Finding 3.6: According to staff interviews, this 20-30% of Bvhp students often come from the most troubled and

Recommendations 12

• R1a

  Page 163
  Study the Availability of Other Suitable School Sites to Relocate the Phoenix Campus SFUSD owns properties that are not presently being used for city schools. The Board and Administration should study the availability of suitable sites for relocation of Phoenix. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation requires further analysis. Within the next six months, SFUSD will analyze whether there are other available and appropriate sites for Phoenix High School. However, it should be noted that SFUSD attempted to relocate Phoenix High School to a new location on Evans Street during the 2002-2003 school year, and the students and staff from the school vigorously opposed the move before the Board. Therefore, the Board opted to retain the school’s location at 1950 Mission in recognition of the articulated wishes of Phoenix High School students and staff. In addition to going through SFUSD’s Program Placement Committee, any program or site change must comply with Board Resolution 46-8A10 (“Resolution to Increase Public Input in Program and School Placement”), which requires opportunities for community input into proposed site changes. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 In February 2005, the Director of County Community Schools re-evaluated whether an SFUSD facility located on Evans Street in San Francisco would be a suitable location to relocate Phoenix High School. The location was found to be unsuitable because the facility’s classrooms are located around a machine shop that is operated by a Junior College during the school day. The noise generated from the machine shop would be distracting and would interfere with classroom instruction. District staff also investigated whether it would be possible to relocate Phoenix High to one of the school sites that were closed during the school year to help address the District’s budget deficit. One of the main criteria for school closures was the underutilization of the school site due to low enrollment numbers. In order to fully utilize facility space and to satisfy legal obligations to the District’s charter schools under Proposition 39, these sites will house a combination of several District and/or charter schools. It is not feasible for Phoenix High to share space in this manner, because it would require the District to commingle students in comprehensive programs with students who have been expelled for a serious violation of District rules.11 11 In the context of Community Day Schools (which also serve students who have been expelled), the Education Code acknowledges the problem of commingling students in comprehensive schools with students who have been expelled. Cal. Educ. Code Section 48661(a). 155
• R1b

  Page 164
  Relocate Immediately the Phoenix Campus SFUSD should move immediately to relocate the CCS Phoenix School campus. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation requires further analysis, as described above. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 As noted above, the District determined that relocation of the Phoenix High School site is not currently feasible. However, the Director of County Community Schools has taken action to improve the physical quality of the facility located at 1950 Mission. The entire facility has been cleaned, reorganized and enhanced to increase the physical resources available to Phoenix High School students. The facility has been updated to include a computer lab with an LCD screen that is used for classroom instruction, online courses (such as Drivers Education) and Cooperative Vocational Education. The site also has a new library, and a multipurpose room that houses health and wellness information, as well as information about community resources for students, parents and guardians. This room is also used to house a social worker that works directly with students and also refers them to outside community resources. The room is used to hold girls counseling groups, and will be used as a recreational area with a ping pong table and other games for students. The site also includes space that is used for parent group meetings. The site includes offices for a secretary, counselors, and an office for a parent liaison assigned to county community schools. Two curriculum specialists will be hired for the 2005-2006 school year to support teachers in the county community schools, a Program Administrator to oversee English Language Learner programs in county schools, and an English Language Development teacher will be hired as well. As part of the reorganization, the Director distributed new textbooks that were located at this site to all county community schools, and created a textbook room to store extra copies of these resources. The external areas of the facility have been improved to provide a tented eating and gathering area, a basketball court and a volleyball court, and flower boxes have been added around classrooms. During the summer of 2005, the entire outdoor area of the school will be re-surfaced. The Director has also worked with San Francisco Police Department Captain Goldberg to arrange for officers to closely patrol the areas surrounding the schools, and the school has posted prominent signs that warn of enhanced penalties for drug activity within a school zone. 156
• R1c

  Page 165
  The New Phoenix Campus Should Be Ready by the 2004-2005 school year. Ideally, a new Phoenix School campus would be ready for the 2004-2005 school year. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation requires further analysis, as described above. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 As noted above, the District determined that relocation of the Phoenix High School site is not currently feasible. The physical improvements made to the Phoenix High School site are described above.
• R1d

