11/9/2011 Meeting Minutes

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Galileo Academy of Science and Technology

1150 Francisco Street, San Francisco, CA  94109

Room 210 at 3:30 P.M.

Location and Time of Meeting

 

School Site Council Meeting-November 9, 2011

X  Agenda Attached

X  Attendance/sign-in attached

Present:  Marcus Blacksher, Doug Page, Jonathan Ring, Woodraw Smith, David Zeeman, Patrick Delaney, Mele Lau-Smith, Nicole Torres, Claire Siegel, Jacky Chau, Clarissa Lee, Anna Mai, Karin Lau, Tony Payne, Katie Pringle, Gayline Tom

Absent (Excused):  none

X  Minutes of the previous meeting approved

 

Decision Made/Issues Reviewed

I.  Call to Order

– M. Lau-Smith called the meeting to order at 3:36 pm.  There were twelve elected members present; a quorum was established.

 

II.  Approval of 9/15/2011 Meeting Minutes

– M. Blacksher moved to approve the 9/15/2011 minutes as presented.  J. Chau seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.

 

III.  Old Business

1.  School Site Emergency Plan-1 Page Staff Version

– Ms. Pringle was not present at the moment; therefore, this agenda item would be deferred.

 

2.  Updates on School Programs

– The school continued to develop the 2012/2013 Balanced Score Card, design high-level activities for the EL learners, and create the common core.

– As for the focus on technology, the tech team had an initial meeting to delineate its goals and objectives.  The tech team might need to break up into sub committees in order to meet everyone’s unique needs.

– M. Blacksher will attend the PTSA meeting tonight and will get the members’ input on Goal Three (Accountability-Keeping Our Promises to Students and Families) of the BSC.  He will ask the parents to recommend their top two priorities for the school to work on.

 

3.  2010/2011 Balanced Score Card (BSC) Review & 2011/2012 BSC Planning

– T. Payne gave an overview of the core curriculum development-Currently all fifty states have their own curriculum standards and the assessments associated were written based on these individualized standards.  Therefore, it was impossible to have a fair comparison between states.  To resolve this issue, the national core curriculum was created.  California adopted this new set of national standards, and subsequently, our District developed assessments called the Common Learning Assessment-CLA in math and English to align with these new standards.  Now schools are tasked to administer these CLAs twice a year in addition to the STAR test given in April annually.

– The CLA are written based on the adopted textbooks within the national standards, so in order to perform well on the CLA, the school has to use these adopted textbooks.  The current Algebra class might pose some challenges.  The CLA for English assess students in their literacy skills; therefore, non-English teachers will also be tasked to develop the students’ literacy skills as well as the subject matters in the coming years, though the current CLA only assess math and English.

– It would be beneficial to identify the common threads between these two assessments, so that a conversation could start to explore the common form of assessments between these two disciplines.  The SSC classroom reps who are math teachers commented that the math department had been using data to assess and improve teaching.

– The Core Curriculum Framework delineates how each school achieves its goals and meets its academic performance.  Right now the Core Curriculum Framework is based on the old California standards.  To roll out this new national core curriculum, the District proposed a three-year plan:  awareness for year one, adoption for year two, and implementation for year three.  The District should be in year one with the process, but the BSC referred to this year as the implementation year, which was wrong.  How could Galileo be judged on something that hadn’t been implemented?

– The site council reviewed the BSC document:

Page 1-School Vision – The SSC agreed to keep the Vision as stated here.

Page 2-Section I:  Overview and Key Requirements – Included the overview of the BSC and its requirements, which are:  a) School Site Council; b) Compliance Reviews; c) Reviews for Complaints; d) Academic Measures; e) Annual Review.

 Page 4-Section II:  Fall Data Review – The District provided the data.  It pointed out that the lower performing students were the African American students, Special Ed students, and EL students.  Also, the data showed that the AA students had the largest percentages of suspension.

