>> it sounds like we want to do an amendment to the resolution. but we haven't written it out yet. >> [inaudible] >> if i could say my understanding is, and they can say that they have got it wrong, what i understood is that we can to an agreement was to add in the first part of the resolution, to add the word " idea after supports.

to add a version of the first results from the police supervisor oppose the resolution that says it talks about the school district rather than the city. and on the student delegates resolution, i got lost. >> the san francisco unified school district adjoins the work that the mayor's office and municipal transportation agency at the second therefore. >> if you take out the words supports, that doesn't. >> for the first resolve, we will add the --

>> did we want to keep in that the board of education joins the work? i thought we were going to say that we join the work rather than having the board of education, is that correct? lough's -- >> sfusd, not board of ed. it joins municipal, blah, blah, blah. we need motion and a second to amend the resolution. >> so moved. i move to except the proposed amendment. >> great. do we have to vote on general consent?

adding the language of the idea of designing and securing funds, that was noted in supervisor campos's, urging to work together and taking out the board of ed. and joins the work of the mayor's office, etc.. ok, so any other comments? commissioner fewer: can you make sure that everybody gets a clean copy of that, particularly student advisory council? >> if the authors are agreeable, if you would be able to add everybody on the board's name to the resolution. >> that sounds great. welcome to the process, ladies.

that was good. roll call, please. >> [roll call vote] five ayes. >> nice job. [applause] >> thank you for coming out, you have to go home now. we are going to go back to item p severed for board discussion and immediate action. several items were pulled. >> during comment on this

particular item, k4 about professional development and how it was going to be delivered, and you know what the questions were. if you could just address those questions. >> what did the dollars include a? it includes teachers stipends for saturday. three days of training on saturday. it also includes training and a coach that will be working with the teachers to implement in the classroom. this is training that has been going on for 34 years. it is promoted by first five. >> the next item is item k6 through 11. can we vote on them all together? >> it's better to vote on the --

president mendoza: we move this one already? roll call on item k4. >> [roll call vote] five ayes. commissioner maufas: thank you. so, on k6, i think my questions were very similar. my questions are sort of similar to the vice-president's, but i also have my own questions. i am really waiting for the parent engagement plan to come forward. i am finding it difficult when we get things piecemeal to us.

i am waiting for a plan so that i can -- and we don't have to say that this is another piece of it and where does this fit in the plan, it is a concern, but is also my question. how will this be rolled out? when will we get a plan that i can see in the totality and the pieces fit and to make sense to me. they don't make sense as they are being presented to us. >> this is ongoing pd, work that has preceded the involvement in the partnership of parent engagement. the plan itself has been a gen dies. i have a draft of its. we have seen several iterations

of the previous plan. they have been working with multiple agencies to get feedback on the work that has been done. it is now october, in a very short time, i have seen the paris tool kit, and a very lengthy draft version of the plan with significant details. it has been at legendize, i am not sure what meeting that is, but i have been told. >> it is going to be agendas for the december, i believe six committee as a whole as one part of a larger discussion around our priorities.

we have october 18, the general discussion. the parent engagement plan will be discussed september 6. >> at the end of the year, they give us feedback as to where they needed additional support with respect to their own evaluations. and they identified areas where they felt like they needed additional professional development. these areas are allowing for what the request was. it is retroactive because what we submitted in the spring and professional development, when we submitted this on time, we had a enough money in this professional development line item that was rejected by budget and when i was contacted, the amount was not whether we had proposed in the spring.

what we submitted with the budget planning process. we assumed that is what floated, but that is not what took place. i was not informed until this was kicked back to me with insufficient funds and we had to find another funding source and find out why what i proposed to be loaded wasn't loaded to the way i directed it to be. that is why this is retro. president mendoza: i still have questions, but go ahead. commissioner maufas: will you please -- when she comes, i'm assuming, to give the presentation in december, because we have been piecemeal some of this, though she be able to go back? this will be passed to the moment of this. i want to know how this is

connected and how this will work with the development that will be ongoing for the parent liaisons'. all of that in the december meeting, there are other pieces that we have had in the past. i want to know how they will be integrated. >> i don't see pieces because i see the whole plan, but my interaction is much more frequent. if it was again dyes that this is what we want to present in its totality, that is what you will get. i apologize -- >> the board has been waiting a long time for a comprehensive plan, so i understand you're connecting every day, pretty frequently throughout the week. we look forward to the whole package. thank you.

