2/26/2013 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– February 26, 13

Present:

Marcus Blackshur – Principal
Betty Grinnell –
Mele Lau Smith – parent
Claire Seigal – parent
Jackie Peters – teacher
Jonathan Ring – teacher
Anna Mai – student rep
Brandon Tong – alternate
Lisa Warnke – Asst. Principal
Nancy Lambert – Assistant Principal

Absent:
Stan DeBella – teacher
Doug Page – teacher
Nicole Torres -parent
Jessica Suen – alternate
Andrew Huang – student rep
Mr. Kyle – alternate
Vera Robinson – alternate
Nancy Lambert – Assistant Principal

Agenda:
1. Budget Presentation

$400,000 decrease in SY 13-14 budget. Some of decrease due to fewer students (1,992 vs 2124). Decrease in LEP and SCE (English language learner and Low-income students) budgets were greatest.

Possible that there will be an increase of one additional FTE funded through from Career Tech Education . If this happens, this will free up some funds from the overall budget.

AP funding is based on “new formula”.

There will be fewer students in college/career so there is a need for few classes.
District is allowing students to waive PE for athletics so there will be fewer students in PE.
There will be fewer ELD students so there is less need for classes.

The next steps are for the administration to develop a preliminary budget and BSC for the SSC to review at next meeting.

2. Data Review:

Cell Phone group
Miscellaneous

Early Warning Indicator students (Low GPA/Low attendance) as freshman

As 10th graders: 64 EWI:

50% on track for A-G (30); 27 off track
19 improved/stayed the same attendance; 45 attendance gone down
19 have increased/stayed the same GPA since middle school; 45 GPA gone down

9th graders – 73 EWI

20 on track for A-G; 51 off track ( after one semester)
29 improved/stayed the same GPA since middles school; 26 GPA gone down
26 improved/stayed the same attendance; 29 gotten worse

1/21/2013 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-January 21, 2013

Introductions:

Marcus Blackshur – Principal
Betty Grinnell – Classified Rep
Mele Lau Smith – parent
Claire Seigal – parent
Jackie Peters – teacher
Stan DeBella – teacher
Doug Page – teacher
Jonathan Ring – teacher
Anna Mai – student rep
Jessica Suen – alternate
Brian Tong – alternate
Nicole Torres (absent)
Andrew Huang – student rep
Mr. Kyle – alternate
Vera Robinson – alternate
Nancy Lambert – Assistant Principal
Lisa Warnke – Assistant Principal

1. Review of Fall Revision of Balanced Scorecard:

Fall Revision of balanced scorecard was sent out via email and distributed at the SSC meeting

Suggestion in developing the BSC is rather than asking questions in the note section to re-phrase to note whether more analysis would be useful to understand information.

Include in SY 13-14 BSC be sure to include goals/objectives to increase student participation and communication to entire student body. Teachers support of the communication from ASB students to their peers. Similar experience in the PTA.

There is concern that some homerooms are turning off G House TV.

Page 8: Common Planning – Brought up the point that departments have less time for common planning time for departments. Previously, there were 8 hours of professional development – 7 hours/month for department led meetings and now there is 3 hours/month for departments.

Current BSC has a lot related to Math and English. It would be useful to have discussions related to topics other than Math and English for the next BSC discussion.

Departments chose sections of the BSC to review and will give feedback to administration for revisions. Final revisions to be at SSC meeting.

2. Review of BSD Development Plan & BSC next plans

• Preparation for development of 13-14 BSC – look at measurable outcomes and review data. 2010-2011 baseline and 2011-12 data.

New Data information:

• Demographic data of clubs – student involvement
• Look at data related to attrition rates for students
• 11th grade scores for ELA and Advanced Algebra to understand why the rates are significantly higher.
• Is there a SFUSD proficiency rate for Algebra at the high school level.
• # of students in class of 2013 who are college eligible

3. SSC Summit

The summit is scheduled for March 2nd most likely at Everett Middle School.

4. Next meeting: Wednesday, February 20th from 3:30-5:30
5. Meeting Adjourned at 5:05pm

9/25/12 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-September 25, 2012

Present:
Marcus Blackshur, Nancy Lambert-Campbell, Anna Mai, Jessica Colvin, Patrick Delaney, Jonathan Ring, Stan DeBella, Lisa Warnke, Woodrow Smith, Doug Page, Sharon Gray, Nicole Torres, Mele Lau-Smith, Katie Pringle

A quorum was established for the meeting to begin.

SY 12-13 Budget Discussion:

Overview of budget documents (attached).

Update Fall final numbers:
• Received more funds in weighted student formula due to additional students.
• Received less in AP funding as the District is basing the number of AP exams on the prior year number and using the non-contractractual formulat.
• More funds in categorical funding for SCE and LEP. The formulat for SCE and LEP funding is based on a snapshot count from the Spring. It has not been updated with Fall numbers.
• Prop H Arts and PE funds reduced somewhat
• The final Fall budget has less of a deficit than the budget that was developed in the Spring. In the Spring the deficit between FY 11-12 and FY 12-13 was about $700,000. Based on the final Fall budget, the reduction from SY 11-12 and SY 12-13 is $427,311.

