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