people who plan for elementary school and all kinds of things that you know far better than i but that is obviously a key to addressing the financial issues of student nutrition, to have higher breakfast participation, not to mention we need our kids to eat breakfast, they'll be better learners, happier, more able to address their learning experience in school. so if somebody can tell me at some time if that's a good idea if we can start doing that ithe way way -- away, if -- i'm not oppose at all to finding some outside resources and doing a master plan for the future of student nutrition, how we would get, where we would get, but i also hope and trust we could do some parts of this that would be the components of a master plan that we know we need now. i'm also -- i'm also intrigued by the idea of putting recess

before lunch. i think that's a really good idea. and i think it's one of those things that you know people just -- i'm sure you already have done this but if you said to elementary school principals they'd say, we can't do that. it's never like that. never been like that. it's impossible. but you never get to those changes unless you start talk about them. and the last thing i wanted to inquire about or say something about is about the -- also about the higher -- about the -- you know, the point of sale and the meal application returns. so the work there has been remarkable but also i'd lick to know if we are assessing how, you know, sort of compliance with our policies in that area, feeding every hungry child and others, what else we can do. because we -- it's not that --

we're doing great, but we could do better. i think that -- i don't necessarily mean what more you can do, i mean what is not being done on this -- i don't mean us, i mean the administration, what other actions can we take in support of some of the work you have done. i have, as you know, always sort of had a bee in my bonnet about the way we hold the principals responsible. i give them tremendous support for what they've done. they've done a remarkably better job. but i still don't think that -- i don't think that that's -- that we've made that cultural shift in our school district yet. certainly not for everybody. i think it's hit or miss about how many people that run schools embrace the things we are doing and think of it as an asset to themselves and achieving their goals in the school rather than some other compliance thing they have to do and so i think if we could talk about that, not

necessarily, not now, but that can be part of our next steps that we can encourage that maybe needs an update of some of the policies we've passed but that also needs an administrative response. i'd like to do that. and i want to thank you all again. i have not -- my enthusiasm for making this a priority has diminished in no way over the years even with all the things we have done. i not only pledge to do everything i can do as a school board member and in my statewide role, i'm happy to do. >> i have two brief comments. i'm just astounded that the district has realized a ceyings of $1 million with a point of sale system and want to congratulate student nutrition. i mean -- that's money we can now use for many other important

things. secondly, i just wanted to thank our partners for their very, very thoughtful, intentional, broad-based outreach. i know there's outreach to labor partners, to people at all levels of schools, and it was the san francisco way to look at a difficult problem. i really want to thank our partners and i want to ask, when can we get the report? >> thank you. so i'm very interested in this also because i love food. this is obvious. i do have some questions though. and sort of -- some comments too. first i wanted to know, ethank you for the report, i'm looking forward to reading that with the suggestions, it looks very for row. also i have a good friend, steve

henderson who forwarded me an article a while ago about how lunches are served. so it's something i always thought that's very simple that we could do in our district, it is about part of it is about, i think, what commissioner norton brought up about, you know, playing first and then eating so we're settled down and ready to eat and not so anxious to go out and play first. but i think it's also about how attractive our food is display and the way it's served and which food we placed where. like there's a higher consumption of fruits an vegetables if we have it first in line. those type of things. i think that is a very inexpensive thing to do but i thank steve henderson for bringing it to my attention and i think it makes sense. another thing i wanted to say about eating lunch, i think the purpose is, yes, we save some

money but i think the purpose is, we want kids to eat their food and we want them to like to eat their food and we don't want it to be seen as a punishment to have to eat the food. i am concerned about the food we waste because actually we shouldn't have wasted food. our students should like to eat the food they eat. part is presentation but also it is the way we feed our students in elementary school. i don't know if you observed this in your report. what i wanted to ask, there are many elementary schools where students are pushed into a cafeteria, it is very crowded. they're monitors are rushing kids to eat. hurry up, hurry up, hurry up. i feel like it's not a very relaxed atmosphere in which to have a meal and a lot of times, students are told not to talk. so we're asking students not to talk during class and then we're asking them once they're released for lunch to sit in