  Page 165
  Relocate the Community Youth Center From Polk Street A secondary priority is the relocation of the Community Youth Center's one- room school from its location on Polk Street, above a strip joint. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation is in the process of implementation. CYC is currently in the process of negotiating a new lease for their site to be relocated to Van Ness and Sutter. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 The Community Youth Center one-room school that was located on Polk Street has been closed, and in the 2004-2005 school year students were relocated to a new site.
• R1e

  Page 165
  Prepare to Replace All One-Room Schools in the County System The five-year plan should include preparations to replace all one-room schools in the county system. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation is currently in the process of implementation. The District agrees that single site classes should be eliminated and is in the process of evaluating those sites for relocation. In addition to taking steps to move CYC to a new location, the Potrero Hill Neighborhood Center school site has been moved to the Principal’s Center Collaborative Campus. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 The District has closed all county community single room schools, and has consolidated these small schools into four main campuses that are able to provide more comprehensive support and resources. The single room schools that were closed include Community Youth Center, Potrero Hill Neighborhood Center, and Ella Hill Hutch. Under this new reorganization, each campus delivers comprehensive core curriculum with a strong academic focus. The four campuses are listed below: • Phoenix Campus: Provides core 9-12 curriculum, Special Day Class, Resource Specialist, English Language Learner support, and a middle school component. • Principal Center Collaborative: This collaboration between SFUSD and Juvenile Probation provides core 9-12 curriculum, Special Day Class, Resource Specialist, and English Language Learner support. The campus holds three programs including: Project Impact, Youth Treatment Education Court (education and youth substance abuse treatment), SF Girls and Boys Group Home (Bay High). The site also holds a new Youth Guidance Transition Center, which provides a transition program for students who are re-entering the District after being confined to the Youth Guidance Center for a short period of time. • Community Scholars of Success: Provides core 9-12 curriculum, Resource Specialist, English Language Learner support. • Sunshine Campus: Provides core 9-12 curriculum, Special Day Class (Hilltop), Resource Specialist, English Language Learner support. This site houses the Real Alternatives High School and the Hilltop School (for pregnant minors). The county programs have partnered with Pupil Services to develop an Intake Center located at the School of the Arts. This three week program offers assessment, counseling, school review, case management and enrollment options. This program was created to support appropriate academic placement, and to ease the student’s return to school after being referred to Pupil Services due to habitual truancy or behavioral issues. Students obtain 5 credits for successful completion of the Intake program. Next year, county teachers will receive more curricular support through the county’s newly developed instructional reform model. The model’s design has each site administrator assigned to a specific academic department. Each administrator, in conjunction with two new curriculum specialists, is responsible for conducting monthly meetings to align all county programs to standardized instruction. The curriculum will be mapped to core assessments that will be used to measure what students have learned, and to track teaching strategies employed by the teachers. All county teachers have obtained CLAD certification.
• R2a

  Page 168
  Make Budgets Available for Authorized Agencies SFUSD should make its budget readily available for inspection by authorized agencies, in particular, the Civil Grand Jury. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 The Grand Jury Report acknowledges that the Civil Grand Jury has obtained budget print outs for SFUSD. With regard to other agencies, SFUSD will implement this recommendation through its compliance with the applicable provisions of the Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 et seq. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 SFUSD continues to comply with the provisions of the Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.
• R2b

  Page 169
  Present Clear Budget Information Budget information should be presented clearly, if possible, with explanatory summaries. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 SFUSD will implement this recommendation to the extent that it is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 et seq. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 SFUSD continues to comply with the provisions of the Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.
• R2c

  Page 169
  Keep Separate Budgets for the Two School Systems To insure the equitable distribution of funds and to avoid co-mingling of assets, two separate budgets should be kept for the separate school systems of city and county. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation is unnecessary because the District current budget system separately tracks county community funds. The District’s financial accounting is maintained in accordance with the Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS) as required by California Education Code. As such, the District tracks all revenue, budgets, and expenditures by fund, resource, goal, function, object and organization code. In this structure, County funds are designated as Fund 05. Furthermore, County / Community Schools, Log Cabin, Woodside Learning Center, and the Hilltop Program have separate organization codes that allow for tracking of budgets and expenditures within each organization code. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 As noted in the original response, this recommendation is unnecessary because the District current budget system separately tracks county community funds.
• R3