Page 6-Climate Indicators based on the Satisfaction Surveys – One member questioned the validity and timing of the survey. The member recalled students needing to take too many surveys towards the end of the school year—survey fatigue!  One member also asked which entity developed the survey and how relevant the questions were.  It was pointed out that the District required the school to administer at least two surveys a year-the one in the fall is called Youth Vote mock election, and the one in the spring is the Students Satisfaction Survey.

Page 8-Section III:  Key District Initiatives – District Initiative One:  Core Curriculum Framework – In b. Next Steps Towards Implementation #1- M. Bush, the department head and T. Payne, assistant principal had attended District sponsored professional development around the Core Curriculum Framework.  M. Lau-Smith suggested that action be reflected in the BSC that the school had attended the workshop, and brought back to the school for teacher-led staff development activities.  #2- it was proposed to change this statement from …..California Standards maps to …….California Standards scopes and sequences.

– The 2012/2013 BSC would not be due to the District until April 29, 2012.  The school still needed to wrap up the 2011/2012 BSC using the new template.  The consensus was not to spend too much time on the current year’s document, but rather to focus on developing next year’s plan.  When writing it, the school should not include any narratives that would not give the stakeholders any flexibility to adjust later.  The school could consider merging the WASC report and the BSC to come up with a living school plan to drive its actions.  At the same time, the administration needed to involve the leadership team and department heads to start a discussion around the school goal and its vision and also on how to improve student achievement by using real data.

– M. Blacksher noted that the 2011/2012 BSC does not need to be updated.  M. Lau-Smith suggested that it might be a more useful process to begin more self-reflective – what are we doing now, who are we failing, what do we have to do better to close the gap.  (This is the first part of the development of the BSC/Single Plan) – this is the place to get buy-in and really ask ourselves the hard questions.  Once that is done, there is a translation of what the faculty/staff identified as needing improvement and how that fits in with the District initiatives.  M. Lau-Smith agreed to follow up with M. Blacksher and T. Payne to discuss next steps and possibly attend the Leadership Team meeting in December to provide an update on the process.

 

4.  Letter to Nancy Waymack

– As a follow up to her email sent on July 26, 2011, M. Lau-Smith sent another email to N. Waymack requesting an explanation why Galileo received the biggest percent cut of any high schools between Scenario A and B, and also, how Galileo was shortchanged $100,975 in the AP funding calculations.  N. Waymack hasn’t gotten back to M. Lau-Smith yet.

 

5.  School Site Emergency Plan-1 Page Parent Version

– M. Lau-Smith shared her one page creation with the members.  She asked the members to review the draft document and send her any comments.

– K. Pringle shared the faculty/staff version with the members and asked for members to send any comments.

 

IV.  New Business

1. ASB Bylaws Revision

– Follow up on previous discussion on expanding the SSC student representatives beyond ASB members, J. Chau informed the SSC that he spoke with Mr. Wing, who said that the ASB bylaws do not need to be amended to expand the SSC members beyond the SSC.  The current SSC student representatives suggested that one of the three SSC student members could be elected from the greater student body.  It was suggested that the ASB Business VP and Corresponding Secretary serve on the SSC.  The seat for the Student Body Advisory Council representative be opened up to a general election.  The election could take place at the same time as ASB elections.  It was suggested that in order to ensure diversity of nominations, teachers be involved in nominating students or encouraging students to self-nominate.

2.  SSC Bylaws Revision

– At the juncture, the four classroom reps are elected, and subsequently, serve the two-year terms simultaneously.  The current practice does not allow for any staggering.  The current site council would like to rectify the practice by asking any two of the current four reps to forfeit the last semester of their terms.  D. Zeeman and D. Page volunteered and they are encouraged to run again in the future.

 

3.  Open

– The school site council would like to officially recognize how efficient and effective the administration was when they collaborated with Wellness to handle the tragedy in the past three days.

M. Blacksher moved to adjourn the meeting.  P. Delaney seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 5:19 pm.

 

Minutes taken and prepared by Karin Lau

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10/12/2011 Meeting Minutes

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Galileo Academy of Science and Technology

1150 Francisco Street, San Francisco, CA  94109

Room 210 at 3:30 P.M.