this crowded cafeteria and not to talk to the person next to them. i don't know, in my home, dinner is a very communal time. that we are talking. we're talking about the food we're eating. we're -- it's sort of a, i think, to ask our students to hurry up and eat, rush, put pressure on them, people walking around saying, hurry up, eat, don't talk, eat your food, eat your food. it's not a pleasant experience and i think it causes waste for our foods too. i think it's in the man for the which we serve food and i think that's something we can do very inexpensively and just be nice to kids when they're eating and encourage them to eat food and enjoy making eating food a really enjoyable experience. then i have another thing as i am a san francisco unified school graduate, i remember when we used to come our own foods. and it was -- it was quite an experience for somebody who did not have a lot of american food

at home. and i have to say it was my introduction to things like meet loaf, you know. -- like meat leff -- meat loaf, you know. kids wanned to eat lunch. i remember people borrowing money to buy the school lunch. it was a really, it was i think, much healthier. i think it was, of course it did have cakes and cookies, we had cakes and cookies, it was fabulous but i do want to go back to explain the idea of cooking your own food. we probably would have a better product, more control over our food, what we serve, how it looks and how it tastes too. and then i wanted to ask about the breakfast thing. the grab and go. so i was on the p.t.a. at galileo high school, we allocated $10,000 as startup money for the grab and go breakfast.

i wanted to know what that's about and whether or not we're still charging schools to start their own grb and go or is this being funded by your department? >> i think there are a couple of grab and go program that was gone on for a long time. the question is about how funding is happening. balboa's was first for a long time. ingall lay low joined balboa as one of the first schools. we expanded that to the rest of the comprehensive high schools this year with a grant from think california expanse -- expansion grant funded by c.d.e. we also have money from the breakfast expansion grant for middle schools for next year and the cost that's involved in doing the expansion is basically just the carts and the point of sale mobile devices so that we

can do the accountability things that we need to do as children take meals at the doors. that sort of thing. there's not a charge out of the site fwouget participate. >> i think originally there was. originally there was a startup money of $0,000 that they said, if you want a grab and go breakfast, it was a startup fee for the school. the school didn't have the money, the p.t.a. paid for it. we were, i think, happy that more kids were -- but it is a deterrent for having it at your school if you're asking school sites to fund the $10,000. i understand that these schools were under a grant, this expansion but i am talking if we are going beyond the expansion, if we are looking at middle schools to have this, are we then, i would say, it's a little unfair to ask sites to pay

$10,000 for startup money to have these things. and i know galileo's p.t.a. put in that money, so i just wanted to make, if our goal is everyone eat breakfast, we don't -- schools are already really strapped for money. we don't want -- so i guess you're going to respond. >> my apologies for not hearing you clearly. i have a hearing problem and even though i have the most state of the art hearing aids on my head, they don't always work well in this type of environment. i do want to share with you, the money that was provided by the galileo p.t.a. was a few years ago and that was actually, i think, frankly, the first one, the first grab and go breakfast that we actually worked on was at balboa high school. it was the first. then because of its success rate, the folks at galileo high school wanted the same and they

actually pulled the money together themselves. we did not necessarily go to them and ask them to provide the money. they came to us and said they wanted to have a breakfast program like that and that they were going to pull together and provide the funding support. that was at that time it was even before we had the current point of sale system. we had a different servicer and it was providing for a different set of pieces of equipment at the time and the carts and so forth. but since that time, we have had funding that was brought forth by an organization called share our strength which funded mission high school and the rest of them we applied for all of our other high schools and the middle schools, we applied for grants individually for each school to the california department of education through their breakfast expansion grant and we were awarded that funding for every one that we did apply for. and basically, the money, as

nancy explained, goes toward providing the new cart itself and they have a cute little, we have the little point of sale equipment, i don't know if you've seen it at the sites but that's primarily what that funding is for and it also paid for some outreach support as well. >> so did balboa pay $10,000 to get it started? >> i honestly don't remember the total amount, i don't think it was $10,000. i thought it was around $6,000 in total. does that seem like what they were basically funding -- i'd have to look. i could check back. >> it sounds like galileo was the only one that paid $10,000 to have grab and go breakfasts. >> that's correct. >> commissioner mendoza. >> i just had a quick question with railroads to the california endowment grant you got, how much was that? >> for? >> the california -- >> $33,810.