Discussion on priorities to allocated additional funds for SY 12-13:

• Presentation from Jessica Colvin on using some of the additional funds to fund counselor in Wellness Center. Discussion: These funds could come from ELP funds. Since Kathleen Golata was not present, the SSC noted that the discussion of ELP funds is at the purview of the ELAC and the SSC would recommend to ELAC to use some of the funds for the Wellness Center counselor.
• The non-personnel budget is very small. Recommendation for additional funds be allocated to non-personnel budget.
• Athletic Department and VAPA will decide on reallocation of Prop H and Arts funds.

Discussion of Proposals before the SSC:

• Tutoring program – LEP – K Golata – ELAC
• Additional Counselor for the Wellness Center– LEP funds
• Additional Teacher to provide course for 11th grade students with TA class – WSF funds
• 1 FTE – Intervention Sp/College career counselor – SCE funds
• Increase K.Lau to administrative position – SCE funds
• School supplies/Lab supplies – WSF funds
• Extended hours/prep for standardized test proctor – WSF

The SSC made the following recommendation:

The funds from WSF allocated to non-personnel budget
1 FTE Intervention Specialist/College Career funded with SCE funds. Balance of SCE funds allocated to non-personnel
Recommend to ELAC that portion of LEP funds be allocation to Wellness Center counseling position.

S. DeBella put a motion forth to adopt the above recommendations. P.Delaney seconded the motion.

Motion passed unanimously.

Future Discussion for SSC:

Review funding priorities and develop funding allocation standard. For example, a certain percentage of funds go to non-personnel categories, personnel, etc.

Next SSC meeting to review and approve the Fall final budget was scheduled for Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 3:30 pm.

Meeting adjourned.

5/9/2012 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-May 9, 2012

X  Agenda Attached

X  Attendance/sign-in attached

Present:  Stan DeBella, Doug Page, Jonathan Ring, Woodraw Smith, Patrick Delaney, Claire Siegel, Mele Lau-Smith, Jacky Chau, Karin Lau, Tony Payne, Katie Pringle, Gayline Tom

Absent (Excused): Marcus Blacksher, 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 3:47 pm.  There were eight elected members present; a quorum was established.

 

II.  Approval of 4/11/2012 Meeting Minutes

– S. DeBella moved to approve the 4/11/2012 meeting minutes as presented.  D. Page seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.

 

III.  Old Business

1.  Balanced Score Card Updates

– M. Blacksher was absent.  The item would be postponed to a future meeting.

 

IV.  New Business

1.  Priorities for SY 2012/2013 Preliminary Budget

– There would be minimal changes to the preliminary budget; the staffing FTEs and allocation would remain the same, but the number of sections might shift.  The influx of continuous enrollment and student requests dictated how the master schedule is set up and that also determined the number of sections needed.  This fluctuation would cause the previously allocated sections to be different.

– During the preliminary budgeting process, money had been set aside to pay for the department head and AP prep periods.  The contract talk might change that.  At the same time, the school might get more money in the fall.  With all these uncertainties, the site council needed to establish what their priorities were once the Fall Final budget became available.

– Since it was difficult to make specific suggestions given the lack of information, it was felt that the SSC should provide guidance to the administration on the priorities for the SY 12-13 Preliminary budget.  It was agreed that the guidelines should follow the priorities that were developed through the development of the SPPA/Balanced Scorecard.

 

D. Page moved that when additional fund became available, it would be allocated based on the priorities set forth in the Balanced Scored Card, which were to maintaining small class sizes and increasing teaching positions.  If the admin chose to go outside of these priorities, they would inform the school site council in a timely manner.  C. Siegel seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.

 

 

S. Debella moved to adjourn the meeting.  W. Smith seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 pm.

 

Minutes taken and prepared by Karin Lau

4/11/2012 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-April 11, 2012

X  Agenda Attached

X  Attendance/sign-in attached

Present:  Marcus Blacksher, Stan DeBella, Doug Page, Jonathan Ring, Woodraw Smith, Patrick Delaney, Claire Siegel, Jacky Chau, Nancy Lambert-Campbell, Karin Lau, Katie Pringle

Absent (Excused): Mele Lau-Smith, Nicole Torres, Clarissa Lee, Anna Mai

X  Minutes of the previous meeting approved

 

Decision Made/Issues Reviewed

I.  Call to Order

– J. Ring called the meeting to order at 3:36 pm.  There were eight elected members present; a quorum was established.  Introductions went around the room.

 

II.  Approval of 3/14/2012 and 3/21/2012 Meeting Minutes

– S. DeBella moved to approve both of the meeting minutes with the following corrections to the 3/21/2012 meeting minutes.   The first correction:  from this original statement – iii. Why does Galileo have 7.4% cuts to its budget when the District has millions in reserve?  S. DeBella and P. Delaney would try to report back to the site council with an answer at the next meeting.” to “S. DeBella and P. Delaney brought attention to this issue.”  The second correction:  under Roll Call, add “yes/no” to J. Ring’s name.  M. Blacksher seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.

 

III.  Old Business

1.  Balanced Score Card Updates

– M. Blacksher distributed copies of the BSC to the site council members.  J. Ring asked if it had already been submitted and M. Blacksher affirmed it.  P. Delaney proposed that the members take the time to review the document and bring back thoughts to the next meeting.

 

IV.  New Business

1.  Revised SY 2012/2013 Preliminary Budget

–  The preliminary budget that was submitted on Friday, March 23 was rejected because the school did not allocate 2% of its WSF fund to cover the non-personnel expenses.  To meet this stipulation, the admin freed up some WSF fund by substituting a counselor’s FTE with categorical fund-EIA/LEP.