  Page 155
  Undertake Greater Outreach to Ensure Eligible Students Are Enrolled in Dream Schools. SFUSD should undertake greater outreach in order to insure that eligible students get enrolled in Dream Schools and that students not eligible are given every opportunity to attend their current school next year with equal or improved resources. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation has already been implemented, as described in Section 3.8, above. Over 280 new students have been assigned to the Dream Schools, and there is a wait list for the entering kindergarten class. The District will continue its efforts to inform families and students about the Dream Schools Initiative. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 As noted in the District’s original response, the District took detailed and thorough action to ensure that students were aware of their opportunities and choices within the District, including the opportunity to attend a Dream School. Students who were attending a school that was converted to a Dream School were assigned to remain at that site unless they affirmatively chose to transfer to another school. There were no eligibility requirements to enroll in a Dream School.
• R3a

  Page 171
  Replace County Community Schools with Community Day Schools Replace the minimum-service County Community Schools with the more challenging Community Day Schools. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation requires further analysis over the next six months to determine whether the development of more Community Day Schools would be appropriate and effective within the District. However, the District has already increased the school day for county community students, and has increased support to these students, as described above in section 3.1. It is unclear whether the Community Day School system is the most effective way to provide increased service to county community students. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 The Director of County Community Schools and three of the CCS site administrators attended a conference in Sacramento to learn more about Community Day Schools. In May 2005, the CCS Director and the four CCS administrators made a presentation to the SFUSD Board of Education Curriculum Committee regarding the programs and services provided by county community schools. Among the topics discussed was the possibility of developing Community Day Schools in the District. Daniel Sackheim, the Community Day Schools consultant for the California Department of Education, made a presentation on this topic and distributed detailed information about the benefits and requirements associated with Community Day Schools. CCS staff determined that developing Community Day Schools was not necessary, because the District has already taken action to provide many of the enhanced resources available through Community Day Schools. For example, the District has extended the instructional minutes provided in CCS, has provided a low pupil-teacher ratio, school counselors, individualized instruction, and specified services for youth on probation. The District has also provided enhanced support and resources such as a social worker, parent liaison, and attendance liaison. Additionally, the District is planning to hire two curriculum specialists, a Program Administrator to oversee English Language Learner programs in county schools and an English Language Development teacher for the 2005-2006 school year. Finally, the District already receives enhanced per-student apportionments for students on probation, many of whom are in county community schools.
• R3b

  Page 172
  Use All Available Funding to Upgrade to Community Day Schools Use all available funding for county schools by upgrading and making the necessary commitment to Community Day Schools. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation requires further analysis over the next six months to determine whether the development of more Community Day Schools would be appropriate and effective within the District. However, the District has already increased the school day for county community students, and has increased support to these students, as described above in section 3.1. It is unclear whether the Community Day School system is the most effective way to provide increased service to county community students. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 See update to 3a, above.
• R4