>> since it was pulled, he said it was identified and approved on the seventh through student support and then if needed another sponsor? >> when i was approached about the professional development plan, what they requested that professional development, i sat here is the code you are going to use, the whole budget item is set up and in a consultant line, you have significant funding. $25,000 there. then i was informed when this was submitted prior to their start date, it was on september 29. it already took place. they have that they already secured, the site, the location,

the african-american cultural center. that was kicked back. it was insufficient funds. they had to investigate that and found that there was only $4,000 in that line-item, so we had to do some investigating into that and identify other funding to be transferred into that account to make up for this total that i thought was significant funding, i assume it was what was loaded in the spring. >> that is fine, but this is a perfect example of having something go forward without knowing where the money is going to come from. i understand it was kicked back, but i don't know where the disconnect happens between budget, finance, and the budget. this frustrates me to know land. -- no end.

one of these days we are going to get stuck because we have already started a contract, and we have people who have already done the work, and we do not know where the money is coming from. i want to emphasize the retroactives are inappropriate. we need to figure out, but i continue to see retroactive, and i do not think we should have these ever. commissioner fewer: i would like to speak about the bay area

apparent action network. they have trained many of our parent leaders, but many of them on our advisory councils, so they have trained a lot of the parents theory goes -- of the parents. they would like to continue the work they had originally, so this is building on what they have already learned. i think this is exactly what they need help with. i am ready to support this. >> for the record, it is not about the content. in days about the process of how

we do it. is there is no more comment on items 6 through 11 -- commissioner wynns: i want to comment on the retroactivity. if you could comment about the issue that we thought this was there, and we need funding for it, that is something i would like to know. an e-mail would be fine for me. the other thing is the issue of retroactively, i appreciate the concerns about that, but on this issue when the money you think is fair from a certain source, that is a legitimate retroactive ishiguissue.

you are making an amendment, because you have the wrong names, so there are things that become an attractive -- retroactive through nothing we can control. and we have had people say, they did the work, so we have to find a way to pay them, so if there is a way to distinguish them, most of them are just all the information is not there or the money is not there.

we make those judgments ourselves by looking at the reasons, but some staff inside might be good. >> this is somewhat of a moot point, up because the reality is we are moving to make this electronic. it takes so long. some of the problems we have had is that we are so antiquated in how the process moves along that it can take 30 days to 90 days. when you have things planned and they go through the system, nobody has 30 days to 90 days. we have been piloting this. i believe this will not be an issue by next year.

there are a few glitches we want to take care of, because we tried it out and got some input from people. once this is done, you will instantly know the funds are not there, because it will be rejected immediately if the funds are not available and if people do not sign off on it, so the system will change radically, and we are very close to durin fiveoinoing that. we are going to do it right. we have identified a few issues. we are going paperless, and our

big frustration has been we have antiquated technology to get us there. we are scaling that up. this will not be an issue. >> this issue will go away. one down. >> roll call please on items 6 through 11. i thought you were bunching them altogether, so go ahead. >> 7. k8, k9, 10, and 11. >> are you now doing all the -- >> i am just telling the folks that are here so they know.

>> i get the idea of the kids wanted to go on the use backpacking trips, but it seems like a small amount for five middle schools, so how many kids are going? i was reading the selection process. the sentences the department has been working on this for 30 years. it does not mean it is great. why are we keeping this program going? it seems like a lot.

>> i think there are seven, and it is $400 per school, and they can select from a menu of options about what they want, so this happens to be one thing they have i asked for, and they take up to about 20 students on the wilderness program, and this is what they have opted into, so it is one of their selections. they have done internships but come to the school. -they have a whole range with limited funding, but this is something they selected from the menu of options available to them.

rex thank you, so k-8. but was just seven. >> it was really eight, nine san, and 11 -- 9, 10, and when and 11. i think the board of education needs another presentation, because these are shocking, so i

really needed education about what we are doing. i really want to know -- in the bullet points, providing the research and instructional model, i struggle weswith and wt are they doing now? we are working on and on and not a whole different curriculum model, but i know they are getting specialized attention, but this almost looks redundant. they are doing this for the schools as well.

maybe i need to been corrected on five. don't we have a research-the departments? when it is talking about literacy and literacy coordinators', don't we have people working on diets? why are these folks coming in to do that? how does it work in conjunction with the others? >> i am happy to speak to k-8. is to serve teachers at six

different schools, so we are talking probably a couple of hundred teachers but will benefit. this really is a central aspect. it focuses on our balance of literacy approach. it is a high-quality learning organization. i know you are referring to the research. they just completed a four-year longitudinal study demonstrating the impact the schools have had,

so it was with a lot of discrimination and discernment that we went with this instruction in mission district schools, so i know there is what appears to be a significant amount of investment. this was our critical piece to provide guidance across the schools. good this includes instructions so they can attend these sessions provided by trainers. i know you referred to is this something separate from what our district is doing?

are they also being implemented as well? >> that is really helpful. i would love to see that. the data shows they would have a significant amount of impact on reform, and we want to use them. >> i can refer you to a simple study of this. you will see awhile longer a longitudinal study. literacycollaterative.org.

you will see the report. >> we will send you about a report by e-mail, so no need to log on, but just a general comment. if you remember, the theory of action is we need to disrupt the historical threat you're a good you are going to see some research-based, nationally vetted, and given the seal of programming that is going to come forward, so this is probably not the last one you will see