Overview:

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 (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.

 

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.

 

 

“The San Francisco Unified School District sees the achievement gap as the greatest social justice/civil rights issue facing our country today; there cannot be justice for all without closing this gap.”

 

District Initiatives	School Initiatives	High School Initiatives
Core Curriculum Framework English Language Development Educational Service Delivery to Students with Disabilities	Ÿ  Equity and Access – Making Social Justice a Reality Ÿ  Achievement – Engage High Achieving and Joyful Learners Ÿ  Accountability – Keeping Our Promises to Students and Families	Ÿ  9th Grade Transition Ÿ  A-G Ÿ  Algebra

 

Ÿ  Core Curriculum Framework	Ÿ  English Language Development	Educational Service Delivery to Students with Disabilities
Ÿ  Standards Maps Ÿ  Assessment & Collaboration Calendar Ÿ  Intervention	Ÿ  At least 30 minutes per day for all EL students Ÿ  Essentials of ELD Language Objectives Differentiated Language Instruction, which includes Ÿ  Vocabulary development Ÿ  Language structures Ÿ  Sentence frames Ÿ  Structured Language Practice	Ÿ Inclusion services at K,  6, 9 Ÿ Implement Pre-Referral Ÿ Interventions

 

 

I did a side-by-side comparison of the BSC/SP template that the SSC reviewed in the Spring compared to the BSC/SP template that was handed out this Fall. The two documents are identical except in the district initiative for English Language Development:

District Initiative Two: English Language Development Ÿ  30 minutes per day for all EL students Ÿ  Essential Elements of ELD 1. Language Objectives 2. Structured Learning Protocols 3. Differentiated Sentence Frames   Describe what your school will do to ensure that this initiative is met.   Possible Next Steps Towards Implementation for the English Language Development initiative may include: reviewing CELDT and other language development assessment data (e.g., ADEPT); participating in APD’s professional development related to the Essential Elements of ELD and other EL professional development provided by English Learners Support Services; engaging teachers in completing and analyzing Section III of the Lau Protocol; and supporting teachers to implement the ELSS ELD sample lessons.

District Initiative Two: English Language Development Ÿ  At least 30 minutes per day for all EL students Ÿ  Essentials of ELD Language Objectives Differentiated Language Instruction, which includes Vocabulary development Language structures Sentence frames Structured Language Practice Describe what your school will do to ensure that this initiative is met.   Possible Next Steps Towards Implementation for the English Language Development initiative may include: reviewing CELDT and other language development assessment data (e.g., ADEPT); participating in APD’s professional development related to the Essential Elements of ELD and other EL professional development provided by English Learners Support Services; engaging teachers in completing and analyzing Section III of the Lau Protocol; and supporting teachers to implement the ELSS ELD sample lessons.

Background:

In 2008 the Board of Education adopted an ambitious 5 year strategic plan to close the achievement gap. Central to the plan was the development of  a Core Curriculum and Common Learning Assessments. One of the 13 initiatives of the plan was a  “ project that will develop rigorous and consistent curriculum to meet the new California and national core standards for all students”  The goals for this project for 2011 were articulated as:

1. Co-construct the key components of the 21^st century core curriculum, including scope and sequence, instructional strategies, assessments, and teacher resources for English Language Arts and Mathematics.  Begin with schools that are ready to participate in testing the curriculum and providing feedback to modify the tools and materials.
2. Develop a multi-year curriculum and assessment plan for implementing the 21^st century core curriculum, instructional strategies, and assessments across all schools.
3. Build a professional learning system, including a web-based platform, to support the co-construction of the core curriculum and to give feedback on the assessments and to post and share practice within and across schools.

 

Core Curriculum and Common Learning Assessments

 

Project Overview

Guarantee that all students have access to rigorous and consistent curriculum that meets the new California and national core standards and promotes 21^st century learning for all students, as articulated in our vision for student success. Develop the 21^st century core curriculum with teachers, school leaders, and students and use it to provide the baseline for differentiated instructional strategies that are informed by Common Learning Assessments (CLA). Ensure that teachers and instructional staff at all schools continuously refine their approach to using core curriculum, instructional strategies, resources, and assessment tools through active participation in Equity Centered Professional Learning  Communities (ECPLCs).