Location and Time of Meeting

 

School Site Council Meeting-October 12, 2011

X  Agenda Attached

X  Attendance/sign-in attached

Present:  Marcus Blacksher, Jonathan Ring, Woodraw Smith, David Zeeman, Patrick Delaney, Mele Lau-Smith, Claire Siegel, Jacky Chau, Michelle Zheng, Karin Lau, Nancy Lambert, Tony Payne, Katie Pringle

Absent (Excused):  Doug Page, Nicole Torres, Clarissa Lee, Lisa Mai

X  Minutes of the previous meeting approved

 

Decision Made/Issues Reviewed

I.  Call to Order

– M. Lau-Smith called the meeting to order at 3:30 pm.  There were eight elected members present; a quorum was established.

 

II.  Approval of 9/15/2011 Meeting Minutes

– D. Page moved to approve these minutes with the following revisions-(1) in IV New Business/#1 Fall Final Budget Allocation, rephrase the fifth paragraph to “Galileo had received an accurately calculated amount of Advanced Placement (AP) Specialty funding, but the formula used was based on the District’s inaccurate calculation of the AP exams taken.”; and (2) in IV New Business/#3 Other New Business, delete the excerpt copied from the organization’s web site.  M. Blacksher seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.

 

III.  Old Business

1.  Updates on School Programs

– M. Blacksher discussed the direction of technology and its long-term plan for Galileo.  The school needed an accurate record keeping system from when the equipment was first ordered to its retirement.  A member questioned when a lab’s computers get updated, where do they go.  Do they go to the classrooms?  The database should indicate the location of equipment in addition to its purchase and retirement dates.  W. Smith suggested using Google Doc for keeping track of the inventory.  Though the task is time consuming, the school should not rely on student TAs.  T. Ly does enter the serial numbers.

– N. Lambert and three other teachers would attend the University of California Curriculum Integration (UCCI) Institute conference, which is a 4-day training that will focus on the “a-g” course development integrated with the career technical education program courses.  The team hoped that more of these pathways would meet the “g” requirement for colleges.

– Majority of the site council members agreed that students who were proficient in their primary language should be allowed to test out and be given school credit towards their a-g requirements.  This policy would free up students’ time to take other requirements for colleges.

 

2.  Balanced Scorecard Review

– M. Blacksher disseminated three handouts:

i.  The Principal’s Vision, District Priorities, High School Priorities-

the Principal’s Vision, which measures qualitatively and defines the school, is “I believe that by the year 2016 Galileo can be the BEST traditional comprehensive high school in SFUSD, that we have an obligation to provide the highest quality of education for all students, including our underserved populations, so that Galileo graduates are prepared to meet the demands of a continually changing 21st century world.”;

 

 

the District Priorities are common core curriculum, English language development, special education; and

the High School Priorities are 9th grade transition, algebra, A-G alignment.

ii.  The Balanced Score Card (BSC) development timeline.

iii.  The BSC template.

– The school had to rewrite the BSC using the new template, which was long and ambiguous.  Some of the sections were filled in with the district’s comments; others were left blank for school input.  M. Blacksher requested that the site council review the document and send him comments.  Meanwhile, he would incorporate the essence of the WASC report into the Balanced Score Card and present his draft to the site council for review and comment at the November 9th meeting.  He would work with K. Lau on developing the budgetary details in the BSC.

– For the writing of the 2012/2013 BSC, the site council should start in the spring semester.