– K. Golata, the ELD department chair, manages the LEP fund. She uses the money to pay teachers extended hours in the tutoring program and to buy technology, software and supplemental materials for the classrooms.

– A member questioned if the number of sections allocated at this point will change.  K. Pringle stressed that the sections offered are very fluid.  They will change based on student needs and student requests.  She also suggested that the council begin planning their priorities if and when the school gets more money in the fall.

S. DeBella moved to adjourn the meeting.  P. Delaney seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 4:09 pm.

 

Minutes taken and prepared by Karin Lau

3/21/2012 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-March 21, 2012

X  Agenda Attached

X  Attendance/sign-in attached

Present:  Marcus Blacksher, Stan DeBella, Doug Page, Jonathan Ring, Woodraw Smith, Patrick Delaney, Mele Lau-Smith, Claire Siegel, Nicole Torres, Jacky Chau, Clarissa Lee, Anna Mai, Nancy Lambert-Campbell, Karin Lau, Tony Payne, Katie Pringle, William Hoffland, Gayline Tom, Michelle Moffet, Michael Kyle

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 3:41 pm.  There were twelve elected members present; a quorum was established.  Introductions went around the room.

 

II.  Approval of 3/14/2012 Meeting Minutes

– The site council decided to postpone this item to the next meeting.

 

III.  New Business

– There weren’t any new agenda items.

 

IV.  Old Business

1.  2012/2013 SY Preliminary Budget

– M. Lau-Smith set the ground rules for the second part of the site council meeting to continue discussing the preliminary budget.  She hoped that K. Pringle had gotten the answers to the five questions formulated from the March 14 meeting so that the council could go forward with passing the preliminary budget.  Here were K. Pringle’s answers to the five questions:

i.  Is it a guarantee that Galileo will get the AP money in the fall?

– She couldn’t get a reply from downtown and the fact remained that the AP money hadn’t been loaded in our budget allocations.  Though Galileo would likely get the money in the fall, the school couldn’t plan on using it.

ii.  In what areas can Galileo use the categorical funding –EIA/SCE and EIA/LEP?

– The school could use these restrictive monies for supplementing but not supplanting services and classroom supplies for their target student population.

iii.  Why does Galileo have 7.4% cuts to its budget when the District has millions in reserve?

– S. DeBella and P. Delaney brought attention to this issue.

iv.  How does the school use its non-personnel fund?

– K. Pringle explained that out of the total non-personnel budget of $263,105, $150,000 went to the different departments; the balance of $113,105 was used for school-wide.

v.  Can the school reduce its required 2% in non-personnel and replenish it in the fall when the school gets the AP money?

– The 2% stipulation in non-personnel applied only to the WSF fund, not the entire budget allocation.

– K. Pringle presented her budget spreadsheets (see attached):

Page 1 – Budget Allocations (same as March 14)

Page 2 – Budget Summary (same as March 14)

Page 3 – All Cuts 2012-13

– The spreadsheet showed all the possible cuts in non-classroom and classroom with the bottom line of $203,874 remaining for non-personnel expenditure.

Page 4 – Possible Cuts 2012-13

– The spreadsheet showed all the possible cuts in non-classroom and classroom incorporating all the changes proposed by the school site council on March 14 and the leadership team meeting with the bottom line of -$13,103 remaining for non-personnel expenditure.

Page 5 – The Cost of Salaries for Administration, Certificated, Classified in four years.

 

– K. Pringle explained Page 4 in details and suggested that when the site council meet again to discuss the fall final allocation in September, the members could decide what services and personnel to restore if there were new money.

– After K. Pringle’s presentation, M. Lau-Smith asked that each member take 2 minutes to comment on the proposed cuts on Page 4 and to try to base their reactions around the District and school priorities (District-English Language Learners, Special Education, Common Learning Assessments/Common Core; school-9th Grade Transition, Algebra, A-G Alignment).

 

1.  W. Smith – If the ASB period were taken out of the school day, the action might cause the school culture to decline.  He suggested putting the ASB period back.  He felt the AVID program is generally successful.  If the school wanted to close the achievement gap, the AVID cuts should be reconsidered.

 

2.  N. Torres – She wanted to know that when resources are scarce, how do the admin and staff corroborate so that gaps are filled.  How do department heads come together to meet the challenges?  Does a process exist?

 

– Pringle cited that the school staff does work together to resolve issues.  For example, the counseling office had asked for an additional counselor, but the idea was overwhelmingly rejected.  And hence, the item was taken off the budget.

 

3.  C. Siegel – The AVID reductions seemed detrimental as well as the English department’s elimination of one section.  She suggested restoring the AVID sections in the lower grades.  K. Pringle proposed offering two sections in the 9th grade, 2 sections in the 10th, and a single section to combine the 11th and 12th graders, when the demands often dwindle.  The 9th graders get credits for College and Career when they take AVID.  The AVID class is an elective and therefore, it does not meet the A to G requirement.

 

4.  S. DeBella – He was disappointed that the District didn’t get back to Galileo with these crucial answers.  He still questioned the steep cuts to all the schools when the District has so much in reserve.  He and P. Delaney would try to find some truth to this debacle.  M. Lau-Smith concurred with his frustration.  She wasn’t very successful at her inquiry of answers last year.

 

5.  M. Blacksher – He lamented the lack of funds and resources to maintain all the programs, which make Galileo a great school.  If Galileo got more money in the fall, he would enhance the math and science departments.  He was also disappointed that there weren’t enough resources to keep up with the fast changing technological hard/soft ware.

