rations of this plan, i'd like to see more of a connection with curriculum and how our digital district will support software programming at galileo and balboa. there was a time last year we were talking about trying to adopt software. unfortunately we were beat to the punch by new york city schools, but i think it's something we should continue to explore. and then another piece i'd like to see in other iterations of this plan is how technology can be a tool for inclusion for all of our students. we heard from hearing impaired families and how we can really help those families by used

inclusion, as well as our english language learners. i think there are much better ways to serve those families with this technology. and then i just wanted to congratulate the family technology survey. this is really great to have data on hand and be able to see and to really [inaudible] some of the myths we've maintained about the level of technology up take among or families. our families. i would urge that we think about chinese language content and we now as a city have embraced [inaudible] as a language that all of our government documents are supposed to be translated into. and now the cost of translation, while still not insignificant, is a lot lower than it used to be because of some of the automatic translation services that we

can use as a base. of course you always want to have a native speak ergo through native speak ergo through the content. i think it is a good picture of where we need to be, but there's going to be a lot of work to be done, but i urge my colleagues to keep this as a priority because it's too easy to take down infrastructure down to the bottom of the priority list and it gets us to where we were a few years ago, very much blinds. blinds. blinds.

behind. >> there's cause for concern about telephones being used as the major access point for african american all be, you know, digitized and all electronic and you can't access all of that on a telephone very easily. and then the other issue, which is hard to distinguish in the survey is that, you know, we ask the question about what devices children have access to

and it isn't clear whether -- i mean, we ask them do kids have cell phones, but i think that there's some confusion about whether -- for me there is at least, about whether they have their own deviegsst vices or just have access to their parents' devices. so i'm just a little concerned about the practicality, about how we expect people to have access to curriculum materials, let alone other things in their only access to the internet is through phones. and i'm -- so -- and also, even though it's very difficult, i mean, there was a time when we were talking about free wi-fi everywhere in the city and i understand the complexities and challenges that are faced in doing that, but i'm interested when we might be able to expect some specific recommendation plans about -- and also

assessments, once we start doing these things about who actually is able to access these things. also interested in data about who ease using tablets because also you might have noticed, it was a big news report last week about how schools are going to stop teaching cursive and that in california we actually are still going to do that, but we -- it's not in the common core. so i'm a little concerned if we think oh, it's okay, we're going to rely on their own devices and they don't have key boards so -- and i don't really expect you to have the answers to these things, just more -- i'm interested in what kind of discussions and thinking you've had about that and when you any we can expect to have some actual -- you know, the other side of the information loop, what's actually happening with

it as we try to really facilitate access, electronic access for our students, especially younger ones. >> these are great questions, just very briefly what i will say is that the questions commissioner wynns' asked is at the forefront of what we're thinking about. the going to a ubiquitous digital curriculum environment until we're able to go to a one to one student device environment. there are several school districts we've visited where they've implemented one of these models and it's very simple. they come to school, they have their own device that they like. and if they don't the school has one for them. they're able to take it, take it home, use it, they can connect when they come to the

district and it's no issue for them. that's ultimately where we want to go. i think what's really important about us carving out the vision is that it's enabled us to have some very, very strategic conversations with the city and county of san francisco and their technology and as you know, it's been a vision in the city to have a ubiquitous wireless coverage in the city for many years so if the district and city are working hands in and and it creates these opportunities for our poorest families, leveraging the city's resources to provide connectivety in those homes, then it allows us to work with cbos within the community so we can perhaps get devices into the homes. we've leveraged what we want to do. so there's lots of those kind of exploratory conversations happening.

quite frankly, our goal is to bring to the board with the budget for 2014, 2015, an initial set of recommendations that started down this path and then with subsequent conversations about what are we learning and how are we leveraging some of the -- quite frankly, some of the conversations we're already having with our business partners in san francisco and some of our philanthropic partners who are extremely motivated to partner with us. >> that's what i wanted to know. i also want to know -- be updated on steps along the way. we hope those things will happen, we other working towards them. that's the right answer, but when do they happen? and -- and actually, what i anticipate is that we're going to say oh, well, we've hit some snags here. this is what we're trying to do, but it's really hard and need to go back. that 's my question.