 

3.  Fall Final Budget Allocation

– K. Pringle handed out and explained these five spreadsheets:

i.  Site Allocations 2011-The amount in non-personnel ($263,105) after all the certificated and classified staff are paid for.  The departments and special programs received $150,000 to be divided according to the numbers of students served.  The remaining amount of $113,105 would be used for non-classroom needs.

ii.  Department Allocations-The spreadsheet showed the allocations by departments and by special programs.

iii.  Budget Summary-The spreadsheet showed a three-year span’s (2009 to 2012) funding amounts, FTEs, Salaries, Benefits, Extended Services, non-Personnel.

iv. Budget Allocations-The spreadsheet showed a three-year span’s (2009 to 2012) funding sources:   General Fund Unrestricted, Targeted Instructional, Special Ed-WSF Site, EIA-SCE, EIA-LEP, Prop H PE, Prop H Arts.

v.  District and School Site 2010/2012-A two-year comparison of the budget in the non-classroom personnel and classroom personnel and how the numbers impact the sections and sizes in the different departments and special programs.

 

4.  SSC Student Rep

– In 2010, the SSC reviewed and revised the bylaws to include student representation from both the ASB and the general student body as well as staggered terms for SSC members.  When those changes were made, it was understood that the ASB bylaws would accommodate the bylaw change that one of the SSC student representative from the general student body.  However, based on discussions with Mr. Wing, the ASB bylaws would need to be amended to accommodate this requirement.  Based on this new information, the SSC considered two possible options:  (1)  expand the membership composition from the current twelve to sixteen.  Due to the parity between students and parents, and parity between students/parents to school staff, if we were to add one more student rep to the student component, the end result would be a sixteen-member site council or (2)  change the ASB bylaws.  It was agreed that expanding the SSC membership to 16 seemed a cumbersome process and that the SSC would look into the process to amend the ASB bylaws.  J. Chau would check into the process for amending the bylaws.  With respect to the staggered terms of SSC members as it relates to faculty/staff, P. Delaney would look into the process of amending the SSC bylaws            so that the terms of the classroom teachers would stagger.  It was suggested that the best way to implement the staggering pattern would be for a slate of new SSC members be elected to a 1.5 year term rather than a two year term.  The term would be from January 2012 to January 2013.

 

5.  Letter to Nancy Waymack

– The SSC sent a letter to Nancy Waymack in the summer asking for more clarifications on her response to the initial letter sent to Myong Leigh re:  budget allocation and AP funding formula.  No reply has been received to date.  Although some of the initial questions in the letter related to Scenario A and B budget are no longer relevant, the SSC felt it was important to follow up and ask for a response to the AP funding formula and a general explanation on the District’s allocation formulas.  M. Lau-Smith has sent a draft letter to the members of the SSC who worked on the initial letter and will send the letter to N. Waymack.

 

IV.  New Business

1. Emergency Response

– K. Pringle distributed the School Site Emergency Plan, which contains general information and site-specific information.  She requested that the members peruse the document and send her any comments.  The document will be posted on the school web site.  K. Pringle also has a binder from the District, which contains the School Crisis Response Manual, for the Wellness Center.

– A member suggested putting the vital information succinctly on one single page so parents could access the crucial information quickly and easily.  M. Lau-Smith would work on this one-page info sheet.  P. Delaney requested that K. Pringle create one for the faculty and staff as well.

2.  Other New Business

– From the Mayoral Candidate Forum that D. Zeeman had attended, he commented that one candidate had created a buzz among the audience with her rationale for supporting the Prop H “Neighborhood Schools for All” proposition in the November election.  Though high schools were exempt in the proposition, it suggested that middle schools would feed into those high schools within close proximity.

– D. Zeeman noticed that Galileo’s official name was not consistently being used in all the media sites.  Even on some of the SFUSD web pages, Galileo High School and Galileo Academy of Science and Technology were being used interchangeably.  The college related sites (i.e., UC campuses, college board) referred to us as Galileo Academy, but, for example, Rate My Teacher and the CDE sites still referred to us as Galileo High School.  The school needed to have a clear vision of what the school should be called and what its name would project.  M. Blacksher liked the current name; he would find out whom to contact at the district level to have the school referred to only as Galileo Academy of Science and Technology.

 

W. Smith moved to adjourn the meeting.  D. Zeeman seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 4:56 pm.

 

 

Minutes taken and prepared by Karin Lau