proposals. 2013, 14, reopener initial proposal from the san francisco unified school district to united administrators of san francisco. 2013, 14, reopener initial proposal from united administrators of san francisco to the san francisco unified school district. 2013, 14, initial proposal from the san francisco unified school district to the international union of operating engineers local 39. >> 2013, 2014, initial proposal from the international union of operating engineers, local 39 to the san francisco unified

school district 2013, 14, reopener of proposal from the sheet metal worker's union, local 104 to the san franciscoen i identified school district. 2014, reopener initial proposal from the san francisco unified school district to the following common craft. international brotherhood of electrical workers (ibew), local 6; carpenters and locksmiths, local 22; united association ofjourneymen and apprentices of the plumbing and pipefitting industry of the united states and canada, local 39; united union ofroofers, waterproofers and allied workers, local 40; plasterers and shophands, local 66; sheet metal workers international union, local 104; iron workers union, local 377; glaziers, architectural metal and glass workers union, local 718; teamsters, local 853; auto, marine and specialty painters, local 1176; and machinists union, local 1414. >> superintendent, or carm elo, the comments on the sunshining of these proposals, please? >> i don't have any specific comments other than we are

looking forward to entering into new agreements with all of our unions. >> any public speakers in i see that we have one jan link from usf. >> hi, >> that is okay. >> that is how we run things here. >> hello, my name is jan link and i am the president of the united administrators of san francisco and we are looking forward to bargaining with the

district on our sunshine proposal. this spring, thank you. we will see you again in february 25. thank you. >> i have a point of information that i know that there is some and the staff members here who are interested in the trades initial proposal. so i wonder if they had signed up for the public comment or not. they have not. okay. >> any further comments from board of supervisors? >> superintendent? >> none? >> okay. >> we will go on to the next item then. >> and so, miss solomen, you would like to address this on uasf and international union operating engineers, common craft, electrical worker's plumbers, did you sign up to speak with us. >> right here. >> on the next item with uesf

or the next item? >> the next? >> right, okay. i will call the public hearing to the following proposal.2013-2014 initial proposal for a successor contract from the united educators of san francisco (uesf) teacher and paraprofessional units to the san francisco unified school district.2013-2014 initial proposal for a successor contract from the san francisco unified school district to the united educators ofsan francisco (uesf) teacher and paraprofessional units >> do we have a reading of the recommendation? >> special order of business, the subject is 2013, 2014, initial proposal for success or contract from the san francisco unified school district to the united educators of san francisco and teacher and professional units and the requested action is that the board of education, holds a public hearing on the 2013,

2014, initial proposal for a success or contract from the san francisco unified school district to the united educators of san francisco uesf. >> i think that we have, thank you. >> and i see that we have one speaker signed up. miss susan solomen. >> good evening, commissioners and superintendent carranza, i too am looking forward to negotiations that are coming up. good to see that there is finally money to talk about instead of money that we have to take away. because it was not there. now we have some money and we i think that all parties have pro'ssals that will be beneficial to our students and we begin negotiations next week. thank you very much. >> any comments from the board? >> seeing none, we have three actions, under special order of business.

can i have a motion and a second please on the approval of the 2013-2014 initial proposal for a successor contract from the san francisco unified school district to the united educators ofsan francisco (uesf) teacher and paraprofessional units.. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. >> and i think that we need a reading of the recommendation by the lovely miss kristina wo ng. >> the board of education approves the addendums for 2013, 14, balance score cards for the single plan for the student achievement and the amount of the eif funds that were used in 2013, for the centralized services to provide additional support for english learners at school sites, the documentation for this starts on page 24, would the commissionerers like me to address the background information? >> commissioners? are are you able to vote on

that without that background information presented at this time. yes. >> i don't think that it is necessary, thank you. >> okay. >> that is the end of your presentation. okay, great. >> public speakers? none signed up. >> any comments from the board of superintendent? >> seeing none. roll call vote, please? >> thank you. >> mr. logan? >> yes. >> mr. haney? >> yes. >> miss maufas. >> yes. >> miss mendoza, dr. murase? >> aye. >> norton. >> yes. >> miss wynns? >> aye. >> and miss fewer? >> yes. >> six ayes. >> okay. >> could i have a motion and a second on the second reading adoption by the board of education of the san francisco unified school district and the san francisco county office of education of the ccss implementation funds spending plan? >> so moved. >> second. >> we have a report from the budget committee meeting? >> thank you.

>> so, you all received the materials from the budget committee, and we had a very interesting budget committee meeting and in the folders, too was the material for this item. and so, the real question, i mean that there are a lot of questions, but the real question is this enough money and it isn't enough money. but the staff plan the budget committee i think, judged to be a wise and investment of these funds for professional development and for technology for the most part, i just really wanted to complete that report on this item by pointing out that the bells are ringing. oh, but that, one of the main issues of discussion in the state budget this year will be advocacy to try to get more, one time dollars for

implementation of the common core state standards and it, one piece of information is that the last time that the state adopted strapped aders, there was a much more money available for professional development and the whole stal edge of technology and the new assessments that will be all done on the computer was not an issue at that time. so, that is the thing to look out for. and this plan does include a plan for further investments and remember that this so-called one time money is being spent over two years but there are plans which will obviously impact our general funds, significantly if more one time money is not forth coming from the state thank you. >> and i can thank you, commissioner wynns and i think that we need a reading of the recommendation by... okay, thank you. >> thank you, president, before

i read this into the record, i just wanted to point out that there is a corrected version of this resolution. and there is made available to the board members earlier. today, and the corrected version is also available to the public on the desk outside. and it has also been placed on the district's website today. so, i will now read the requested action, the first reading of the common core state standards implementation funds spending plan for fiscal year, 13, and 14,was held at ihe business and budget services commiltee meeting on wednesday, february 5'h, 2014. this is the second reading and adoption ofthe common core state standards implementation funds spending plan. the requested action is for the board ofeducation ofthe san francisco unified school

district and the san francisco county office of education approve the attached common core state standards implementation funds spending plan for the fy 13-14 and fy 14-15 to enable san francisco unified school district and san francisco county of education to support student achievement and learning ofthe new common core state standards, as well as prepare studenls for the 21st century skills needed to graduate college and careerready. >> i don't think that i need to read out the background. >> yeah. >> thank you. >> i think that is fine, thank you. >> any public speakers in seeing none... oh, yes. susan solomen. >> make it to the gym this morning this will do. thank you. i had one question about the items that are budgeted, and that in particular for the professional development and so there is one category that says that professional development for teachers and administrators, para educators and para professional educators

or classified employees involved in the direct instruction of the pupils the items in the descriptions describe the pd for the staff and designated for the classroom staff and i have not seen anything for the para professional and i don't see it going on for para professionals and so i just wanted to raise that question and concern to make sure that we all get trained, thank you. >> thank you, miss solomen. >> could i have a motion and a second on the ratification of agreements between the san francisco district and charter schools and operational memo of understanding. >> we didn't have a vote. >> so sorry. >> and i have a question. >> you see i am going so quickly here. trying to get out of here. sorry. >> yes. >> i wonder if i have a question about the technology

for smarter balance? so, i see the technology budget in here and it does not seem like enough for... so, how do we, you know, we ever going to have to administer and do we, i see that there is a pretty small, 2014, budget we are a pilot site for smarter balance and what is the technology to need to take the assessments when they are ready. so yes, the, so, basically the district is going to commit to make sure that the school sites have the sufficient technology and we are using a ratio of one to ten as suggested by the state and in order to meet the 12 week assessment window. and this actually exceeds that ratio because as part of that plan we want to make sure that for the lower grades, three through eight, that we do not

have to split class sizes so there is a cart of 40 or 45 depending on the class sizes so they can roll it into the class. so, we actually do exceed that for that purpose. and the amount may look small and part of the reason is because we want to make sure that we maintain the refreshed deviceses and so these will be leased over a three year period and so, this represents that first year lease. and the wireless is included in there as well and so we are going to make sure that all elementary schools have sufficient wireless to be able to run those carts in any classroom within there and it is not the greatest wireless but it will be sufficient to run those and there is extra support staff included in that number as well. >> so, you are confident that this budget is going to actually meet the needs of that we are going to have in 14, 15?

