people at four or five -- that is what we wanna see. these children will have to graduate. so i don't need to take up anymore of the board's time but i think i should probably meet with you to discuss this graph 'cause i don't understand it. it could be i just don't get what it's telling me, but i don't need to waste the board member's time because i understand there's probably board members who understand this fully... >> i think we need the two minute explanation for that. >> i don't real /hre -really get this graph. >> let 's look at one that says m equals 20 but the top one says fourth grade -- the one

with little bit of yellow and then the one below that says second. so read that the opposite way. so if you start in second grade the number of students who are proficient is that light green and the percentage of students that are advanced. so at that time 100 percent of the students were in green which was proficient or advanced. now we do see a dip going into third grade. the scores drop across the board and so we see that reflected here. some of those students who had been at proficient or advanced, a small percentage move back to basic, but then in the fourth grade a few became advanced. are you with me on that part? >> yeah. >> so in the second grade they were either proficient or

advanced so it's the same cohort moving up to fourth grade? >> that's correct, but they have to be present in all four grades to be present on this graph. >> so ten percent of those students that cohort are now basic? >> that's correct. >> okay. got it. >> i still have one question about this. 20 seems like a very small number of students to -- we're looking at -- it's one pathway, i understand that. i'm not saying there's so few students in the school, but i'm saying is i'm not [inaudible] but i don't understand with a small number like 20 how it appears we're supposed to try to compare this to a number of 225 which is -- i don't -- i need somebody who knows enough to tell me that's a valid comparison when it doesn't seem like it would be with 20 being

such a small number. >> we do have to ensure that the students have matched scores so we're looking at the [inaudible] and that's why the number is perhaps smaller because -- okay. >> i'm not being critical of how small the number is, but -- this is a valid comparison with that number and this number. >> so within this job actually, the information that's missing is -- if you look to the right hand corner there is the percent written so on your chart it got [inaudible] that's what's causing the confusion so the percent is written on the right hand side of the chart but in the slide it got erased

so i will give you the percent from the this chart. but what it's saying is the critical piece of information for the school is first of all that as you can see, the [inaudible] biliteracy pathway is very successful as compared to the other pathway within that same school so that's the first piece of information it's giving you because if you look at the cantonese biliteracy pathway you will see the students -- even though they move from 100 percent proficiency, it's still [inaudible]. so you can see the high /raeutd of proficiency but as soon as i look at the school as a whole with the 77 students you see the proficiency levels fall way low, you know. the other pathways within that same school is a caution because how

can one pathway be successful and be in that same school not be successful. so that's the first data point that you would ask for. in comparing the 225 to the 20 -- it is valid comparison only because this is over threes matched acrossed three years the same cohort of students and so it is telling you the success of those students from second to third to fourth as compared to the data pattern for the other students where it is second going down to third, which is the typical factor in the district two and then going back up and fourth. what i tend to also look at is the percent proficient at fourth grade and compare to the fourth grade percent proficient at the school.

>> the second group includes the fest /wub doesn't it? >> yes. >> so that means the second pathway is even worse than here. >> wow, wow. >> and this one and the third group also includes the first group. >> yeah. i'm so glad we have you. okay. thank you. >> what would be so are of helpful then -- correct me if i'm wrong -- we would look at this cohort of 20 students in this cantonese biliteracy pathway -- we could look at other schools and do this same type of comparison so that was my question that i also -- so

this second group -- it's includes cantonese and spanish speaking speakers? they have three pathways? okay. >> you're real -- really just including this as an example. now everyone wants to know what school it is. >> by the way, in the data disk, they don't all three pathways, it was just one snapshot but it actually has [inaudible]. >> so if we wanted to delve deeper into this you have much more data. this is just a snapshot. so this snapshot is already a little upsetting so i think it's honest. i think it's a step in the right