 

2011 Goals

1. Co-construct the key components of the 21^st century core curriculum, including scope and sequence, instructional strategies, assessments, and teacher resources for English Language Arts and Mathematics.  Begin with schools that are ready to participate in testing the curriculum and providing feedback to modify the tools and materials.
2. Develop a multi-year curriculum and assessment plan for implementing the 21^st century core curriculum, instructional strategies, and assessments across all schools.
3. Build a professional learning system, including a web-based platform, to support the co-construction of the core curriculum and to give feedback on the assessments and to post and share practice within and across schools.

 

Project Status Report

 

As part of implementing its strategic plan, Beyond the Talk, SFUSD is using a project management structure, which will include ongoing project status reports. Each report contains milestones that must be reached to make sure that the goals will be reached, project metrics to ensure the project is on track, a color code that corresponds to key progress metrics, and lessons learned and challenges. To see the latest project status report for the Core Curriculum and CLA initiative go here.

 

Read an overview of the district’s 13 priority projects for 2010-2012

 

Thirteen Initiatives

“The San Francisco Unified School District sees the achievement gap as the greatest social justice/civil rights issue facing our country today; there cannot be justice for all without closing this gap.”

— Carlos A. Garcia, Superintendent

 

The San Francisco Unified School District has higher average test scores than any other large, urban California school district. But ensuring our students reach their full potential requires more than having them perform well on tests. To help all students achieve their aspirations, SFUSD has developed a series of plans and projects to help create quality schools throughout the district:

 

Superintendent’s Zone/School Improvement Grant (SIG)

SIG is a three-year competitive grant to help improve student learning in 10 high-needs schools.  Funding allows the district to address the unique priorities school leaders and communities identify, as well as focus attention on areas of improvement that all schools are undergoing. Read more here.

 

College and Career Readiness

This project will help SFUSD achieve its goal of graduating all students so they are college and career ready by

expanding programs, partnerships, and coursework to help fulfill California public university requirements. Read more here.

 

Core Curriculum and Common Learning Assessments

A project that will develop rigorous and consistent curriculum to meet the new California and national core standards for all students. Read more here.

 

Special Education Redesign

Comprehensive reform of policies and programs to provide services that support students with disabilities through a partnership with general education. Read more here.

 

Student Placement: Middle School Feeder Patterns

A plan for K-8 pathways, which have assignment patterns so certain elementary schools feed into specific middle schools. These pathways create continuity for academic programs, support positive school climates, and build a bridge from elementary to middle school. Read more here.

 

Area Teams

Organization of the central office staff into area teams to provide a greater level of service and guidance to schools to ensure that the needs of schools inform and guide the strategies of the district. Read more here.

 

Early Learning

Creates a continuum of instruction between preschool and elementary school by incorporating a strong literacy approach, a smoother transition between grades, parental engagement, professional development, and summer and after-school programs. Read more here.

 

English Learners/Lau Plan

Ensures that english learners acquire high levels of English and home language proficiency, academic achievement, and skills that lead to success in the 21^st century. Read more here.

 

Human Capital

A plan to recruit highly qualified, effective teachers and implement an evaluation system and tools to help develop leadership and encourage professional growth. Read more here.

 

Parent Engagement

An initiative that provides parents with continuous feedback on the progress of their child so that they may fully participate as educational partners and ensure their child graduates from high school with the skills to be college and career ready. Read more here.

 

Partnerships and Resource Development

A plan to attract and coordinate private funds with the philanthropic community to maximize resources and facilitate ongoing collaboration in pursuit of a shared vision for SFUSD youth. Read more here.

 

Restorative Practices

The creation of safe and caring school environments where students learn to take responsibility for their actions and adults have the tools to promote positive student behavior. Read more here.