>> yes. >> and we are going to learn a lot this year, and we have some feedback last year and meeting with the teachers and that we are trying to figure out what to do with that feedback. and to see, if we can accommodate that and try to do a trial run and see if we can make that next year and so it is raised that particularly was in the high schools and it is going to be disruptive through the scheduling and can we test all students at once and how would that look? and so, you know, it is a brand new idea and so we have some ideas of how we might be able to do that and we actually move the school site to school sight and test all of the students at one and this budget does have sufficient devices in there to support all 11th graders plus a little bit extra. and so it is a different way of thinking. and so this is going through,

lots of things in flux and we are talking about 5,000 devices and wireless to the elementary schoolss and that is a pretty significant boost in technology. >> and sure, just very quickly i want to thank, matt for the response but the commissioner i think that you are perceptive that it is just one very small use of what some technology uses so part of the vision and process that we have undergone and part of the conversation that we have engaged in with the broader community is how do we have a more ubiqitous use so that we have a bigger footprint so we don't look at it for assessment purposes but for an effective tool for instructional purposes. and that is where we have some very fertile ground especially with some of the pilot programs that we have had and as part of

the middle school leadership initiative where we have teachers that are incredibly adept at using technology for enhancing ininstruction and so, while this may be, and i just want to make sure that we are clear that this may be sufficient for the particular purpose of administering assessments we are not comfortable that it will be near sufficient for impacting the industrial program and what is exciting is that our vision and vision work is going to address that and many of the conversations that we are having with the broader community as well, are really geared around having us become a very technological advanced school district and i know that sounds exciting and quite frankly, that commissioner wynns mentioned ma there is movement at the state level as well around the perhaps the one time funds that can be targeted around this particular area and so the ground is fertile and ripe, but the seed lins have not sprouted, i am going to

keep on that analogy. >> okay. >> so, that sort of begs the question now, you mentioned that, so we are leasing these for three years? what happens after three years? >> what we are trying to do is make a change and annual budget item so that the one time fupds will allow us to plan and work that, so that we don't have to actually worry about that for two years from now and the superintendent lee and i have and actually talking about for several months now is how we can make this happen and he kind of sketch out the ideas of how this will work for it and it helps us to give us a little bit extra time to plan and get that into the normal operating budget. and going forward. and so after three years, we refresh with the new devices and we keep the fresh devices. the machines need to work. that is going to effect our accountability. >> and so releasing these and in three years we give them back and we don't own these

devices; is that correct?? so we give them back after leasing them for three years? >> that is correct. we do have the option, if we can buy them at a much lower market rate which is will different than buying them up front but the idea is trying to establish a base line, and budget item every year to spread out of the cost evenly. and then we can assume that the devices will be very similar to the devices that we will buy in three years because the students will be trained on these. >> that could be correct. and part of the benefit of looking through the three year cycle is that allows us to keep up with shifts in technology and so what is effective and works well today may not work well three years from now and so it gives us flexibility to be able to shift and change. but to echo the comments by carranza, we have always envisioned starting last year that the devices will be used in the instruction prior to

being used in assessment. and so that is part of our roll out plan of these >> thank you. >> any other comments or questions from the board. >> yes, one more question, as mentioned by vice president solomen from uesf was that an oversight in our language where we missed outputing in para professionals will get it as well. >> i don't know. does somebody want to address that now, or can we respond? >> yes, superintendent? >> yeah, i think that it is actually mentioned that para professionals will be receiving training, the question is what will that look like? so, >> deeper? >> yeah, so what i think is important to understand is that in the conversations that we have been having with the para professionals it is important and we embrace the notion that it takes everyone in the classroom to have, you know, similar training and similar supports and providing time for people to come together. and plan, so that is really the

spirit, the details we will be working out with our part partners. >> thank you. >> could i say something? >> i do want to point out that we discussed this at the budget committee saying that there is no plan for additional professional development days. the professional development money in the budget is to pay for the portion of the already schedule professional development days, that is used for the common core implementation. so whether in the future we decide that we need additional time depending on more money being available. depends on how we develop our budget for next year in the subsequent years. what resources are available and the additional days that we brought it with the bargaining units. >> and so, i have a further question, since we are opening it for questions.

is that i am looking under the san francisco county of education, and i am noticing that under the professional development and the instructional development is that we will provide resources lefaged through the san francisco, through the additional and the existing funds. so we are adding additional funds to the regular schools. for a professional development and all of this stuff that i see. however, for a county schools, we are going to leverage them from the additional and from their already meager budget and so i am wondering why that is? >> so, president fewer, i will try to clarify. so, i believe as the short answer is that there is no difference in terms of the

amount of professional development that has been provided to our educators in the county, and court programs verses the other educators in the district. so, as commissioner wynns mentioned, the professional development, that took place, at the beginning or prior to the beginning of the school year, you commissioners you may recall that based on discussions and negotiations with the uesf regarding the calendar, for this year, 13, 14, we were able to add i believe that it was two days, to the service calendar for this year. so, that was, to move one day, from the end of the school year back to prior to the beginning of the school year and then to add an additional day and so there was almost a whole week before school began most of which was devoted to professional development. so, to the extent that involved additional cost, part of the