direction. it is really looking at it through data, through measurable results and impact and it's what we should be doing all along and so not just on here saying, not just on feel good, but using real data and looking at where deficiencies are, what is sec -- successful, what is not. and i applaud or district really critically and trying to make it better because this hiding of information only gets us deeper into the hole. i think we discovered that in this district. the hiding of information, the hiding of facts about who's achieving and who's not -- let's be honest about it. so this is great and as shocking it is to me i applaud you for having this data and for presenting it to us. because we need to vote on

a budget, need to vote on direction and so i think this -- getting this kind of data to see what we're dealing with -- i think it gives us the fortitude to do it so i appreciate it and i apologize. thanks. >> mr. mendoza. >> i had a question with regards to how much data we actually have in terms of the longitude data. i know that we know if there's a lot of studies that we measure by 8th grade, 11th grade -- that's where we really start to see improvements that are happening. what happens to kids that have been in bilingual programs and where do

they go and what support do they get and how well do they do coming out of an early or late exit. when they move on, what happens to them? >> well, in response to the early exit and what happens to them we actually look at students who are reclassified by pathway so we're able to monitor individually how students are doing over two years and there is a process with the teachers to ensure that if a student is conning moving forward that that's tracked, that if they're also dipping down we're also able to track that as well and provide the appropriate services. it wouldn't be el services, but in terms of intervention that are needed at that point, those are

taken into consideration. >> and then in terms of how much data do we have? >> we have lots of data right now at this point so i think we can -- we're able to -- because of the [inaudible] project we are able to actually -- we have a clean data set. we're able to look by [inaudible] in terms of how newcomers are doing, how long terms are doing, we also track by the different pathways as well. we can do it for the next 2010 cohort and so on and so on. and >> that's just great because for years and years we could never even pull apart who was in what program and even though we have strands at schools, we couldn't say this strand is doing that. everybody was lumped together and we never

knew what was good and what wasn't and how our kids are moving along. and for somebody who's a big believer in language emersion programs, but when you look at it from a data perspective it makes you think about ways we're gonna improve this. to commissioner fewer's point should we be /kpapbding -- expanding them, what are the best programs. and the whole idea we can actually identify them based on what programming is even more exciting so thank you for bringing this to our attention and i look forward to seeing more of a comprehensive approach in the way to which we wanna do programming. >> i wanna say one other thing

is i'm wondering if we have any data about students themselves. what is our revenue for that? and so do we see them as different so there's some students that come in with non interruption in there and they come right into our school district and we know that some come in with an interrupted instruction /h*eugs ed -- history and how do we help those students. do we have any data on that. but i think i need a schedule a meeting with just you privately. >> we are beginning to start that project. folks at san francisco international school is actually starting that. they have a program called [inaudible] and they're beginning to gather that data so we're fortunate that they're able to start that project with

us. >> you wanted to make a comment. >> sure, thank you president norton. i wanna thank our team for your presentation and the commissioners for asking such thoughtful questions. there's a couple nuggets i would ask for people to take away this evening. we are using data. the board has been very clear about we really need to look at data, embrace the data and it's very difficult to not get emotional about the data -- what does it tell us, what do we do. i wanna thank the team for bringing it forward. there was another thing i wanna make sure we're highlighting -- you're gonna hear another

presentation on sase. in the past the para dime has been that there is a program, that they get eld, that they get services. what i don't wanna lose track of is that this team is working so closely with our humanities department and the common core state standards that eld, all of the data that we're mining now the informing how we go about providing that kind of instruction for our students in a very comprehensive manner so we're asking much more of our teachers and administrators, but we're doing this based on the data we're mining so we can make some really good decisions

about where do we invest or limited resources and what do we prioritytize first. but where do we need to go. the last thing i will say is that we just got back from the council and we had a conversation with the council of great city of schools about english language learners and part of the para dime that [inaudible] and some of our colleagues in other school districts across the country -- we're not changing the conversation /tw with the department of justice and department of education so that perhaps some soft guidance and oversite that we've had in the past which has been very compliance is now shifting to what's better for english learners and that is coming

from the work that the practitioners are doing. what is good practice. we have data now that we can show what we need to do increase the academic of our el's. this is gonna really give us some good information about how to move forward. so i wanna thank the team again for bringing the information forward. >> thank you very much. i neglected to call for public comment on this but there's nobody to signed up. so we are going to move on to our second presentation on item m. >> thank you president norton. again a very timely and

important topic and i'd like to ask doctor blanco and her team to come forward and take us through this presentation.

