>> and example would be the rolling out this year of the -- or next year, the core curriculum in mathematics. that is meant to be a purely digital roll out eventually. but because all of the assets are in either pdf, word, powerpoint, excel form, they're digital, the -- and they're being, going to be delivered through a learning management system. currently they sit in a system called egmoto where all our pilot teachers are accessing those materials. the difference is currently most of those assets, because we can't rely on technology in the classroom, are analog at their base. you -- they are pdf, pictures of pages. what we imagine as we grow as a

digital district is that those become dynamic and so that students are interacting with them on a screen rather than simply printing them out and looking at them on the screen. >> thank you. that was a good short answer, i appreciate that . and then the last question i had, which was on slide 15, which talks about the digital district will be executed over a three year period. i guess i'm going to ask a couple of questions and maybe you can give me a paragraph of an answer. i'm curious and maybe you mentioned it and i missed the front end of your presentation, but how are we [inaudible] how

are we going from the old process, all the work we're in the midst of, and transitioning into this new three year period. is there any overlap? also as i look at this one, two and three year, if we're talking about connectivety here and educator devices and what they need to be able to do, the management systems and the resiliency don't start until year two and then sort of using your airline, airplane example, would that not need to start in year one as well so we're creating the infrastructure and creativity. maybe i'm misunderstanding how they align. >> i think they all fit together in a chicken and egg

type scenario. so we talk about the shift in funding. it is going to take some time to shift the funding how we're doing it now so currently we are looking for the next couple years to go out and raise private funds. and then the goal is as we lay in this plans, we start the testing [inaudible] see how it works, then it's 2016, 2017 timeframes, hopefully we'll go out for a bond. it's a 4 something on this scale which is 130 to $160 million. we're going to go to a bond, but to get there we're working with our private funders to help us along those lines. superintendent lee talked about qeta to funds -- we're talking about 2,000 educators to try to

get them devices. we have another sources of funds, the common core state funds, the commissioners approved approximately $2.2 million next year to buy devices to help support the online test so we'll be rolling about 5400 devices out to school sites next year to support that. we have another round of sales force next year and then we also have -- this year we unexpectedly had another allocation from the microsoft lawsuit settlement for about 1.8 million. it is going to take some time to shift that pattern and behavior in order to move more towards integrating this into our budget over time. leading to your next question about why are are the resilience and [inaudible] systems later? those are massive projects and

they're at an earned cost fair amount of money. so putting in people soft about ten years ago, somewhere in the 8 to $10 million range, so putting an hr system we're anticipating $5 million and budget another $2 million. that's significant amount of money to raise. we were planning next year -- the chief of hr and i have been talking about how we can join forces to start looking at what would a different hr system look like and what would we want it to do? do we want to implement people soft or other systems or combination systems for the ability to develop career

lattices. and we've been working with the budget office to talk about what a new budgeting system look like. we'll spend a lot of next year working together to build out what that's going to look like so that way with can start working on implementing the following year. that's why we had to push it out. the resiliency is another issue. we do have the band width available now and we're not rolling all the devices out. we don't need to push the resiliency out until later, but that's going to be a significant cost, probably in the 20 to $40 million range in order to build in that resiliency. >> thank you. >> i just really want to thank staff for presentation. i have so much i want to say. in a previous career i was in technology and thinking back to

where we were three years ago when i came on board, i was flabbergasted at how many of the systems were and i attribute a lot of the progress to leadership by the superintendent and staff, but also these new partnerships that we have. i just want to give a shout out to education super highway. i still remember that first meeting we had with them and also common sense media that now has an internet safety day annually in our schools. i think the fact that previously many people did not want to necessarily partner or it was difficult to partner with the district, that has really been a change in recent years. secondly i want to echo commissioner maufus' point about not pigeon holding [inaudible] that kids are very

much producers of media, of technology. and in terms of subsequent it 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