people retiring from the military have specific and rigorous requirements and then to have them go into a two-year credentialing program sun realistic. we're just going to shut the door on any market that there might be for us to fulfill these jobs. i think we should at least look

into that before we do such a thing. then last, i wanted to say this, let's remember that the requirements even under the new more stringent state law and requirements that, again, i just want to reiterate were only being implemented at the time we were talking about this give more than one way for students to fulfill their high school graduation p.e. requirements. the second way is to pass the fitness gram. in fact, they have to pass the fitness gram otherwise they have to take p.e. for four years. if we look -- we had made available to us a document showing us the passage of the fitness gram for ninth and 10th graders in the p.e. independent study, rotc cadets for students that have jrotc and not p.e. and the passing rate for jrotc

cadets is significantly higher in every case. and in three schools we had gallon le yo and burton, every ninth grade jrotc event pass the fitness gram in ninth grade. so one, i want to commend people for this. with all due respect and i have the greatest respect for the p.e. teachers and i have heard people talk a lot about how kids who have trouble with p.e., you know, that the people can't make them go no matter what they do, that they are -- have been doing much better when offered the option of doing their p.e. independently through the jrotc option and i was extremely moved this evening to hear students and i thank you all for coming when you're not in school, i really appreciate that. to say that this gave them more flexibility academically.

i think we should at least recognize that there should be anna bit of unintended positive here, occasionally that happens to us. so i -- you know, i urge my colleagues to pass this. i have my nervousness about the amendment we passed because it's the same kind of we don't really know if it's possible we're kind of making it up as we go along. i urge that we not only make the amendment suggesta -- a suggested concept so that we don't have to go through this please, please all the time perpetually but also that we think about a way that we could actually do some investigation about availability before i retire ourselves into something that just basically is sending out the message. weapon don't want any new instructors. >> commissioner norton? commissioner norton: so i want to ask our deputy general council angie miller who i have

to say much to her chagrin has become an expert on this topic and it's partly why i'm saying we don't want to bring this up again because she's tired of it. but just for one last hue ra if you could read the language that i would like to propose an amendment that i outlined earlier. >> if the commission on future credentialing or other appropriate state agency or law provides future guidance to allow one jrotc teacher to teach a course that offers p.e. credit without a p.e. credential or two, otherwise allow jrotc, they will allow to meet the p.e. requirement if feasible. >> i second. >> discussion on this? is there any question from the

-- >> so i have a question. what regards on the waiver of the -- so we have a clear understanding that jrotc teachers are credentialed but are not credentialed the same way the way teachers are -- so many of our credential instructors don't have their b.a. which when all of our drentialed teachers do. so in the language that you just proposed is that -- how does that tie to what currently exists in terms of the recognition of instructors by the state? not by our district because we don't honor that but other places who do honor their credential -- i just want to make sure that it doesn't get misinterpret -- can i finish my question.

i just want to make sure there isn't overlap or cover fusion about that or six years from now when we're all gone that people interpreted in a way that says what currently exists is ok if, you know, by then this happens resolved itself at the state level. >> i hope i'm interpreting your question correctly but if thwarted to say that jrotc, if the commission on teacher credentialing says if they teach a course that offers a p.e. credit because right now c.t.c. has provided a guidance that says if you're going to provide a jrotc class that provides that, you need a credential. this is saying if that changes to no longer allow a p.e. credential then we would go with that guidance if feasible b. if they say you can do it with a brand-new credential that nobody has then it's not feasibleness necessarily.

>> and then how would that change the amendment of how it came through in terms of requiring -- so we would then be able to hire anybody who has just the jrotc credential should that be the change at the state level? oh, ok. thank you. >> so -- >> so we're still on discussion on the amendment. so commissioner -- >> i just wanted to know if there would be any objection of having a teacher supervised just because if we want to do -- you know, just to allow for the independent study option if we want to continue it? would that be ok? i mean, do we consider the current independent study to be -- i mean, you know, teach an independent study kind of are a little dissident to me. >> well, i my intent in proposing this amendment is that we would not have independent study were if the guidance from the state would change.