additional cost, not all, but part of the costs are overlapping with the spending plan for the common core state standards and implementation funds but at the same time was available to all of the teachers, whether and it would say, for paras for well, whether they are in the county court programs or in the other schools. and so, in some ways, it is an accounting thing that we are not, we are not parading a certain part of the county, and court teachers time to these particular funds, and the common core state standards and implementation funds and but they were certainly part of the same professional development, and they received the same amount of incremental pay for those and for that additional day of service. and so it is just that we are not counting, those costs are all included in the county

court and budget as opposed to the county. >> thank you, superintendent. >> yeah. >> i mean, deputy superintendent. >> sorry. >> sorry. >> yeah i just wanted to make sure that the county schools are covered on this too. >> thank you very much. >> okay, now i hope that i am doing the right thing. >> yeah, you? okay. >> yeah, i just... i appreciate that and i think that it is important to just always remember that you know, one of the wonderful things about being in a county and a district is that sometimes we have to describe this and the work that we are doing and even if i did... and i have personally spoken to the county superintendent who assures me that it will be included. >> thank you. >> tell him i said hello. >> okay. >> i think that we are ready for a roll call vote. >> mr. logan? >> yes. >> mr. haney? >> yes. >> maufas.

>> yes. >> mendoza, dr. murase. >> yes. >> norton. >> aye. >> wynns. >> aye. >> fewer. yes. >> could i have a motion and a second on the ratification of agreements between the san francisco unified school district and charter schools and operational memo of understanding. >> so moved. >> second. >> so i think that we have a reading of the recommendation by the superintendent or mr. michael davis? >> thank you, the subject is ratification of agreement between the san francisco unified school district charter schools operational memo of understanding, in the action i need to make a slight correction in the second line where it says and facilities use agreements fua that should not be there. and you actually ratified those and september 24, of 2013. so the requested action is that the board of education of san

francisco unified school district ratify the memo of understanding for the 2013, 14, school year, negotiated with the charter schools by the superintendent or his designee as set forth below. >> the schools are city arts and technology high school, creative arts charter school, thomas edison, charter academy, five keys adult school, five keys charter school, five keys independent high school, gateway high school, gateway middle, and timp bay view academy, and san francisco bay academy, and san francisco college prep academy, and leadership high school and life learning academy. >> thank you. >> i think that we have one public speaker signed up. >> hillary henderson? >> hi, good evening and i'm hillerry and i am the director

for the charter school's association and i am going to be very brief and i wanted to follow up on the letter that i submitted to you all this morning and request your support for the ratification for the mlus today and as you know, charter leaders had a conversation with superintendent carranza about this issue. and we would like to take your concerns into account and have a conversation going forward to address your questions and issues arounds enrollment process and time lines, and but given that these mlus were negotiated in good faith, last spring, i have asked that you ratify them tonight as is and we can continue this conversation for next year to address the issues and concerns that you bring the important issues that the charter leaders recognize that. >> any comments from the board of superintendent? >> miss wynns, i kind of want to say the same thing that i appreciate that there has been discussion of the concerns raised by the board about the alignment of the enrollment process time lines basically

between the school district and this as was just pointed out. this mlu is for the current year which is more than half over and so we, and i, would urge my colleagues to vote for this and i am going to vote for it myself and i just want to clearly state that not only i, but i think that the consensus of the board is that we neat to tighten that up and we expect that to be done and we don't want the staff to bring us the mlus for next year which we will presume will be conclude and brought to us prior to the school year and that have the same kind of sort of loose language about alignment of the enrollment process, thank you. >> okay, thank you. >> i just want to concur with what commissioner wynns said and thanks the charter schools for engaging in the dialogue with us on this issue. and i don't feel like we have

resolved it, but i feel like we have engaged in a productive dialogue and so i do appreciate that and i intend to support the mlu. >> yes. >> commissioner murase? >> i just want to for the listening public, clarify what that issue is, we had one charter school propose an earlier enrollment schedule, beginning in the fall, rather than the traditional schedule that traditional schools follow where there is an enrollment deadline at the end of january. and it just raises a lot of issues in terms of access issues, and equity, and do families, having enough information to make shir enrollment request in the fall verses the end of january? and are we privileging some families over others that may have access to information about those enrollment deadlines and so i think that it does raise serious issues that might colleagues and i have expressed. and so we look forward to a constructed dialogue with the