  Page 157
  Undertake Greater Outreach to Ensure Eligible Students Receive Free or Low-Cost Lunches. SFUSD should undertake greater outreach in order to insure that students who are eligible for free or low- cost lunches are receiving them. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation has already been implemented, as described in Section 4.3, above. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 As noted in the District’s original response, the District took detailed and thorough action to ensure that parents and guardians filled out free and reduced lunch applications. Additionally, the District explained that SFUSD does not deny any student a free or reduced price lunch due to their parent’s failure to return the appropriate documentation. If a parent fails to return such documentation, the result is that the District will not be reimbursed for the lunch that is provided to the student. In the fall, the free and reduced cost lunch program application will be included in the August welcome packet sent home to all students. The forms in this packet all must be filled out and returned at the beginning of the school year, and are stapled together to ensure that parents understand that all of the enclosed forms must be filled out and returned. General Responses Dan Kelly, M.D. President Board of Education August 30, 2004 After receiving the Civil Grand Jury reports on the School District's programs in the Bayview Hunter Point and in the County Community Schools, I requested the Superintendent of Schools and her staff to review the Civil Grand Jury's findings and prepare the required responses. I greatly appreciated the Civil Grand Jury's interest in the education of the children of San Francisco and in particular in these two critical and important areas of our work. Having reviewed the Civil Grand Jury reports and the staffs responses, I am confident that you and the Civil Grand Jury will be reassured about the integrity and quality of the District's services both in the County Community Schools and in the Bayview Hunter's Point programs. As the responses we are submitting indicate, the District shares and even anticipates many of the concerns expressed by the Civil Grand Jury and is taking steps to address those concerns. In other areas, however, the Civil Grand Jury's expressed concerns did not represent accurate portrayals of the District's efforts or the community's desires. On the whole, the Civil Grand Jury has been a helpful exercise for us and the community in drawing attention to the importance that we place on the education of every child in San Francisco. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 The issues raised in the Civil Grand Jury Report are subject to active, ongoing federal court jurisdiction in the cases of SFNAACP v. SFUSD and Ho v. SFUSD. A Consent Decree was entered in the former case in 1983, and was amended as a result of settlements reached in the latter case in 1999 and most recently in 2001. The Consent Decree addresses a wide range of issues related to student assignment and educational equity. The District’s current student assignment system is mandated by the Consent Decree, as amended in 2001, and can only be changed by agreement of the parties or by order of the Court. The case is under the active supervision of Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Adele Destro Assistant Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors October 25, 2004 The following is a follow-up report on the 2003-2004 Civil Grand Jury Report The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same: The City and County of San Francisco and The San Francisco Unified School District Are Failing to Address the Educational Needs of the Bayview Hunters Point Community. The Board of Supervisors’ City Services Committee held a hearing on Thursday, October 21, 2004 on the Civil Grand Jury Report. The hearing was continued to the call of the Chair to be held at a time to allow for the attendance and participation of Supervisor Maxwell, parents and students. Adele Destro Assistant Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors December 6, 2004 The following is a follow-up to the 2003-2004 Civil Grand Jury Report The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same: The City and County of San Francisco and The San Francisco Unified School District Are Failing to Address the Educational Needs of the Bayview Hunters Point Community. The Board of Supervisors’ City Services Committee held a hearing on Thursday, December 2, 2004 on the Civil Grand Jury Report. Representatives from the San Francisco Unified School District responded to all the recommendations by the Civil Grand Jury. Parents and members of the community were heard during public comment and the matter was filed at the conclusion of the hearing. Adele Destro Assistant Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors June 29, 2005 The Board of Supervisors’ City Services Committee held a hearing on Thursday, December 2, 2004. Representatives from the SFUSD responded to all the recommendations by the Civil Grand Jury. Parents and members of the community were heard during public comment and the matter was filed at the conclusion of the hearing. TERMS SFUSD -San Francisco Unified School District BVHP -Bayview Hunters Point HP -Hunters Point CGJ -Civil Grand Jury 151 Civil Grand Jury Recommendations Board of San Francisco SFUSD and Department Reponses Education Redevelopment Agency SFUSD should provide the Bayview Hunters Students have right to select Point district with neighborhood schools 1 schools from any neighborhood commensurate to its population of eligible within the District. (Disagree) local students. SFUSD and the Redevelopment Agency Based on consultant should forge a plan to build additional schools The SFUSD Master Facilities Plan data, SFUSD has not 2 in the Bayview Hunters Point region in order projects excess capacity at the determined that to address projected needs arising from District. additional schools will development of new housing. be required. SFUSD should undertake greater outreach in order to insure that eligible students get enrolled in Dream Schools and that students 3 Implemented not eligible are given every opportunity to attend their current school next year with equal or improved resources. SFUSD should undertake greater outreach in order to insure that students who are eligible 4 Implemented for free or low-cost lunches are receiving them. For each recommendation, the Civil Grand Jury did not require responses from all departments. The table only identifies those departments that responded to specific recommendations. CHAPTER 4 COUNTY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS: POOR STEPCHILDREN OF THE SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT