for the parents when they learn this is the system, but there's no adult to help them. and children that young cannot go on a schedule. also, many classrooms are given children with i.e.p.s without support, so all of us have the experience of having one or two children with autism. i've had, you know, adhd, oppositional defiant behavior, occupational speech issues, and very little support. maybe 1 or 2 hours a week from the speech teacher or i.e.p. we have one teacher for 22 children with all of these different needs, and a lot of the children cannot handle the noise and chaos, and there's no way for them to take a break. so we beg you to put a parain every t.k. classroom for the entire year. we really need it. thank you.

[applause] >> katey shiro. this is shaped by my perspective as a parent to t.k.alums at alvarado. with as many as 22 4 year olds and one teacher, it's critical that teachers have support. from our experience, i absolutely agree with the teachers' recommendation. when we began our t.k. journey,

one of my twins, our daughter, was easily writing letters, and while the other, my son, needed significant coaching and encouragement of feeling behind and he could not do it. it would have been impossible to meet the needs of 22 students in that classroom with only one adult. the proposal to staff all t.k. classrooms with a dedicated paraprofessional for the full year has several benefits. it ensure the t.k. teachers in meeting this complex range of academic and social needs. second, providing full-time resources also fosters equitiable relationships claal classrooms, and finally, the proposal also provides staffing consistency that enables t.k.

teachers to develop relationships with another adult vested in the childrens' transition. thank you for your support and investment in t.k., and thank you. [applause] >> hello. my name is antwon, and i'm the parent of a child who attended reading elementary in the past year, and i was shocked when -- coming from preschool, it was like 6 students from adult to 22. i'm not going to talk about all the stuff the teachers talked a lot about already, i'm focusing on the children. they're little children. i speak from my own experience that my son got slapped, the

door got slammed, and it was very painful for him and another kid. i wish there was another pair of eyes to help miss walker in reading elementary that could provide a little more safety. you know, kids, 4 or 5 years old, they don't know a lot about things, they don't know about social skills, and i believe in public educations and on that, we should provide -- on top of that, we should provide a safe environment for little children. thank you. [applause] >> so the -- some of the public speakers references a proposal which is actually not in front

of us. we have a proposal read into the record or what the thrust of it is. >> yes. the item is that the board approve transitional kindergarten with one amendment. the committee did discuss the staffing ratio and requested that we note -- and this is my error, this is my oversight. i had intended to note in the background the committee's direction to staff, that next year, we would study the staffing ratios and being in conversation with our labor partners around that directive, so it wasn't received as an amendment to policy per se, but the committee was very clear that we wanted to look at that next year. >> commissioners?

commissioner collins? >> yeah. i'm shocked that we have 22. my kids weren't able to participate in t.k. because it came the year after, but i had twins, and we were in a parent involvement kind of preschool, and we had two teachers, and we had multiple parents in the room. and my daughters were younger when they entered school, so i just can't imagine one adult, you know, going from preschool to that. i feel it's something that we should be taking immediate action on making sure that we have just a higher adult-to-student ratio in the classroom and teachers feel supported and students are supported. [applause] >> i agree. my first year of teaching, i had 29 fifth graders, and i mean, i was alone. there was no question that i would get support, but when i'm

thinking about the staffing ratio, these are preschool aged children would have different development -- who have different developmental needs. this is a full day of learning and it's not something that's setup for preschool age. the academic that they're getting is kindergarten readiness and kindergarten readiness, so it's not supporting younger students' development? so to think that you'd have to have this experience with 22 students by yourself, it's wild. [applause] >> to discuss that a little more, i actually agree with commissioner collins, and

lopez, and i want to see how that can happen, if the district decided to add paraprofessionals to 25 t.k. classes, what that would entail in negotiations. >> so we would want to have that in conversation in closed session. we'd want to give you a cost estimate of that, and also, i think we'd want to have a conversation how feasible that is, given the vacancy rate as they currently exist for paraprofessional positions? so i think that's something we'd like to bring back before you before we took action? which was why we talked about undertaking that work next year and having that as a priority. >> but i'm asking if we wanted to -- what we could do to make this happen for next year. >> so i think one of the

things, clearly, is that we'd want to give you guys all the information that we just said in closed session, so we would -- >> but the budget analysis wouldn't be necessarily in closed session, right? >> but the piece that you spoke about about the unilateral piece would be in closed session. >> right. i'm talking about getting something in place for next year. >> so mr. lee, i know you're in the middle of -- you and the team are in the middle of preparing the budget for next year. i don't know what stress it would be to put a budget together on this item. >> thank you, superintendent. so i guess i would say that the analytical exercise is doable

in fairly short order, to come up with the range of costs for different staffing levels. i think just listening to the conversation and absorbing it, the lift from a fiscal perspective will be for difficult, considering tonight is the first reading for the budget to be recommended and adopted in two weeks, so the timing is not ideal, to say the least. but maybe for starters, we could put some numbers together for the board to consider perhaps that in closed session. >> thank you. i just want people to know that about 15 years ago, president solomon will probably remember this. the district uni laterally made

kindergarten from a half day into a full day without us being given that directive. we ended up with full day kindergarten classes with no paraprofessionals, and teachers and students in classrooms where it was mandated that they have extra support in those classrooms. and about two years ago, we started t.k. classes without any paraeducator support. i teach in another district, and there's pretty much full-time paraeducator support in the t.k. classrooms there. so i'm interested to see what we can do, obviously, as soon as possible to address this need in our t.k. classroom. commissioner collins? >> i also want to ad, when you're talking about i.e.p.s, those students are identified in t.k. and kindergarten and

first grade. so to put them in a classroom, and not identify them until they come in the classroom, all classrooms should have paraeducators just as a back up, and then additionally, we would want to be identifying students with specific issues. i just -- i don't want to wait 1.5 years basically in order to make sure that students and teachers are supported. i think it should be a number one priority. when my kids were four, i was worried that they wouldn't be able to open up their lunch box or go to the box, and just to have 22 in a room is just ridiculous. i think we have to priority jay's thize that, and if we are -- prioritize that, and i think if

we have to take money from other areas to support children that age, we should do that. [applause] >> there's a lot of t.k. support in the house. so we will roll call this proposal for action as amended verbally. >> mr. chair, that's included in the -- okay. that's board policy, thank you. [inaudible] >> so commissioners, i would request that we review the proposals to add a para before we take action. so tonight, what we've had on the agenda is just a board policy. if you want to address the ratios, we would ask that you do that in a separate action,

and we're hearing that you want to address that in a future meeting, so we would add that to a future agenda tonight. [inaudible] [ro

[roll call] [inaudible] >> -- so i still have a little bit of a quibble with the language that's on the boa board docs. i know, commissioner, you had some issues with them, as well, if you want to speak to them? >> yeah. my issues were around the language and specifically specifying that students who want to wear traditional native american regalia have to get permission to do that. >> they don't have to get permission. >> have to let them know. >> so after that, we did remove the requirement that students seek advanced permission to wear native american regalia. so we've addressed that concern? if there's a different concern that we missed or if you think

the language doesn't do that -- >> what i -- what i have an issue with is as long as the garment does not have a -- >> i'm sorry, commissioners, let me clarify. are you reading the text in red? >> yes. >> so this is sort of meant to be a historical collection of what happened at the 3 iterations of rules. so what happened first is in red, but if you read down or even if you open the document, you'll see the current language, which specifically removes the requirement that students need permission. >> no, i see that. >> okay. >> i'm just saying that i don't like the wording of as long as the garment does not cause disruption of or material

interference. i think that's supercilious. we don't need to have that in there, so i want to move to amend to strike that language. >> well, that's statutory. >> well, if we strike that, what happens? >> well, we'll not be complying with the education code. >> so then, we'll wait for some sort of legal ruling. >> okay. >> so i'd like to still amend it -- i need a second to strike the language. >> second. >> so commissioners, can i clarify, that for all objects? >> no -- >> or just for objects that's native american tribal regalia. >> so we're just striking the words in red, that one clause. >> well, the words apply -- >> well, as long as the garment does not cause a substanti-- bs

another clause later that deals with that. >> commissioner, students have the right to -- students have the right to wear material that is of cultural significance provided it does not cause a substantial disruption, and they need to seek permission 14 days in advance so that we can try to address that. so if there's a dependent clause. >> so we just need to add that language to the second statement. [inaudible]

>> thank you. [roll call] >> thank you very much. so the next one is -- [inaudible] >> -- san francisco's charter schools. so lieutenasuperintendent matt? >> presenting will be mike

daly. >> the material revision would add sites in marin and sonoma county to be operated by the charter school at the request of the sheriff's department on those two counts. >> thank you. we have one speaker on this item, steve goode. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is steve goode, and i'm the director of five keys, and i want to thank the commissioners for the growth of five keys. we serve inmates in county jails, and in all cases, we are the only educational option -- well, except in alameda county, we are the only educational option in these facilities. last meeting at the first meeting, we are a representative from sonoma county who spoke how they've partnered with the workforce

investment board to support five keys because there literally is no option for inmates to get a g.e.d. or learn how to read until five keys is there. so i hope we'll get support for this action so we can continue to provide this type of service. thank you. >> thank you very much. commissioners, any discussion? thank you. roll call. [roll call] >> that's four ayes. >> thank you. congratulations. section h, special order of business. appointment of 8 members to the san francisco board of education parent advisory council. we need a motion and a second. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. superintendent? >> staff presenting this will be miss georgia williams-bratt,

the p.a.c. coordinator. >> welcome back. >> good evening, commissioners, dr. matthews. so i'm going to revisit here the special order of business and subject, appointment of 8 members to the san francisco parent advisory council. -- and two alternate members to serve from july 2019 to june 2021. the members recommended for appointment are ana majina, elsa hernandez, sharon

g. wan-in -- [inaudible] >>. >> the p.a.c. has a membership of 15 regular membered on staggered terms plus regular alternates. if the above nominees are appointed to the p.a.c., one alternate seat on the p.a.c. will remain open. this provides the designation of alternates to become regular members in the event of one regular member leaving the p.a.c. currently, there are two alternate nominees and one alternate seat will remain open. the p.a.c. prioritized outreach to historically underserved

communities and have been historically underserved in policy discussion. at the moment, p.a.c. is not representing families or students that are monolingual or chinese speaking, and over the summer, we will make sure we make extended outreach to these communities. the nominees listed above help the p.a.c. represent and reflect the sfusd student, family, and school populations and the brief biographies, and the past and current members have been provided to the board. >> thank you. we have no public speakers on this item. any comments or questions from the board?

commissioner lopez? >> so i just want to be clear, these are nominees because people are terming out, and this'll get you back to 15? >> 10 members, and one is not returning because her son just graduated, her last child in the district. so we will have nine members, and with this late, we'll have two alternates. >> but did you have a full board? >> we had up to 10. >> okay. i appreciate you pointing out the representation of luckies. >> okay. thank you, again. roll call. [roll cal [ro [roll call] >> and that's four ayes. >> number 2 is approval of appointment to the child care planning and advisory council,

cpac. i need a motion and a second. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. superintendent? >> presenting will be the chief of early education. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the chief of the early education department, and the recommendation of the that the board members of the san francisco unified school district appoint the following members to the cpac. [names read] zb >> i think i'm going to highlight a few sections, to