 

6.  J. Ring – He felt the proposed cuts were manageable.  He was aware that the proposal had the intention of decimating the non-personnel portion and replenishing it in the fall with the AP money.   He reminded us that the budget allocations were based on the old contract.  When a new contract is negotiated, it will change the rules of the game.  He prioritized keeping all the teachers and lowering the paper usage expenses.  He questioned the quality of library services if the librarian’s hours were reduced to .60FTE.  If the world language department’s demand didn’t necessitate the additional .40 FTE, the librarian’s hours should be restored back to 1.00 FTE.

 

7.  D. Page – He commented that it was difficult to reduce positions when they are filled.  He wanted to know why Galileo had gotten a bigger cut as compared to the other schools.  He felt that the proposed cuts were manageable, but cuts to the classrooms still hurt.

 

8.  J. Chau – He felt the cuts in AVID sections weren’t so detrimental.  He observed that many students had the mindset to go to colleges.  He didn’t want the ASB period cut from the school day.  The position was important because it had the responsibility to raise money to pay for graduation expenses.  Who would carry on the torch when the position is eliminated?  He preferred for the Yearbook and Journalism to be combined as a single class and be offered during the school day.  Though it might be feasible to offer it afterschool as an extracurricular activity.

 

9.  C. Lee – She wanted the Yearbook and Journalism class put back into the school day.  The Yearbook class requires a lot of hard work; having it as an after school activity would not work.  She wanted the ASB period to be restored to the school day because it had to fund raise to pay for the senior expenses.

 

10.  P. Delaney – He said it was possible for the site council to refuse signing off on the budget if they were not satisfied.  Of all seventeen high schools, Galileo placed fifteenth to receive the least amount of funding.  He questioned the additional section in the social studies department and the reduction of seven sections in the physical education department.  He proposed to add back some of the sections in PE and reduce some sections in science, since students only need two years of it to graduate.  He also proposed to offer fewer sections in Health Ed, since the demand will drop due to a smaller 9th grade class.  He would like to restore all 8 sections of AVID and fill those JROTC classes to offset the high PE class sizes.

 

11.  A. Mai – It would be difficult to have the student body advisor teach five classes and do the ASB period after school.  When that happened, it would affect the school climate.  Also, giving the advisor $2000 stipend to do the ASB activities is not equitable.

 

– M. Kyle questioned why the library would face reduced hours and services.  He as an English teacher and his department teachers use it often.  He thought it was wrong to have the classroom teachers carry the burden of all the cuts when the non-classroom staff such as the administration, counselors, and clerks escapes such reductions.  He wanted the English sections and the library FTE restored and keep technology as a priority.

– M. Moffet, English department head, felt that cuts should be done across the board and to avoid the areas where they could help the school raise its API scores and the students with meeting the A to G requirements.  The proposed cuts on page 4 concentrated on cutting sections in VAPA and English and bypassed the administration and clerks.  Though students only need two years of science to graduate, there are more sections offered there.

– After the site council members and visiting staff commented on the proposed cuts, M. Lau-Smith summarized people’s preferences and suggestions.  In order to submit a balanced budget, cuts must take place.  She looked at reducing the world language sections even more.  Students have the options of testing out the language requirement if they speak that language.  When the school reduces its elective offerings, the limitation will impact mostly the juniors and seniors, who then take TAs to fill their schedules.

– Staff has the rights to return and have a full-time position.  When cuts must be made, it is beneficial for the staff to have the position kept at a minimum of .60 FTE, when benefits kick in for the incumbent.

– M. Blacksher disseminated the “science course registration data” handout, which showed the course sign-up data in the department.  Galileo tended to offer more science electives thought students only need two years.  M. Moffet would like to see a variety of English courses-required and electives- offered in her department as well.

– M. Lau-Smith suggested cutting each clerical position by .20 FTE or reducing one position to .60 FTE.  She reiterated people’s proposed reductions in order to balance the budget:

* add back the ASB period to the school day

* restore the librarian’s hours to 1.00 FTE

* keep the 13.40 FTE in English

* reduce non-personnel fund to reflect the anticipated AP money coming in the fall

* decrease .20 FTE from a clerical position

 

– The site council members voted on the following two motions:

First motion:  to approve the possible budget discussed with the above changes.

Second motion:  to sign off on the budget, but to write a letter to protest the various key issues.

– P. Delaney recommended that the letter be written and delivered at a future board meeting.

 

 

Roll Call:

W. Smith – yes/no

N. Torres – yes/no

C. Siegel – yes/no

S. DeBella – yes/no

M. Blacksher – yes/abstain

D. Page – yes/no

J. Chau – yes/no

C. Lee – yes/no

P. Delaney – no/no

A. Mai – yes/no

M. Lau-Smith – yes/no

J. Ring – yes/no

 

 

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Minutes taken and prepared by Karin Lau

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3/14/2012 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-March 14, 2012

X  Agenda Attached

X  Attendance/sign-in attached

Present:  Marcus Blacksher, Stan DeBella, Doug Page, Jonathan Ring, Woodraw Smith, Patrick Delaney, Mele Lau-Smith, Claire Siegel, Nicole Torres, Jacky Chau, Clarissa Lee, Anna Mai, Nancy Lambert-Campbell, Karin Lau, Tony Payne, Katie Pringle, William Hoffland, Karen Field, Gayline Tom, Lauren Marshman, Michelle Guan, Michelle Moffet, Susan Kitchell, Jackie Alarcon,

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 3:53 pm.  There were twelve elected members present; a quorum was established.  Introductions went around the room.