>> ok. >> not a tremendous amount. will it allow you to do the work, it looks like a lot of thing that you'll be able to do with it. or a lot of things in and $33,000 doesn't seem like a lot. >> i should also add there's going to be some additional funding that's being provided by san francisco food systems from the department of public health to assist with that. with that particular project as well. >> there's been a lot said by everybody, i don't want to repeat everything but this really, again, thank you for your work and your staff and thank you for our partners to come today. i would -- i think a couple of things people have said, what i'd like to reinforce is for the staff to come up with a plan

where then we could actually get behind it and say, let's support this piece or that piece and the cost analysis. i would be interested to see us, if it's not functioning, maybe to rebuild something where we could actually start cooking again. it could give us a little more variety. of course it could be, we have to be careful with that. you can't just automatically make the assumption that we can cook for ourselves it will be better. we want to make sure. if you allow me to cook, it would be worse. if we go in that direction we have to be careful how we staff that up and so forth. i think superintendent, of course, you want to make a last comment on this? >> yeah. that was the whole purpose of this. i remember when the food bank folks came.

i remember that conversation. the conversation was to let's use this as -- to start a really good discussion. a discussion, and that's why those recommendations are very useful. yeah, a little more work probably needs to be done. it's easy to say have kitchens out there but what is their rate of production and return on the investment you're going to make and can they actually deliver? so i think the next step would be to figure out, what could those do if we had those? second, is it, would it be better to have a central facility and what would the cost be? i think that when we have these initial discussions, and you can correct me if i'm wrong, but the discussion was to see, well if we're going to do this, maybe we do have to think a little bit outside the box, possibly go out to the voters and have something done like this. and that was the whole purpose of this original discussion a

little over a year ago now, to say, and that's why we brought you in as a consultant, to say, what are thin, we want to see the good, the bad and the ugly in our system and want to also think about, ok, we've come a long way in five years, just, you know, just the processes. it's hard to believe, i know from a -- when a consultant sees where we are, they're thinking where we could be. they see it as a relative term to see other places. and i've worked in other police, i know places that are -- that is where they are actually make money on food services, believe it or not but they have some advantages that we don't have here. ok. such as space. but they ended up after analysis, extensive years of analysis, they decided the most cost effective way was to create a centralized kitchen and that worked.

as a result, it really, they were able to curtail costs and the product was really good. i think that when we look at this, this is just, i do think a plan, a very strategic plan needs to be developed from this, from what we've done here, that takes it to the next level. and then bring back to the board and have a discussion to say, ok, this is what it would cost. and based on, this is what it would cost to do kitchens, out in the field or this is what it would cost to do a joint facility with a different district or different -- doesn't even have to be a district, it could be something else as well. you know. could be a college, could be, you know, there's a lot of other options or a central facility. those are at least three options and maybe there's more. and have a breakdown of a cost of whether the feasibility of what those three would be. then i think that then make a decision if that's something that we want to do because let's

be real. under the existing money, where we're at, we're not going to be table fund that. i think we're living in a make believe word if we're going to go out there and do that in this environment, especially after we saw how bad our budget is. wasn't his fault. don't shoot the messenger. but we do have to talk about, ok, if this is something worthwhile that really is not, it's not only going to benefit the children of san francisco, because that it definitely will but it'll have benefits for everybody, including families and nerve san francisco so i think it's something that, you know, maybe a discussion could be, as we pursue peef in the future. maybe this becomes another part of talking about well this is what it would cost to build a facility. most of these costs would be the first-time cost. that's your hardest cost. once you get there, it's a little bit different. but i do think this should be

the spring board for a much bigger, more thorough discussion of analyzing the recommendations to see what is real because i appreciate ed giving us what you've done and that's great. that tells us where we kind of are right now. but in the next five years, where are we going to be? thing inevitably the recommendations that are made there, i do think that they carry a lot of merit. and we do need to explore those. otherwise we won't get to the level where i think we, in the long run, where this community, i think, would want us to be there to have food that really does excite kids. having said that, i've eaten in a lot of calf tier yaos, i don't mind the -- cafeterias, i don't mind the food. i've been in elementary, middle school, every school i've been to, i'll probably get mail now but when you ask the students, i ask them what they like about

going to middle school, especially the sixth graders, the first thing they tell you is they like the food. they like lunch. i guess it's all -- comparability. relative to what you've had, i guess. since there are more choices there compared to elementary, they seem to like that. but i do think that we're headed in the right direction. this is a good start. but we have a long ways to go. thank you an thanks to the consultant and everybody, the food bank folks, thank you, and your staff, thank you. >> thank you. >> don't talk about the taco truck. >> where is that truck? ok, where are we. ok. item n, consent calendar resolutions. removed at previous meeting for second reading and action.