 

Central Office Accountability and Performance Manager

An initiative that seeks to improve service from the central office to the school sites through the development of new or existing work-related processes and tools . Read more here.

 

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-December 7, 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, Claire Siegel, Jacky Chau, Karin Lau, Tony Payne, Lee Thomas, Gayline Tom

Absent (Excused):  Nicole Torres, Clarissa Lee, Anna 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 3:34 pm.  There were nine elected members present; a quorum was established.

 

II.  Approval of 11/9/2011 Meeting Minutes

– M. Blacksher moved to approve the 11/9/2011 minutes as presented.  C. Siegel seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.

 

III.  New Business

1.  Futurama Family Literacy Grant

– L. Thomas, the after school program coordinator, attended this site council meeting hoping to get some input on what services to provide to parents using this FFL grant of $17,000.  In the previous years, he would use the money to pay for the printing cost of the Galileo handbooks, which were distributed at recruitment events to inform prospective parents about the school, and food expenses at parent meetings. This year the money is stipulated to be used for parents, who have participants in the after school program.  The goal is for the recipients of these services to use the acquired skills to help their children achieve success at school.

– In addition to this site council meeting, he had attended the English Learners Advisory Committee (ELAC) meeting to get a broader sense of needs from the EL parents.  The EL parents overwhelmingly suggested English language classes for adults.  They commented that in order for any parents to help their children, they must have the basic understanding of the English language.

– Though the EL parents were enthusiastic about these English classes, L. Thomas feared that when the time came for signing up for classes, no one would show up.  Unfortunately, that no-show turnout happened last year.  To prevent that from happening again, he wanted to have an effective recruiting process in place and a stellar offering.

– D. Zeeman suggested that L. Thomas do intensive outreach to parents such as calling them, emailing them, or sending letters to them.  L. Thomas might even have to go knocking on doors to get the word out.  L. Lambert suggested using Data Director to identify his clientele selection.  C. Siegel recommended surveying the parents for their preferences.  G. Tom offered the PTSA meetings as a venue to disseminate information and outreach to parents.

– What classes should be offered to the parents?  His classes might be in competition with the ones offered at the adult schools, which have a variety of topics and are free and for non-credit.  In order to draw parents in, the benefits must be relevant and directly linked to the success of their children.  P. Delaney suggested classes such as Math 101 or English 101 so that parents could turn around and help their children with their schoolwork.  D. Zeeman recommended a series of career related classes to help prepare parents for the job market.

Page 1

 

2.  DCYF Funding

– J. Chau would like to invite his guest presenter to the January site council meeting.  The presenter is from YouthVote and will go over some data relevant to Galileo.

 

IV.  Old Business

1.  Updates on BSC/Single Plan

– M. Lau-Smith distributed the attached 6-page document and gave a presentation to elaborate on the details, which she had written with the input from the admin.

The document contains the following segments (see attached):

 

Page 1-An overview of the Balanced Score Card/Single Plan

Page 1A-The Background of the BSC/SP-

Page 2-Overview of the three goals for the Core Curriculum project

Page 2A-Overview of the of the District’s other initiatives

Page 3-Galileo’s components to the BSC/SP and the role of the SSC in the development of the BSC/SP

Page 3A-The proposal on the structure of the working groups and how they are formed and what questions to focus on as the group members go through a self-reflective process to answer them.

– In 2008, the Board of Ed adopted an ambitious 5-year strategic plan to close the achievement gap.  The plan laid out all the actions to be done in 5 years.  The District created the BSC template for schools to complete yearly, so that each school could identify their own goals and benchmarks.  The District also wrote their BSC to reflect their overarching goals and benchmarks.

– The site council had not been very involved in the development of the BSC/SP in the past few years, but had focused mainly on the development of the budget.  M. Lau-Smith emphasized that the involvement of the SSC was important and that the roles to develop the BSC were very comprehensive, which were:

i.  analyze student data/instructional success,

ii.  gather community input,

iii.  refine the Balanced Score Card, and

iv.  monitor implementation and BSC progress.