move to extend the meeting. >> second motion we hear a motion here today to provide

you with an update. this is the district's plan that will be implemented pending approval on addressing the disproportionate [inaudible] particularly in the category of emotional disturbance. so august 2012 just a brief quick history we received former notification from cde that we were disproportionate in the number of african american students [inaudible] we are required to submit a safe plan, safe coordinated already intervening services plan which was dressed and not identified

as special education students. so i just wan if -- want to reiterate that the funds are going to general education, not special education. >> do you have a [inaudible] question about the dollar amount is? . it translates roughly into 1.8 million. the state does provide us with technical assistance through the process [inaudible] have been attending since september. once the plan is approved, rather than general education [inaudible] will be participating in this process as well. we have been having

-- we were required to put together a stake holder group and also a leadership group which is really just a [inaudible] is to meet regularly to help us through the process from beginning to end and that has been happening since september in october we brought on dan, the author of one or our review checklist that we used for our [inaudible] to consult with us for analyzing the root cause for [inaudible] and in october we also brought on board doctor brown who is here with us today as a consultant of the safe plan. doctor brown is a member of the state [inaudible] that works on significant disproportion ality. the day

that election process took us a while. the self assess /-pl piece is required by the state and it basically included a number of surveys that we used. the wisconsin check /h*eus is one of three recommended by the state and it was a survey administered to focus groups at 16 schools on various issues from what they thought professional capacity was at the schools, to attitudes towards inclusive practices, attitudes towards students of underserved populations. we happen to have [inaudible] part of that so we had data from those surveys as well around inclusive practices and around attitudes towards supporting

behavior of /staoupbtds within the general education seting. we also provide edd with district wide data that we worked with the rpa department to /aeu /kwaeur including early indicator data, counselor office referrals, achievement data and also demographic data around our student population. and the third prong with special education data -- we have an ed panel that we have talked about before where every psychologist who is assess ing ing a subject is required to bring the case to an ed panel and go through a review process before making a determination. we also looked across the

[inaudible] pattern across the district. no one school or psychologist stood out so there were no clear patterns that emerged from there. and then for this year we looked at all the referrals that came in, particularly for african american students and looked for pat /erpbs -- patterns there as well. we put this together and his findings can be grouped into four categories overall. the first one being clearly a need for special education funding before we get to special education action. the four he indicated here

were -- section 504 would address the needs of students within the general education setting without the need to go all the way to special education. looking at having a less punitive approach in reacting to discipline /-rb shoes, - within categories that are more subjective ive in

nature versus something that is more clear such as bringing a gun to school. this is specific for students who already have ieps that the lack of behavior in assessments and supports for these students leads to [inaudible] maybe if we enhance our behavioral approaches within those settings for those students with ieps we can prevent that from happening. and finally the need for parent outreach. and over [inaudible] we just had a discussion about this databased decision making. in three ways, one our capacity to access data related to behavior or discipline -- the waiver now

and finally the data that we do have we're not using adequately to -- or consistently to make decisions around how we address behavior issues or how we plan programs this might support children's needs in the behavior and emotional arena. this next slide is a little difficult to read, but if you look at your handout on the left side it lists evidence that he put together through all of his review of the data we submitted and on the right it's his inferences of lewd cause out of those evidence based on data. one of which was lack of [inaudible] process as we just talked about and on the right lewd cause is [inaudible] general education for students with behavior

issues, lack of resources for the teachers, professional capacity of the teachers. he stressed the need for incorporating the need for multicultural and awareness within all the other interventions we might think of using. the 504 system as we talked about the code of conduct and such and the review of previous slide. based on the [inaudible] implementing intervention. and reviewing the code of conduct training staff and using alternative responses