vote on consent calendar, moved and seconded under section f. roll call, please. [voting] >> thank you. >> on p, consent calendar resolutionings, severed for board discussion and immediate action. k-10. commissioner norton. >> that was me.

>> my question, could you tell me if you could break this down fers of all, i mean, sort of what this is and kind of why we have a need for recruiting given the number of layoff notices we put out. >> sure. we've been partners with t.f.a. since 2008 as you know. the original commitment was to bring 50 teachers a year to this district. since i've been here, we've lowered that number significantly. to focus on hiring teachers in high-need areas, in hard to fill subjects and hard to staff schools. this doesn't affect layoffs at

all. they're either skipped subjects or places where it's hard to find people to hire and put them back in place. right now, there are 14, as opposed to the 50 that we originally signed on to do five years ago, there are 14 first-year and 16 second-year f.t. -- t.f.a. teachers in the district and then we have alums in the district, we have 62 staff members who are alums of the program, of which 36 are teachers, nine are administrators in our district. they're not necessarily ones who started out in this program but they started out in t.f.a. and different schools throughout the country. one of -- there are actually two -- >> i thought you said we had 60 alums. >> i amongst the 62 staff member whors alums of t.f.a., 36 of

them are teachers in our district. and nine of them are administrators in our district. we have others, for example, nancy who just sat here is. >> by scradmrtors you mean site administrators. >> site administerors. i'm sorry. i misspoke. there are two k resos in the book tonight, the first one is an amendment to deduct $60,000 for 20 -2013 from the original five-year k resolution. and the reason for that is that the original m.o.u. and the k resolution didn't -- the m.o.u. did not allow for that last year.

so we had to do some housekeeping in order to redirect that money. part of that -- and the k resolution that you pulled is for $51,000. so we're amending to deduct $60,000 and then bring in a new k resolution which would pay for the second year which we need to pay for the second year of the last cohort that we had. and then what we would like to do is add 10 t.f.a.'s a new cord, it would be an actual fifth cohort, or a sixth year but we would add 10 people to it. so what the -- what we would end up doing with the 10 new, there would be 14 t.f.a. teachers we need to pay for in their second year that would have been paid

for out of the moneys we had in the k 58 resolution we need to correct. >> i want to make sure i'm following, it's a little convoluted. the $60,000 that is the credit would have paid -- would have paid for the 14 -- the coaching for the 14. >> that's what that money was -- that's what it was there for though we've used considerably less money every year than was originally planned for. so we've cut this program way back which i'll get to in just a second. so i want to -- what i want to do is clarify a couple of things. teachers we were requested to breng through t.f.a. are -- don't impact the layoffs, as i said before. they're in skipped areas and in hard to fill subjects. the second thing the original

contract with -- >> so special ed, math, science, foreign language. >> hard to fill subjects. >> i'm presuming we usually have a need every year. >> we do. in fact, of -- vlade no one off in those subjects, so there's no one to return to those subjects. these teachers are university credential interns that are highly qualified under nclb. the original contract with t.f.a. five years ago was $480,000 for five years. over that time that we've been here, we've reduced that to $312,000. the funds that we're requesting, the next thing is, the costs, generally speaking, other districts pay $2,000 a year for their teachers. we negotiated $1 rblings 500 a

year for our teachers. the money doesn't go to the teachers. their salaries are the same as any other intern teacher in the district. the $1,500 goes to the nonprofit t.f.a. and t.f.a. reports that they actually spend $40,000 per teacher in support, recruiting, support, so on and so forth for the teachers. they ask us to pay them $1,500 a year for those teachers which is what we pay. the next thing that come ops t.f.a. is retention. it's true. we hire these teachers for two years and re