– In addition to developing the BSC and the budget to support the BSC, the SSC was expected to use school, district and state student achievement data to assess needs, to review professional development strategies to address these needs, to decide on supplementary curriculum and instructional materials to align with these needs, and to monitor student progress.

– And lastly, the SSC was expected to advise on staffing positions to meet these needs and to approve supplemental staffing positions.

– In order for the council members to perform these duties, the SSC must be able to get data from the District and then determine the relevance of these data to support student learning.  M. Lau-Smith commented that Galileo had done well in this aspect and suggested that the council put a process in place for future council members to follow.

–  The school has an existing distributive leadership structure in place consisting of the administration, the leadership team, and the department heads, and so forth. To form working groups to develop the BSC, the school could apply the same process as when they established the selection committee to choose the principal.  The memberships for these working groups should continue to be self-selected as long as the outreach was done across all representations.  And surveys could be conducted to cover omission of any groups.  G. Tom agreed to allot some time in the January PTSA meeting for this outreach effort.

– Once the working groups are formed, the members could brainstorm ideas to accomplish the goals of closing the achievement gap and better serving the students so they would have access to equality.  The ideas must be measurable so that benchmarks

Page 2

 

could be created.  Teachers would be more motivated to work towards meeting the

benchmarks if they were the creators.  For instance, the District adopted a resolution that starting with the graduating class of 2014, graduates would need to complete the new graduation requirements, which are aligned with the “A to G” college admissions requirements.  And for math, graduates must complete 3 years of it, which are equivalent to Advanced Algebra.  The District might think the mandate was realistic, but the school finds it challenging, especially when the District does not provide many resources.

– Currently there are 60% of students who are on tracked to be “A to G” compliant; the other 40% must take these required courses to be able to graduate.  J. Ring would like to know what these 40% of students lack so that the school could support them.  Students who get a “D” grade in one of those required courses would meet the graduation requirements, but not meet the college admissions ones.  G. Tom, who works at a middle school, cited that the math level expectation kept changing for her students.

– The council members were concerned about the time crunch and whether or not such a process could happen over the next few months. M. Blacksher noted that the BSC is meant to provide a general overview of progress and implementation plans for the next school year.  M. Lau-Smith and the admin will work on creating a timeline for this endeavor.  She proposed that the working groups be formed when we returned from the break.  Then the site council could start looking at the questions and each working group’s focus at our January meeting.  The working groups should be able to dive into the self-findings phase at the end of January.

– The school needed to involve parents in this endeavor.  The school could reach out to them at the PTSA meetings, and send out email via the PTSA Yahoo group and through the School Loop accounts.  The school could survey the recent graduates, alumnae, and current seniors for their input.  Once the school gathered all the information, M. Blacksher would write up the BSC.  D. Page moved to accept the concept proposal as presented and P. Delaney seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.

 

2.  Updates on SSC Student/Teacher Representations

– The site council did not get to this agenda item.

 

M. Blacksher moved to adjourn the meeting.  D. Zeeman seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 5:01 pm.

 

Minutes taken and prepared by Karin Lau

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 21^st century world.”;

 

 

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

the High School Priorities are 9^th 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 9^th 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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-September 15, 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, Claire Siegel, Nicole Torres, Clarissa Lee, Anna Mai, Terry Sio, Jessica Suen, Karin Lau, Nancy Lambert, Tony Payne, Katie Pringle

Absent (Excused):  Jacky Chau, 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 3:36 pm.  There were ten elected members present; a quorum was established.  Introductions went around the room.

 

II.  Approval of 5/11/2011 and 8/31/2011 Meeting Minutes

– D. Page moved to approve these minutes as presented.  C. Siegel seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.

 

III.  Old Business

1.  SSC Student Rep

– The site council voted in May of 2011 to have one of the three SSC student reps to be elected school wide and the other two reps continued to be elected via the ASB election process.  But the ASB Constitution was written that the following three positions were also elected to serve on the SSC:  business vice president, corresponding secretary, and student body advisory council rep.  Apparently the information given in the May meeting was inaccurate.  M. Lau-Smith will work with K. Lau to come up with a plan on how to achieve the objective without disrupting any traditions.