assess all aspects of early childhood education, including supply and demand and set priorities for determining state and local spending to meet existing needs. cpac operates the key liaison between parents and early childhood education workers to come together to support all aspects of early childhood education in san francisco. and according to state mandated and corresponding local ordinance, the board of education is the appointing body for half of the cpac membership. cpac memberships are for four years with one additional term should the b.o.e. approve it. >> thank you. we have no public comment on

this item. any discussion? roll call. [roll call] >> and that's four ayes. >> thank you. number 4 is reclassification criteria for non-english learners. we need a motion and a second. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. superintendent? >> presenting will be one of our directors from the department of grade one instruction. >> welcome. >> good evening, commissioners. i am here with my colleague who is our e.l. policy and research manager, and today, we're going

to be presenting the reclassification criteria. as a department and multilingual, our staff takes to heart the district mission, when we say each and every student, we are also thinking about one of our most vulnerable groups, which is our english language learners. today, we have three agenda items related to the reclassification process. so we are going to engage you in a review of the classification criteria that changed this year. we're also going to share some preliminary reclassification outcomes for this year, and then finally, we would like to present and receive your

approval on the standard reclassification criteria revisions that we've made for the coming year. at this point, i'm going to turn it over to my colleague, and she will take you through some details on the different pieces of report. >> thank you, and thank you, board members and superintendent matthews for the opportunity to share the proposed reclassification criteria for 2019-2020. it is not limited to one, current level of english language proficiency. [inaudible] >> parents have the right to waive out of classification if they believe their child can benefit from further english language services. several policy changes

regarding reclassification happened during the 2018-2019 school year. for the 2018-2019 school year, the state of california allows local districts to allow criterion one. back in august 2018, the board of education here at san francisco unified voted to set an lpac score of 3 as qualifying for criterion 1. in november 2018, the board of educations approved new cut scores for the lpac, and schools were asked to use the new scores moving forward. they did not have to retroactively apply them.

as you'll recall, in december 2018, the department of justice asked us to change our coding midyear, we had to use an lpac score of 4 or higher. in may 2019, we drafted a proposed reclassification criteria for the following school year, and it was vetted by several stakeholders including the district english advisory learning council, and various other working groups within the district including our working groups with research planning and assessment and also the superintendent's office. again, as a reminder, the

various english proficiency assessment was called the fesh, and the point of showing both of these is there are more scores on the current english language proficiency than the s.e.l. under the s.e.l., a qualifying score was considered a 4 and a 5, which is indicated by the dark purple and the neon purple parts on the left-hand side.

[inaudibl [inaudible] >> i want to point out is the lpac is lined with the scores in the 2018 standards, as a result, the two tests should not be compared, so our ratios when they come out this year cannot be compared to previous years because it's two different tests aligned to two different sets of standards. an lpac cut score is appropriate if students at this

level with performing -- are performing similar to their english language piers. students with a score of 4 on the lpac are performing like with english learning peers. something else that is noteworthy about this graph that i wanted to bring your attention to is the performance of our iseps, and these are our multilanguage students who passed the s.e.l. and i just want to point out that they're outperforming their english learning peers, and i just want to point this out because it disrupts the deficits of our english learners.

our office is not yet done processing the reclassification forms. there are about 250 outstanding forms, but as of may 22, we have reclassified 1300 english learners this school year, leading to a preliminary reclassification rate of 8%, and we're not done processing those applications yet, so these percentages will increase. on the left side of this slide, you're going to see thecy criteria for the 2018-2019 school year.