 

II.  Approval of 2/8/2012 Meeting Minutes

– P. Delaney moved to approve the 2/8/2012 minutes as presented.  S. DeBella seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.

 

III.  New Business

1.  2012/2013 SY Preliminary Budget

– K. Pringle distributed the 6-page handouts (see attachments).  She thanked J. Ring for his math wiz in helping her formulate her spreadsheets.  The attendees referred to the handouts while K. Pringle did her power point presentation.

Page 1 – Budget Allocations

The spreadsheet shows what Galileo has received in these four years:  2009/2010, 2010/2011, 2011/2012, 2012/2013.  The bottom line for next year will be a 6.9% cut in the overall budget.

Page 2 – Budget Summary

–  The spreadsheet elaborated on the following headings:  Fund, Name (of Fund), Allocated, Budgeted, Balance, Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE), Salary, Benefits, Extended Service, Non-Personnel for the six different funding sources and in the four-year span.  The six funding sources are:  General Fund Unrestricted/WSF, Special Ed/WSF Site, Economic Impact Aid/School Compensatory Education (EIA/SCE), EIA/Limited English Proficient (EIA/LEP), Prop H PE, Prop H Arts.

Page 3 – District & School Site 2012-13 (Version) A

Page 4 – District & School Site 2012-2013 (Version) B

Page 5 – District & School Site 2012-2013 (Version) C

Page 6 – The Cost of Salaries for Administration, Certificated, Classified in four years.

 

– Categorical funds such as EIA/SCE and EIA/LEP come with many restrictions; therefore, the money could not be used for classroom personnel.  The admin would like to access the money without being out of compliance.  K. Pringle is waiting to hear back from the State/Federal office.

– Galileo offers the JROTC program.  Currently, Galileo pays for a .50 FTE, the Army pays for a 1.00 FTE, and private fundraising pays for the other .50 FTE.  The military mandates that these two FTEs to co-exist.  When that stipulation does not happen, the school will be out of compliance, which Galileo has gotten out of this year.  The school will have one year to fix the problem.  At this juncture, the private fundraising effort has raised around $20,000.

– The school can’t sign the students up for JROTC.  They have to opt in to the program.

– The Version A proposal is the starting point of discussions of where cuts might happen.  The leadership team met over the course of a week to dissect the proposal. During such meetings, each team member had the opportunity to speak in favor or against the specified cuts in the proposal.  Subsequently, Versions B and C were created incorporating the team’s input.

– M. Lau-Smith clarified that if the council could not reach a consensus of a proposed preliminary budget today, another meeting will be called.  She also set the perimeter that advocacy of a program or position cut is not preferred.  She realized that any cuts to Galileo would be detrimental.

– She summed up that the three scenarios involved cuts in the same departments.  Then in Versions B and C, the ASB period is deleted and replaced with a stipend of $2,000 as a form of compensation.  And Version C shows a deficit of $65,371 after all the cuts are implemented.

– J. Ring cited that the school is required to put 2% of its total budget, which is $177,513 towards non-personnel.  He would like clarification on what fund is allowed to make up this 2%.  He commented that Galileo would receive fund for the AP exams taken, but that the fund won’t come until in the fall.  He would like to know if Galileo could use this money towards the 2%.  He also would like to know how restrictive is the categorical funds and the assurances of the Career Tech Ed support to fund teachers.  He questioned how many students actually double up by departments.

– K. Pringle explained that the school could not plan on the use of the AP exam fund because it doesn’t exist in the budget allocations.  When she gets a confirmation of the money, she can then zero out the non-personnel and will later replenish it with the said fund.  This strategy will free up designated money to fill more FTEs.

– L. Marshman, the AVID counselor, explained that the program recruits its participants, whose GPAs are between 2.5 to 3.30, in the 8th grade.  Once in high school, they take the AVID class all four years.  They learn organizational skills, get tutorial support, receive elective credits, and by the senior year, 90% of them get into a 4 year college.  Currently there are two sections per grade level and are taught by four teachers.  If the eight sections are cut down to five, around eighty students will lose out and the program can only offer one section per 10th, 11th and 12th grades.  If she cuts the 9th grade sections from two to one, the overflow will impact the College and Career sections.  The 9th graders get the College and Career credit for their AVID class.

– Currently Galileo pays for .50 FTE of J. Alarcon’s position and the Peer Resource office matches the amount to bring the PR position to a 1.00 FTE.  J. Alarcon teaches three sections of Peer Helping and one section of College/Career.  The proposed budget is to consolidate all three sections of around fifty enrollees into two sections of twenty-five each.   But J. Alarcon’s argument is that she will need all three sections to maintain her program.  The small class sizes allow her students to collaborate and institute projects to benefit the school community.

– The Visual and Performing Arts (VAPA) department will go from current 20 sections to 18 sections in the proposed budget.  The cuts will impact the one-year graduation requirement.

– Students need two years of Physical Ed to graduate.  Some students meet this requirement by taking JROTC and/or playing team sports.  The cuts of 2 FTEs will not allow students who fail the fitness test to retake PE and will increase class sizes.

– Students are required to take 4 years of English, 3 years of science, 2 years of math, etc. to graduate.  But in order to be competitive to get into a college of choice, students often times take the recommended years by UC, such as 4 years of science and 4 years of math.  These increases explain why the enrollment numbers in the science and math departments are higher.

–  It was suggested that the English Language Development (ELD) department’s section numbers be included in the English department’s figures, because ELD counts as one year of English requirement.

– M. Moffet, English department head, pointed out that the elimination of 1 FTE in her department is disproportioned to the cuts in the math and science departments.  She cited that the Early Acceptance Performance (EAP) results pointed to that 24% readiness of juniors performing rigorous work.  The ideal class size for English teachers to maximize learning and teaching is 25 students, not the proposed 31.9.  English teachers spend an average of 15 hours per week to grade papers.  And the department as a whole contributes to the high CST achievement level, not math or science.  And yet, the department is taking a bigger cut.

– M. Blacksher commented that the overall enrollment across the District had gone down.  Galileo will likely not see an increase of enrollment in the fall.

– A member questioned how was the ASB stipend of $2,000 determined.  It was set arbitrarily.  It was suggested to increase the amount.

– All three versions proposed to eliminate Yearbook and Journalism during the school day and implement them as part of the Futurama after school program.  The Yearbook class might survive the move because students still want to see the finished product, but Journalism will likely lose its appeal.  When the move takes place, students can get credits as long as they put in the required instructional minutes.

– Drama is a good elective class to offer to EL students, because it encourages the students to express themselves using English.  But it doesn’t look promising at this austere financial time.

– P. Delaney questioned if Galileo is heavy in clerical support.  If we are, he proposed to streamline the duties of the secretarial staff, so that a reduction in classified personnel is possible.  M. Blacksher cited that schools, which take this measure, don’t function well.

– W. Hoffland, a PE teacher, expressed his concern for the 2 FTE cuts in his department.  He said the PE enrollment numbers are askew because PE teachers used to indiscriminately sign off on students, who participate in team sports, to get PE credits.  He reflected that PE teachers are more reluctant to do so now.

– M. Lau-Smith asked if Galileo will receive more students in the fall, therefore, the school would see an increase in its budget allocation.  K. Pringle shared that she was told that Galileo should not expect to get more money even if the City releases its rainy day fund.

– M. Lau-Smith would like to get some answers to these questions before the site council meets again next Wednesday, March 21.  If the site council doesn’t have the answers, it will prevent them from making a sound decision.  In that case, they will revoke signing off on the preliminary budget, which is due on Friday, March 23, 2012.  M. Blacksher cautioned that it is imperative that he turns in a balanced budget.  K. Pringle will get some answers for the site council by next Wednesday.

Questions such as:

i.  Is it a guarantee that Galileo will get the AP money in the fall?

ii.  In what areas can Galileo use the categorical funding-EIA/SCE and EIA/LEP?

iii.  Why does Galileo have 7.4% cuts to its budget when the District has millions in reserve?

iv.  How does the school use its non-personnel fund?

v.  Can the school reduce its required 2% in non-personnel and replenish it in the fall when the school gets the AP money?

 

IV.  Old Business

1.  BSCWG Updates

– The council did not have time to address this agenda item.

S. DeBella moved to adjourn the meeting.  P. Delaney seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 5:42 pm.

 

Minutes taken and prepared by Karin Lau

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/8/2012 Meeting Attachments

Documents to review:

    BSC ProcessV1:  This document outlines the process by which the BSC/SPSA would be developed on an annual basis. The SSC will review and approve this document at the January SSC meeting

    BSC-Timeline-Shortened: This document outlines the truncated version of the BSC /SPSA development process to used t his year. .  SSC will review and approve this document at the January SSC meeting.

    Self-Reflection Worksheet: This document includes the questions for the BSC/SPSA development process.

    Existing Data Worksheet: This document provides the data available to date.

Hopefully the review and approval of the BSC process documents will not take too much time and we ca n devote most of our time to :

a.    Identify existing data
b.    Identify  gaps in existing data
c.    Select questions for “Self-Reflection” component of BSC development

I would like to propose the following “homework” prior to the meeting:

1.    Review the attached Existing data worksheet.
a.     Mr. Blackshur provide any additional informational information that is available beyond what is included in this document. It would be helpful to provide the information that addresses the high school initiatives that have been implemented and the school is required to report on (e.g: A-G compliance for class of 2014, Algebra, etc) so that we can see if we have met or are close to meeting these standards.

b.    Faculty/staff members of the SSC be prepared to provide an update of other assessment data that is available.

2.    Review the suggested questions in the attached worksheet.. Bring changes/deletions/additions to the January meeting.

Worksheet for “Self-Reflection” questions:

Step 1: Through a self-reflective process, answer the following questions:
Question    Comments
What are we doing now with respect to Core curriculum and school initiatives

What are we doing beyond the core curriculum and school initiatives

What challenges are their in implementing the core curriculum and CLAs

How are we doing based on the data available?  Quantitative vs Qualitative data

What are the weaknesses/strengths of the data we have?
What specifics steps can we take to improve our data gathering?

Step 2: Based on the analysis of above, how well are we meeting our mission of providing equal access to all educational programs and ensure success for all students:

Question    Comments
Who is being left behind?
Why are they being left behind?
What are we doing that facilitates the gap?
What are we doing to reduce the gap?

Step 3: Based on the analysis of above, what will we do the same and what will we do differently to ensure we  are meeting our mission of providing equal access to all educational programs and ensure success for all students:

Question    Comments
How do we build on our strengths?
What will change where we are not succeeding?
How will we measure it?