>> i understand. since we don't know what the state might do since we had everybody else that has been unable to get them clear, it would be, you know, if they say, you know, you can -- if they just make it permissive so we can have the independent study option or have a variety of options, then that would take care of that and there wouldn't be any reason -- i mean, it wouldn't do anything bad to us to add that language, would it? >> your question is well taken and we can discuss that. my intent if we can get the state to change the screwy guidance, can we go back to how things were in 2007, 2008? >> i understand that. i'm just saying if we're trying to avoid having to revisit this based on trying to anticipate what state agencies might do, let's try to make it as permissive as possible as

opposed to as narrow as possible. >> my only concern about just adding supervise is i don't want to create confusion about for example -- does that mean we're going to say in the future there's a teacher of record and also a jrotc instructor. i'm just worried about that may be creating confusion. if it's important we could just add another sentence that says -- >> we can add a sentence that just says if -- it's our choice to contend and the state allows the continuation of the p.e. independent study option and also allows for that to be supervised for jrotc instructor then we would do that. excuse me. anyway, either way would be fine. in fact, they're all fine with me. i'm just trying to -- it always happens that we can't -- that we don't anticipate somebody

else comes up with some other problem even if they don't intend to as in this case. >> commissioner maufas, did you have a commission? commission inner -- commissioner maufas: i want to make sure i enter yect something into that discussion. i want to be very, very clear. at this point in time if we're going to write something in that may alter the future for us, i want it to be narrow. i don't want it to be permissive or any way vague because i don't know what will come down the pike when i'm no longer here. and again, my respect for a teacher getting -- working in fsusd what we consider credentialing for physical education. i want to respect that i want to create something that's not vague or confusing to future board members. i believe they'll be educated

and academically sound that they can read but there's a continuous sort of mantra about what they thought back then or what they were considering or what was the temperament of the board back then. who knows if any of us will be here to offer that to them. we have it in writing. that's what we'll be able to offer to them. so i would like to be as clear and concise as possible and not throw anything in there that gives a change at the state level, you know, us freedom to do anything that we could potentially be creative enough to make up that will work for a select few. that's what i don't want to do. i think if something changes, we should address it when it changes because we'll know what it is, not guess what it will be.

i want to be very about -- i want to be very clear about that. so in creating policy i think it's incumbent about the board to address the policy as it comes. this is just a discussion currently. i may have comments later. >> thank you, commissioner fewer? commissioner fewer: i just want to comment on the fitness gram and i questioned about it and actually -- so district p. tells me that there's no way you could know the result of the fitness gram because actually they haven't been calculated yet. so i don't understand how we're able to get that and compare the jrotc and the nonjrotc students and i heard directly from the administrator that those numbers haven't been out and haven't been calculated. has the p.e. department don't

have those results? i'm surprised to see them. i question them. and this is what i was told and so -- i don't know how those numbers came about. they're startling numbers quite frankly. i -- i don't think -- are they last year. so for last year. so we're looking at this year also for our independent study? no, isn't it this year. yeah, it's for this year. commissioner wynns thank you for reminding me that i was correct on it. i just want to say i don't know how they got those numbers. so i want to caution commissioners to take it with sort of a grain of salt. when i questioned it, actually, those results haven't been calculated yet. so thank you. >> commissioneree? -- commissioner yee? commissioner yee: i just want to make sure what we're discussing.

can you read the amendment? i mean, we didn't add any more language? can you read commissioner norton's amendment? >> ok. if the commission on teacher credentialing or other appropriate state agency or law provides future guidance to allow one jrotc instructor to teach a course that offers p.e. credit without a p.e. credential or two otherwise allow jrotc to satisfy the requirement, they shall don't the guidance and allow it if feasible. >> so if we just leave that alone, we'll be fine. because an independent study in both -- whether it's my amendment or whether it will be written in there, it says "the necessary certifications." so if it changes then the necessary certificate changes. so i think we're ok with that. yeah.

>> ok. so we have a second on the amendment which is the amendment to commissioner yee's amendment. >> no, it's another amendment. >> right. calm down. it's an amendment -- i'm not saying it's amending commissioner yee's amendment. what i'm saying we're working on an amened resolution and we're aiding to his resolution. >> to -- >> to the original resolution. not the one that we've been -- we had before. so not on the amendmented one we're going back -- >> we amended it. >> right. that's what i said the first time. so stop looking at me and stop giving me feedback because i'm looking at legal.

so we're working off an amended -- so the original resolution was amended once by commissioner ye. and now we've got a second amendment that's been put forward and that's going to be added to the amended resolution. so the language that he's already made changes too, this will be in addition to his changes. thank you. so any further discussion on that? so roll call on that, please. >> ms. fewer? >> no. >> ms. maufas? >> no. >> dr. mirafi? >> aye. >> ms. norton? >> yes. >> ms. wynns? >> yes. >> mr. yee? >> yes. >> ms. mendoza? >> yes. >> we are now with the new amended, amended resolution. ok. so now we are open for broad