>> commissioner haney. >> thank you so much for this report and presentation. it's outstanding and exciting that when we talk to students or teachers and parents of a community, the question of technology and what's happening in our schools with technology and the understanding of what should be possible in san francisco is probably something i personally hear more than anything and it really is a fundamental to the future of where our district's going, but also to our values around equity and social justice. if you gro grow up in a place where the jobs created here are in technology and you're not using those tools on a daily basis, then what are we doing here? i would just add my support to the vision behind this and gratitude for all the work that's been done on it and whatever we can do to make this

happen, i know we always say this with all the lovely things that come in front of us, but sooner rather than later, and i'd love to see the expedited plan. i was happy to see the point on byod, bring your own device. i know that's something that would also have to have a district supplement, but i wonder if our adoption of that as a principle we're working towards, may lead to policy changes in the short term around what we could put in place next year. i mean, i think that as i understand it, we have very limited opportunities for byod now if schools and high schools

or anywhere else, so i wonder if that's a conversation we may have sooner rather than later even before we roll out devices throughout the high school and have a whole plan in place, whether we could start to experiment with schools, with classrooms and sart of loosen those opportunities for students to bring their own devices, obviously in places where we ensure that for folks who don't have their own devices, there's opportunities to offer those for students who theed them. need them. i'm interested to move forward with that. the second thing i had a question on and we didn't talk as much about it, but in the beginning you say here -- actually the very first thing, move from decentralized site based technology purchasing to a centralized purchasing and

budgeting strategy. i'd like to know more about what that means in terms of sites and how quickly they can move on things. with this, is there some concern or what are we doing around ensuring that sites are supported with the need that they have as quickly as possible around purchasing, you know, and there may be things now where they'll go out and get it. i know that creates some headaches for us as a system, but now if they have to get in line and that's a long line, what does that mean for their ability to move on the needs that their school communities have? and then lastly, i also would echo the point that vice president made, which is that i would love to see more and hear in this plan around coding and how that is integrating into our digital district plan, the creation of this technology as -- i think commissioner maufus

referred to it as software programming, whatever it is we refer to it as, i think the hope is we go as deep as possible, not just in having access to this technology, but the use of it in the highest level and we have an expectation that that's integrated throughout the curriculum in every level. whatever we can do to ensure that as we're pushing out this new technology that we're pushing that as well and our teachers are supported in doing that. just to say as we think about the plan of what this looks like and where we prioritize and where we spends money, the idea of this being a central value around social justice and equity is critical and i think for example, we were talking about some questions around willy brown middle school. if we're going to prioritize where these devices go right away and where we have our pilot skwool where all this is happening all at once, let's do it there. let's do it at the schools where communities who don't have access to this sort of

technology and really are going to benefit tremendously from it, we fulfill our promise to them and prioritize those schools first and make it clear that that's -- that this technology and the future of our district is also in line with our values around equity as a school system. thank you so much for this and for everyone and i'm really excited to see what happens. thank you. >> any other comments? no, seeing none. my only question is when we start to purchase a lot of these devices and projectors and those kind of things, is about the security. i know some schools struggle with having to buy cases for i pads, so just about security

and make sure we get a count of what is actually sfusd property as far as devices, because to be quite frank with you, i've been a pta president at many schools and ptas have bought much equipment for the schools and then we don't know where it goes. televisions get lost, projectors get lost, so i can imagine devices would be a really hard thing to keep track of. how are we going to do that? what's the plan? thank you very much. thanks. i think we have another item now. it's a public education enrichment fund update. deputy superintendent. >> we're going to press our luck with a third powerpoint presentation. we know how you all love

powerpoint, but this is going to be a brief presentation. at least it's only six slides long, so hopefully it won't take terribly long, but we did want to do a couple of things this evening, just the latest in a series of discussions that we've been bringing information to the board about renewal effort for the public education enrichment fund so one is to provide a process update, kind of where things stands in the proceedings, especially over at city hall with respect to the drafting of legislation that would extends the public education enrichment fund and create collaborative structures and and secondly we wanted to have a discussion regarding some possible changes to the rainy day reserve, which is a future of the current city

charter and we've provided some information to all the commissioners in prior meetings about some of the concepts in the rainy day reserve. i think you're right in the line of the projection there.