Summary of Existing Data

Achievement (Assessment Results)
English Language Arts    Math
% Proficient in the district

9th Grade 60%

10th Grade 52%

11th Grade  52%
% Proficient in your school

9th Grade  57%

10th Grade  55%

11th Grade  49%    % Proficient in the district

Algebra  38.7%

Geometry  39.4%

Adv Alg  41.2%    % Proficient in your school

Algebra  32%

Geometry  47.3%

Adv Alg  59.7%
District change from last year +1%    School change from last year -3%    District change from last year +0.3%    School change from last year  -0.8%
Notes
Percent proficient in math doesn’t show who is taking a given course (access).
Proficiency in LA declines from 9th to 11th grade
Should Algebra numbers be higher?
LA Proficiency rates decline from 9th to 12th grade.
How is data collected?
Who is the data representative of?
What are the gaps in the data?
What alternative data exists to include in analysis?
What alternative data could be collected?

Growth (Assessment Results)
English Language Arts    Math
Last year’s proficiency rate
9th Grade
67.8%

10th Grade
52.3%

11th Grade
48.9%
This year’s proficiency rate

9th Grade
56.4%

10th Grade
54.8%

11th Grade
49.1%    Last year’s proficiency rate

Algebra
44.7%

Geometry
52.1%

Adv Alg
46.5%    This year’s proficiency rate

Algebra
32.0%

Geometry
47.3%

Adv Algebra
59.7%
Percent change
FBB: 56.3%
BB: 51.0%
Basic: 21.9%    Percent change
FBB: 55.9%
BB: 28.0%
Basic: 28.4%
Notes
Large number of students in LA and Math +/- 25 points from proficient.

Behavioral Indicators (e.g. suspension, expulsion, grades, and attendance data)
Attendance    % Attendance last year
92.2
Change over time
Suspensions    Number of suspensions
08/09 – 75
09/10 – 61
10/11 – 98    Number of students
08/09 – 2031
09/10 – 2092
10/11 – 2149

Notes
Ethnicity    # of Students    # of Suspensions    % of Suspensions    % of School
AA    35    45    46%    5%
L    19    22    23%    10%
C    15    18    18%    60.7%

Suspensions decline by grade level.

Climate Indicators (Satisfaction Surveys)
Questions to Ask: What ratings are highest? What ratings are lowest? Where do you see the greatest difference?
Students

3.19 #21. I have somebody at home who cares about me and supports my learning.
3.15 #24. I like this school and would recommend it to other students.
2.42 #7.   I help make decisions in my school
2.48 #8.  There are always enough books and supplies in the classroom for all the students.
Families

3.28 #33.  I would recommend this school to other parents.
3.27 #34.  Overall, I love my child’s school.
2.52 #23.  I have attended at least one parent-teacher conference about my child.
2.48 #29.  I attend and actively participate in regularly scheduled meetings, events, and adult educational opportunities.
Staff

3.31 #15. The school provides high quality extra curricular and/or after school programs. (extended learning opportunities)
3.29 #12. Teachers in this school use multiple assessment practices to measure student progress throughout the year.
2.44 #26. The Board of Education is leading the District in the right direction.
2.50 #25. The Superintendant is leading the District in the right direction.
Notes
# of parents responding was 240; was this a representative sample?

Focal Groups (e.g. ethnicity, gender, language proficiency level, grade-level)
English Language Arts    Math
Grade Comparison

(by reading the table horizontally)

Cohort Comparison

(by reading the table diagonally)

Ethnicity
ELL and non-ELL students

African American students

Latino students

2/8/2012 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-February 8, 2012

X  Agenda Attached

X  Attendance/sign-in attached

Present:  Marcus Blacksher, Doug Page, Jonathan Ring, Woodraw Smith, Patrick Delaney, Mele Lau-Smith, Claire Siegel, Nicole Torres, Jacky Chau, Karin Lau, Tony Payne

Absent (Excused): Stan DeBella, 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 3:44 pm.  There were nine elected members present; a quorum was established.

 

II.  Approval of 1/11/2012 Meeting Minutes

– M. Blacksher moved to approve the 1/11/2012 minutes as presented.  J. Ring seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.

 

III.  New Business

1.  BSC Working Group Updates

– M. Lau-Smith went over her notes from the BSCWG meeting on January 25, 2012.  The attendees were as follows:  M. Blacksher, T. Payne, J. Chau, D. Page, J. Ring, C. Siegel, M. Lau-Smith, P. Delaney.

– The SSC members that were at the BSCWG meeting felt that the meeting wasn’t too long and that it was productive.

– The members decided to have the next BSCWG meeting on Thursday, February 16, which should give the admin ample time to gather data from different sources.  T. Payne will have the student survey results aggregated by then.  G. Tom also reminded the admin that the feedback gathered at the January PTSA meeting could be incorporated.

– M. Blacksher held a discussion about the school priorities at the last leadership team meeting. The team thought that there were too many priorities for the school to work on in such a short time.  They requested that the list be narrowed down to manageable three or four priorities.

– The science department felt that the list of priorities was too broad.  The department teachers didn’t understand why they were asked to discuss it and if they did talk about it, how would their input be used.  W. Smith invited T. Payne to come to one of their meetings, so he could provide guidance on the exercise and answer questions.

– The math department had a different take.  Their main concern was that they would rather use measuring tools that the school had a lot of input instead of using something that was regulated by the district.

