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