>> i'm sorry, i know there is maybe conversation happening, but i cannot focus on what you are saying.

i'm just hoping that if you have something important to say, you need to take it outside the room. thank you. >> thank you commissioner. the 30 day rule basically means that any subsequentive proposal introduced as legislation at the board of superintendents cannot be taken up by a committee for 30 days so this is -- i think in the interest of good government and time for the community, as well as perhaps the elected officials themselves to become familiar with the contents of the proposed legislation. so that rule applies to these charter amendments so what that means is they will not be taken up in the rules committee for at least 30 days following the introduction, which took place on april 29, so we have led to believe -- this is from

supervisor yee's on either june 12 or june 19. that's the date at which these -- all three of these pieces of legislation will be taken up. it's possible, still unclear at this point that the three measures could be combined into one ballot measure and that depends on whether there is a set of agreements from each of the elected officials regarding the contents and substantive terms of the three measures most specifically related to the children's funds. i think there is also a possibility that if such agreements were to be reached, that a separate piece of legislation could be introduced as late as next tuesday. i'm not sure what the prospects for that are. i think that's looking rather unlikely at this point, but i think there's a possibility

that that could happen, but in that case that would also be subject to the 30 day rule at the city and taken up by the rules committee. and then finally when the committee work has been done at the board of supervisors, the full board has to submit charter amendments to direction of elections by july 25. that's just the overall process for these three pieces of legislation. and if i can transition to the rainy day reserve and just have three slides about this. i think all the commissioners are familiar with this, that in the course of developing the proposal to extent peef, and the city and district and leaders of the city and the district have been discussing some possible win-win improvements to the rainy day reserve, but those would need to be made through a charter amendment which would require a

voter approval. the process for that is because this is not a component that's related to any legislation that's been introduced, then additional legislation would need to be introduced by the mayor or supervisor, and that would need to happen by next tuesday. if it is introduced, then by the city's process, that language could be incorporated into a single ballot measure, along with peef and perhaps children's fund and the children's of family counsel as well. that remains to be seen. just a recap of the provisions, one -- this is about how money

gets into the reserve under the existing language so if year to year growth in the city general funds, total revenues exceed 5 percent, in other words if the growth is more than 5 percent, then half of the xe excess above 5 percent is directed to the rainy day reserve. that's how money makes its way into the city's rainy day reserve and that's not proposed to change at all. for withdrawals from the city, if the city controller projects total general fund revenues for the up coming budget year are less than revenues for any current year or prior year, then up to half of the rainy day reserve balance can be in the city budget for the upcoming year.

and the second frankly is that

the decision making process about appropriating funds from the reserve to the district is now resting with the mayor and the board of super visors so certainly that was the intent of the original language, but that is something that the city has -- you know, the willingness to revisit and change. that's some of the discussion that's taking place now. the possible changes. one is that there would be two separate reserves created so right now instead of having the one plot of funds in the rainy day reserve, that there would be a split of the one reserve into two reserves. one would be for the district and one would be for the city and the city would receive 75 percent of the current balance and the district would receive 25 percent.

and then if the say -- if and when the city in any year where they would make an additional deposit to the reserve then the same per centages would apply. in other words, we would use the funds to avoid lay offs

rather than rescinding lay offs and that's proving to be a very process. the second change is who decides whether a draw should be taken. this change would allow the board of education without needing approval to decide -- to take a draw under certain conditions. the third change is that -- all of this is subject for the board to weigh in on and none of it is set in stone. it's just proposals we're bringing to you. the third is to increase the

withdrawal allowance from 25 percent to 50 percent. now, this would be 50 percent of the district's reserve, of the district portion of the reserve. and then here are three, possibly among others, but three different options for conditions for the withdrawals so one is to -- in a way sort of mirror the current language so to continue to base the maximum draw on a decline in inflation adjusted for people revenues. that's closest to what is in place now. another is to allow a draw based on budget deficits that would be much less restrictive than what's in place now. on the flip side another option is to allow an actual decline in revenues rather than a decline that's inflation adjusted so that would be more

restrictive than what's in place now. then finally a concept