– One of the priorities is for the class of 2014 and thereafter to fulfill the A-G requirements when they graduate.  The site council worried how the EL students would be able to accomplish this stipulation.  One member suggested using the current 9th and 10th grades as the baseline to see how on track these students are in meeting it.  T. Payne shared that 60% met the A-G requirements and there was 14% difference between male and female students.

– M. Lau-Smith emphasized that the school should use positive data such as number of students have joined clubs, have done sports, have participated in elections, to enhance the school climate rather than using negative ones like suspension rate.

– Someone questioned how these priorities meshed with the WASC recommendations.  M. Lau-Smith said she would need to review the WASC report to see how the two could be tied together.

 

 

2.  March Meeting Date

– At a previous meeting, some SSC members felt that the March meeting might need to be pushed back a week in order to give people extra time to gather input and data.  But that was no longer necessary, so the March meeting will be on the 14th as planned.

 

3.  SSC Summit

– Annually, the District sponsors the SSC School Planning Summit on a Saturday to:

1.   Share information about Balanced Scorecard/Single Plan for Student Achievement and school site funding allocations; and 2.  Provide members of our school communities with information to assess current program, identify strategies for improvement, align fiscal resources, engage partners, and chart course of actions.

– This year the event will be held on Saturday, February 12 from 8:30 am to 12:30 pm at Everett Middle School.  The following members have agreed to attend:  M. Blacksher, Mele Lau-Smith, T. Payne, J. Ring, C. Siegel.

 

 

IV.  Old Business

– There were no agenda items under Old Business.

 

 

W. Smith moved to adjourn the meeting.  M. Blacksher seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 4:22 pm.

 

Minutes taken and prepared by Karin Lau

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 2

 

 

1/11/2012 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-January 11, 2012

X  Agenda Attached

X  Attendance/sign-in attached

Present:  Marcus Blacksher, Stan DeBella, Doug Page, Jonathan Ring, Woodraw Smith, Patrick Delaney, Mele Lau-Smith, Claire Siegel, Nicole Torres, Jacky Chau,

Absent (Excused): 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 3:30 pm.  There were ten elected members present; a quorum was established.

 

II.  Approval of 12/7/2011 Meeting Minutes

– A member moved to approve the 12/7/2011 minutes as presented.  Another member seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.

 

III.  New Business

1.  DCYF Funding/Youth Vote

– Peter Lauterborn from the City Department of Children, Youth and Families speaks to the SSC.  He provided information to all members explaining the department and its goals. The department has a three-year cycle and is now in the second year.  The plans of actions are to identify needs in the first year, to allot funding in the second year, and to involve non-profits in the plan in the third year.

– The DCYF helps students get involved in civics, be in charge of “Youth Vote”, and place the students on the Board of Education.  The folder contents are a synopsis of the program.  There are 41 programs listed that Galileo students participate in.  Some are based here at Gal and others in the community.  The packet also includes the results of the last “Youth Vote” survey, which gives insight into the students here at Galileo. These surveys are given twice each year-Fall and Spring.  Galileo returned 1400 surveys, which are the highest returned in the district this year. This next survey will include some middle schools and then middle schools will all be included in the surveys.  Peter asks for more involvement from Galileo.

2.  Developing the BSC/Single Plan

– The BSC/SPSA development handouts distributed.  The site council reviewed the BSC/ BSCWG handouts.  Handout is the conceptually approved proposal from last meeting.  Major change, distributed leadership, secondly more talk on BSC working group. Constitution of the WG would be ½ and ½ school staff and community partners, exact numbers are in the handout.  Each group would elect their own members. Page 2 contains the time-line of implementation Sept/Nov.  These dates are past so we need to squeeze them into the second semester. Today we will review and approve the process and start the election of Working Groups.

Handout: Timeline (Pilot Run)

How do people feel about working groups set up? General timeline?

Q: Why are we doing BSCWG verse SSC?

A: More representation.  Give others opportunity to voice opinions without the two year commitment of the SSC.  Get a broader perspective on the school.

Q: Why can’t the SSC do it?

 

Page 1

A: Can’t do it in a monthly meeting structure.  More meetings of the SSC is a possibility

Q: BSCWG is duplicating SSC?

A: Yes

Q: Could we have extra meetings of the SSC and invite others?

A: Yes, that would work.

General consensus is to set up an Ad HOC committee of the SSC dealing with the budget, which is part of the SSC’s job.

We will change representation to SSC members with invited interested persons.  Interested persons must commit to all four meetings and committee will report to the UBC also (Left off the list of (reportees)

We will set up the working groups first meeting in Sept.  Finish the last BSC and begin forming a new one.

Q: Could the working group get started on Jan 25th?

A: Yes and be finished by the end of April.

 

Finalized proposal- Vote to approve the amended BSC plan with the proposed changes. Unanimously passed.  Extra meetings in Jan, Feb and March

 

Questions on the self-reflection portion discussed. Questions can be tweaked at any time. We will use the ones listed as Pilot questions.

 

Context:  How can we judge how we are doing here at Galileo aside from grades?

A: These questions could help insure that we have another measure of our success and progress toward our goals.

Handout: Galileo Priorities Timeline and Possible priorities.

 

IV.  Old Business

1.  Update on SSC Student/Teacher Representations

– The site council did not address this agenda item.

 

 

A member moved to adjourn the meeting.  Another member seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 4:53 pm.

 

Minutes taken by Stan DeBella and prepared by Karin Lau

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 2

 

 

1 2 3