the cutoff points were looking at determining the performance of english learners throughout the district. [inaudible] >> -- because of course some of our students who aren't able to attend school regularly might have a grade below a c, and that's not reflective of their english language proficiency, it's more reflective of other factors, so we wanted to give them a chance to reclassify if the grade wasn't reflective of their english language proficiency. parents are notified if their

children are eligible for reclassification, and parents are given the opportunity to waive if they believe they would benefit of further english language services. and i'm going to pass it back over to catalina. >> okay. so what we want to do at this point is before you have the resolution, i believe, resolution number 196-11-so 3, approval of english criteria classification for english learners -- do i need to put that on the record? >> i don't believe so because you just went over every single

thing on the slide. >> okay. this is our proposed reclassification provisions for the up -- revisions for the upcoming school year, however, we welcome any questions that you have, i'm sure you do, and i will be happy to field those questions. >> thank you very much for the presentation. i don't have any cards -- public comment on this, so commissioners? commissioner lopez? >> so for criterion one, are you taking out the subscores of 3 or higher? you're just going to have the overall score of 4? >> the overall score of 4 has been set by the state, so we need to move forward with that. >> i guess i'm trying to figure out what the changes are. >> i'm sorry. >> the change -- that's the only change. >> that's the only change,

because we had a subscore of 3, and we were told that's too low, and the state's changed its guidance, as well, and now the cut score is actually 4. >> oh, and we haven't approved it. >> yeah, we haven't approved it since the change became state. >> and the last question is your criterion is you're determining the proficiency looking at english proficient students, is that including rfes? >> yes. so we did it both ways, and everyone together, all of our english proficient students. >> thank you. >> just to clarify for the criteria 1, 2, and 3, students

have to satisfy all of them or satisfy criterion 1, if they satisfy criterion 1, they're reclassified? >> so they have to meet criterion 1 -- students are, and then, we have multiple ways of assessing that validity of whether or not they meet the criteria. >> if they meet criterion 1, they have to meet criteria 2. >> yes. they have to meet all the criteria in order to be reclassified under the standard reclassification process. you're right. there are multiple ways to meet the criteria, as long as you meet one of those things.

>> for criterion 3. >> it's one, but not both. it's good if a student meets both, but we're not requiring they meet both. >> okay. thank you very much for the clarification. >> students who have an i.d. of having an i.e.p. or 504, that was put before the i.e.p. or 504, and they can demonstrate basic skills in english in

other ways. so for that group of students, they can look at different measures. >> and because this is a state requirement that there's no other way around -- >> the state requires multiple measures, and they set forth these four different criteria. schools don't have the authority to change those, but what we can determine is what basic english skills mean in our district, and we can evaluate what basic english skills are in our district. >> i'm just trying to figure out what testing -- >> yeah, it's a mess, for sure. can we refer back to 57 -- you know, this is an ongoing discussion in our district because the discussion between chinese and spanish reclassification is -- it's definitely a wide margin, 15%

to 6%. do we have other classifications in other districts? >> this is a great question. [inaudible] >> this year, we partnered with stanford to actually look into teachers mindset, and they're going to give us the results of the survey that they had in 10 different schools. so we're trying to determine what is the causes for this gap to continue to persist, so we're not prepared yet to be able to give you definitive, you know, reasons why. we're interested to here what our stanford partners are going to report to us. >> could you -- i'd be very interested what those results

are going to be, but could we in the meantime get some other information from other districts on the reclassification? there's not another district that has such a high percentage of chinese and spanish students in their districts, but can we get some specific information on these reclassifications in particular? >> yes. >> commissioner collins? >> yes. i have a question on the disparity between students learning english who speak spanish and chinese. do we offer any additional support for any other programatic supports to support spanish speaking students. >> so i want to highlight we have created very specific guidelines for the spanish language pathways. our staff has met with the principals, especially at the

k-5 to really ensure that therethere is if i -- fidelity of

partners. [inaudible] >> we are making sure that all of the components of -- [inaudible] >> -- and then, we monitor and support them. but i also am concerned because

a lot of times what we do when we say we're supporting things is we say we're supporting them, but we don't actually have resources for support, so i want to make sure that we do have very high expectations for staff. but when we see numbers like this, i'm also going to assume that teachers are working hard, and students are working hard. and if we see these numbers over time, maybe we need to do something more differently in terms of providing more resources, for staffing, so i'm wondering if that's something that we're doing differently in terms of curriculum. >> yeah. we've also included spanish kits to spanish pathway and dual immersion so they're using materials that support both the maintenance and strengthening of primary language as well as jumping over to english. so in terms of resources, that's something we've done. we've trained the teachers.