2.  Updates on School Programs

– The 9^th grade Special Ed classes were extremely large.  The school needed to hire another Special Ed teacher to level out the class sizes.

– The District had determined the following as the top three district and high school priorities to focus on this year:  9^th grade transition, common learning assessment (CLA), and the “A to G” requirements for CSU/UC.

 

IV.  New Business

1. Fall Final Budget Allocation

– K. Pringle passed out the green handout titled “Galileo Academy Fall Final Scenario A Budget Summary”.  The summary listed the different funding sources that Galileo got for this 2011/2012 school year.  In general, the school had received $50,000+ more money in the Weighted Student Formula fund than the scenario A preliminary budget.  After buying all 98.5460 FTE, there was $263,105 left for non-personnel expenditures.  Galileo also received other categorical funding, which had a targeted student population and purpose:  Economic Impact Aid/State Compensatory Ed (EIA/SCE), Economic Impact Aid/Limited English Proficient (EIA/LEP), Prop H PE and Arts.

– For the ELD department, the EIA/LEP fund paid for .90 FTE and had $91,664 left for non-personnel expenditures.   Of this fund, $16,000 will be used to extend Helen Chan, a Chinese speaking clinician, from 4 days a week to 5 days, so she could be at Galileo full-time to support these additional EL students.

– K. Pringle hoped to distribute the departmental allocations soon so that department heads could start accessing their funds to meet their needs.

– Though Galileo had received additional EL students year after year, only the initial year when the school had gotten $250 extra budget allocation per student.

– 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.  Galileo students took 696 exams in May 2011; and therefore, the amount allocated was $504,875.

– The current contract between the district and UESF requires the district to fund an AP prep for every 20 students who take an AP exam.  Due to an accounting gimmick, the district has effectively changed the formula to an AP prep for every 24 students.  This is a contentious issue between the two parties.  It is advisable for the school to document any discrepancies.  (Information provided by J. Ring)

– Galileo also received Prop H Library, Arts, PE, and Athletic funds.  The SF voters approved this proposition to allocate funds to these programs in all the SFUSD schools.  The sunset (end) date was rumored to be in 2012.  If that is the case, voters are urged to vote for it again in 2012.  Without these funds to support these programs, they tend to be the first to be eliminated when budget constraints surface.

 

2.  Follow-up to Letter to Nancy Waymack

– The initial letter to N. Waymack had asked why the $250 extra per Newcomer student was not included in the SY 2011012.  According to K. Pringle, the $250 allocation was for the initial year only.  Based on this the follow up request will not ask for further clarification on this point.

The follow up request will ask about the rationale in the funding formula between Scenario A and B and why the AP funding amount calculated by the District is based on24 students rather than 20 students as per the current contract between the District and UESF.

 

3.  Other New Business

– Community meetings will be held in the Mission neighborhood on Wednesday, 9/21/2011, in the Bayview neighborhood on Thursday, 9/22/2011, in the Richmond/Sunset on Wednesday, 9/28/2011, and lastly, in Chinatown on 9/29/2011.  Dinner and translation will be provided.  Phone calls home and auto dialer messages have gone out to promote these meetings.

– Based on T. Payne’s data presentation of student demographics, Galileo showed a large Chinese student population, and yet, the African and Latino counterparts were unusually small.  Galileo needed to step up its effort to recruit more of these underrepresented students.  K. Pringle and T. Payne plan on visiting some selected middle schools to promote Galileo.  Galileo should also participate in those private and Catholic schools’ high school fairs to heighten its exposure to that segment of population.

– P. Delaney told the council to be watchful of the movement organized by the “StudentsFirst” organization.  The organization would be sponsoring propositions, which would reform our student assignment system and more.

– K. Lau passed out the “College Presentations” handout, which listed some random colleges visiting Galileo in the months of September and October of 2011.  A member questioned how these colleges got on the list because they were all non-systemically represented.  N. Lambert explained that the proactive college reps called and got their schools scheduled.  A member suggested a system was needed.  The school might consider inviting colleges that teachers had graduated from.

 

N. Torres moved to adjourn the meeting.  C. Lee seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 4:29 pm.

Minutes taken and prepared by Karin Lau

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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-August 31, 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, Claire Siegel, Jacky Chau, Clarissa Lee, Anna Mai, Karin Lau, Tony Payne, Katie Pringle

Absent (Excused): Nicole Torres

X  Minutes of the previous meeting approved

 

Decision Made/Issues Reviewed

I.  Call to Order

– J. Ring called the meeting to order at 3:35 pm.  There were eleven elected members present; a quorum was established.  Introductions went around the room.

 

II.  Approval of 5/11/2011 Meeting Minutes

– Minutes were not available.  The item will be tabled to the 9/15/2011 meeting.

 

III.  Old Business

1.  Updates on Spring Prelim Budget

– K. Pringle handed out the “District & Schoolsite 2011 A” budget worksheet.  It was a great relief to be given the Scenario A budget allocation, which meant that the school was able to restore all the programs and hire many teachers.  The notable increase was in the World Language department, which added two new teachers, one for Chinese and the other for Spanish.  The Fall Final budget will be given to the site after the 10-day count.  It will likely remain the same as the prelim budget.

– Currently, Galileo has an enrollment of 2,184 and has space for 40 more EL students.

– None of the District staff had gotten back to M. Lau-Smith regarding the letter she’d sent asking for clarifications on three budgetary issues:  1.  Clarification on where the Newcomer funds are accounted for, 2.  Confirmation that the AP funding formula matches the funding formula in the contract per the UBC grievance, and 3.  Rationale for why Galileo is receiving a disproportionate share of the budget shortfall in Scenario B and a greater budget decrease overall than any other school.  Though the content may no longer be relevant since the school received the Scenario A budget allocation, she will press on and resend an updated version.

– P. Delaney had updated the Balanced Scorecard based on the teleconference held on Wednesday, May 18th.  Prior to May 18^th, all the site council members were asked to review the BSC and submit any comments to M. Lau-Smith.

 

2.  Updates on School Programs

– M. Blacksher, principal, was pleased to announce that Galileo had received the Scenario A budget allocation and therefore, the school was able to keep all of its programs, hire many teachers, and fill the AP Curriculum assistant principal position, which is Tony Payne.  These newly hired teachers enabled the school to open up more Chinese and Spanish language classes and advanced placement (AP) classes as well.

– Due to the fact that Galileo has a Newcomer Pathway, the school will continuously receive EL students until the school reaches its capacity.  Right now, there is room for 40 more EL students.  By then, Galileo will be one of the few high schools with a high number of EL students.  The admin needs to assess their impact in test scores and in the enrollment of the general ed classes, i.e. math and science.  Another crucial point is what the school can do to support them throughout their high school years.  Many recently admitted EL students are more fluent in their English proficiency than in the past.  These students start out in the intermediate levels and up.

 

IV.  New Business

1.  School Data Overview

– T. Payne presented a slide presentation titled “Building on Our Strengths, Galileo High from 2007 to 2011”

2^nd slide – Student Ethnic Representation.  It shows a big demographic shift from 2002 to 2010; increase in Chinese to 60.7%, decrease in African American to 5%, decrease in Latino to 10.1%, etc.  What factors caused these shifts?  They could be because more students are attending Galileo from the Sunset/Richmond districts, African American families moving out of the city, Latino families being assigned to other high schools, etc.

3^rd slide – Program Participation Profile.  Out of 2,149 enrollees, 23.2% are ELL, 7.4% Special Ed, 54.1% Educational Disadvantaged Youths, 32.9% Gifted and Talented, 54.8% Free Lunch, 12.2 Reduced Lunch.  It is important for families to apply for the free/reduced meal program even though the students don’t eat at school.  The correct percentage can bump up our Academic Performance Index (API), when Galileo is compared authentically to similar schools.

5^th slide – CST English Language Arts (ELA):  School Level Trends.  27% of the African American students scored at the proficiency level.

7^th slide – CST Math:  School Level Trends.  Galileo is performing well in math; only second to Lowell High School.

10^th slide – Achievement Change Schoolwide.  The chart shows the number of students in Far Below Basic, in Below Basic, in Basic, in Proficient, and in Advanced.  Oftentimes, the difference between Basic and Proficient is merely one correct answer.  Since the State doesn’t use a scale score, it doesn’t show the details.

11^th and 12^th slides – Achievement Change Schoolwide of African American and Latino in ELA.  Since their numbers are so small, the school can identity who these students are and support them.  Department chairs should get access for all the students in Data Director.  The request must come from the principal.

15^th slide – Achievement Change Schoolwide of African American in Math.  The chart shows their math scores two years in a row.  The students were tested in Algebra the first year and Geometry the second year.

20^th slide – CA High School Exit Exam Requirement Schoolwide.  The chart shows the percentage of 12^th grade students, by subgroup, who meet the requirement.  Galileo seniors do very well and have a high passage rate.

– By 2014, all SFUSD graduates will be CSU/UC eligible.  The EL students have a harder time to meet the 4-year English requirement for CSU/UC.  There will be an after-school class designed for the EL students to get caught up with their four years of English.

 

2.  2011/2012 Meeting Dates

– Here are the revised meeting dates:  Thursday, September 15 (same night as the Back-to-School Night), October 12, 2011, November 9, 2011, December 7, 2011, January 11, 2012, February 8, 2012, March 14, 2012, April 11, 2012, and May 9, 2012.

 

3.  Addendum Items

– M. Lau-Smith will draft a letter to thank Janet Shultz for her support.

– J. Chau is looking for ten students to be involved in the mayoral elections event. The only requirement is that these students have a flair for local politics.  D. Zeeman suggested that he sends this information to the social studies teachers and asks them for recommendations.  Teachers may give these students extra credits

– The site council would like to formally thank Gayline Tom, the PTSA president, for providing delicious chocolate chips cookies at this meeting.

 

D. Page moved to adjourn the meeting.  D. Zeeman seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 pm.

Minutes taken and prepared by Karin Lau

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Galileo Academy of Science and Technology

1150 Francisco Street, San Francisco, CA  94109

Via telephone  at 3:30 P.M.

 

School Site Council Meeting-May 18, 2011

Present: Doug Page, Jonathan Ring, Woodrow Smith, David Zeeman, Patrick Delaney, Mele Lau-Smith, Claire Siegel, Diane Lee, Katie Pringle

A quorum was established and the meeting began at 3:48pm

The purpose of the meeting was to review the SY 2011/2012 Balanced Score Card/Single Plan for Student Achievement.

The attached document reflects the changes proposed by Patrick Delaney (as inserted text). Mr. Delaney explained that the proposed revisions aim to carefully support the contract’s language and intent regarding shared decision making. The only school site decision-making bodies, per the contract, are the UBC and SSC.  School “leadership teams” — which are virtually ubiquitous in the district and often misunderstood — are advisory only.  Shared decision making at the site level is between the administration and the UBC and the SSC.

 

SSC members presented reviewed the changes and the following changes were made:

 

1. Page 8, #2: Keep as is
2. Page 8, # 5: the following language was inserted: With careful intention to contractual issues”
3. Page 8: #9: delete entirely

 

Patrick Delaney made a motion to accept the revisions with the additional changes as discussed.  Claire Siegel seconded the motion.  All in favor. Motion passed.

 

SSC members present reviewed the rest of the BSC and agreed on the following changes (also in red in attached document):

 

1. Page 14, # 1: Insert text in the beginning of sentence: “Continue shared decision practice to develop programs to support 9th grade transition such as…..”
2.  Page 17, # 3: Insert text in the beginning of the sentence:  “While keeping the integrity of classroom learning time, expand opportunities for relevant off-campus learning and hands-on constructivist learning.”
3. Page 22, #1: Replace “grades” with “progress”
4. Page  22, #2: Delete #2 strategy and replace with:  “Continue to support at least four community meetings.”
5. Page 22, #2: Delete #2 evidence and replace with: “# of community meetings”

 

Patrick Delaney made a motion to accept the revisions with the additional changes as discussed.  Claire Siegel seconded the motion.  All in favor. Motion passed.

 

Meeting adjourned.

 

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-April 6, 2011

X  Agenda Attached

X  Attendance/sign-in attached

Present:  Doug Page, Jonathan Ring, David Zeeman, Mele Lau-Smith, Claire Siegel, Diane Lee, Frank Wu, Michelle Zhang, Karin Lau, Katie Pringle

Absent (Excused):  Vicki Pesek, Woodraw Smith, Patrick Delaney, Nicole Torres

X  Minutes of the previous meeting approved

Decision Made/Issues Reviewed

I.  Call to Order

– M. Lau-Smith, chair, called the meeting to order at 3:41 pm.  There were eight elected members present; a quorum was established.

II.  Approval of 3/9/2011 Meeting Minutes

– D. Zeeman moved to approve the 3/9/2011 meeting minutes as presented.  F. Wu seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.

III.  Old Business

1.  WASC Visit Update

– At the wrap up session, the WASC visiting committee had nothing but positive comments about their visit.  Galileo will know the accreditation result in June.

2.  Spring Prelim Budget Update

– The letter to the Board of Education was sent on Thursday, March 24, 2011.  So far, the school or the site council has not received any response. M. Lau-Smith will give the District another week or two and she will send them a reminder.

– The prelim budget was submitted on Thursday, March 24, 2011.  It was in the news that there wouldn’t be a June election; therefore, schools will have to go with their scenario B budget plan.

– The City has set aside some rainy day fund and the District has been a recipient of it for two years in a row.  We don’t know if the District will receive any money from it this year.   If we do, we won’t know the amount until later.

IV.  New Business

1.  Site Selection Committee Questions

– Nominations to be on the site selection committee had gone out and names had been submitted.  On Tuesday, March 29 (over spring break), the nominees held a telephone conference call and the final selections were determined with the results as follows:  K. Pringle, D. Page, J. Ring, B. Grinnell, K. Golata, P. Delaney, A. Wagner, N. Torres, C. Siegel, M. Lau-Smith, F. Wu, M. Zhang.

– The principal interviews will take place on Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 8:30 am at Roosevelt Middle School.

– The interview questions will have input from two sources; the District will have their own specific questions and the site does, too.  A. Wagner had gone to the administrative selection committee training the day before this meeting.  She told the council that on the day of the interviews, each candidate would have a set amount of time (between 30 to 45 minutes) to answer all the questions.  The District would like the site to come up with five site- specific questions.

– M. Lau-Smith passed out the guidelines on how the site’s interview questions should be formulated.  At the end, the site-specific questions should encompass the following concepts:  vision, achievement gap, teaching experiences, professional development, school culture, student interaction, parent involvement, budget issues.  M. Lau-Smith will incorporate all the ideas and suggestions discussed at the meeting and will finalize composing the questions.  She will email the draft questions to the committee members for review and give feedbacks.

2.  Telescope Project

– There are no updates at this juncture.  D. Zeeman admitted that he couldn’t manage the project without any assistance.  K. Pringle hasn’t had the time to pursue it.

3.  Funding Requests to SSC

– Often times, clubs or classes come to the site council meetings to solicit donations.  Unfortunately, the School Site Council doesn’t have its own discretionary fund to grant requests.

The site council would like to formally thank Gayline Tom, the PTSA president, for providing refreshments whenever she comes to these meetings.

C. Siegel moved to adjourn the meeting.  D. Page seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 4:36 pm.

Minutes taken and prepared by Karin Lau