we are working with the principals and our -- because every school's a little bit different, different schools have different needs, so we are trying to differentiate. it's just not having expectations, you're right, that's not enough. definitely, we can do more, but it's an area that we are focusing on, but we have put some resources into it. i don't want to keep harping on the fact that we're working with stanford, but we're interested to see what more can we do as a curriculum and instruction division so we are supporting these very vulnerable students. we have to do more. >> i appreciate that, and i'd like to learn more about -- i'd like to learn more about this topic in the future. >> commissioner moliga? >> thank you for the topic.

i'd like to learn more about the presentation. >> right. so when we learned about the data, we worked with -- we decided to partner with stanford. they were interested in helping us determine why is it we have such a wide disparity with the two student groups. we have student programs that are mandarin, cantonese, and spanish. and we tried to get at what is the self-efficacy that students are feeling, and especially in these biliteracy schools, and also, the teachers' mindsets. because we have some ideas, but we don't know. so they were interested in taking us in that direction because we can look at the data, we can look at the resources, but this is a little

bit more nuanced, so this is what we learned in these schools. >> i just want to ask you a few more questions to be clear. was this an actual question or was this a mindset. i'm kind of thinking holistically. >> -- holistically, how did we land on mindset? >> from the history of this relationship, we tried to come together and learning what was influencing our english language learners, and maybe there's some unconscious bias going on.

and so there was a question around teacher mindset and teacher expectation and do they differ by students' language history. but if there's any other questions, we can put them to our partners at stanford, but you're correct, there are other factors that may help us to figure out why we have this enormous racial inequity. >> all right. and i'll ask if we could take just a little deeper look. for me, too, this is such a critical and urgent issue. like, what's the timeline on all these assessments on the outcomes? and once we get the outcomes, how are we going to start looking at the information so we can determine the impacts?

>> right. so tomorrow, we're meeting with the stanford partners, so the research is complete, and they're going to release their preliminary findings. based on everything we know, we're going to look at all those pieces because we, too, are interested in the theory that we've heard. does the research support that there's some unconscious bias that's happening that's creating these disparities with these two groups? so until we get the findings, i don't know if i can tell you ex-lift explicitly what we're going to do, but we're as interested as everybody else in figuring out why we have such a wide disparity with these students, but right now, i don't know what we're going to do until we find out what the findings are,

but we'll find out tomorrow. >> all right. thank you. all right. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> number 4 in this section is -- we need a vote. roll call vote on this. sorry. >> thank you. thank you. [roll call] >> and that's four ayes. >> thank you. sorry about that. number 196-11-so 4, san francisco unified school district and san francisco office single scorecards balanced plan for student assignment. we need a motion and a second for this. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. superintendent matthews. >> presenting will be our director of state and federal

programs. >> good evening, commissioners and dr. matthews. tonight's requested action is that the board of education of the san francisco unified school district approve the san francisco unified school district and county office of education preliminary 2019-2020 preliminary balance scorecard signal plans for student achievement. >> okay. public comment? no? none? all right. commissioners, any comments? there's no -- this is just acceptance of the ballot scorecards. we are going to be hearing on the side of that curriculum because we are some issues we see, but that's a discussion for another day.

so if there's no other comment -- [roll call] >> and that's four ayes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> section i, discussion of other educational issues. subject matthews? >> good evening. we will have our update on the african american leadership and initiative, and presenting to us this morning will be our assistant to the superintendent, lan don didon and he will be coming forward with several of his team

members. >> okay. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is landon dickey, and i'm the special assistant to the superintendent. thank you for allowing us to present on the african american leadership initiative, a. i'm joined up here with three members of my team and the rest are in the