Sunday, February 21, 2010

Hot topic: SSC Summit

This from a reader:
Yesterday was the District sponsored SSC Summit where all schools received their site budgets and the District had a chance to review the budget scenario, proposed cuts, and answer questions, etc. I'm wondering what were people's impression, what were the takeaways, and initial reactions to site budgets?


  1. I attended the SSC Summit and will respond to that.

    1. No mention of student achievement - the number one purpose of a school district. This is consistent with the strategic plan which puts achievement second to access and equity.

    2. At the SSC seminar the ED of SFPPS, Ellie Rossiter, stated that site councils are "advisory". Major faux pas for an SSC trainer. They are anything but. She recanted after I corrected her. It is an important point because the SSC is the only place in the school system where parents sit at the table with equal power with staff. And the do so by force of law. Advisors they are not. This point I have made clear before the State Board of Education.

    3. Patricia Grey, Assistant Superintendent, in response to another question, claimed that prinipals make the final decisions on site councils. WRONG! The Ed Code 52850-52863 is clear. It is the SSC as a whole that is the decisionmaking body. I have to go to the district's SSC training and hear this nonsense?

    4. Head of State and Federal Projects tells me that District Advisory Councils are not required. NOT! Federal law mandates them for Title One, Part A.

    5. Same person says that you can take the EIA_LEP money and use it for class size reduction (CSR). Wrong again. Targeted funding must be used to serve the targeted students. It was not flexed. CDE agrees. Social justice?

    6. Superintendent Garcia tried to claim sound preemptive fiscal management. They had been forewarned by the Budget Advisory to use the flexible categorical money to limit damage to essential services. Instead the district ignored the warning and passed this year's budget several months later that took no heed. As a result, we now have class size increases where they may have been limited. He also made incorrect claims about the penalties attached to CSR. Too complicated to explain here and now, but suffice is to say, SFUSD blew it.

    7. The SFUSD's day care people forgot to bring the materials. So while parents were discussing education the children watched TV all morning. Is any irony lost on the district "leaving its books at home" during the School Community Summit?I complained to the Superintendent directly about this and received an apology, to his credit.

    The Community Engagement and Parent Partnership Resolution, if it ever gets finished, ought to take heed of the culture at SFUSD towards parent driven concerns and include reforms. Interestingly, SFUSD did not have anyone in house who could write the proposal. Hard to believe? After hiring an outside consultant to do it, that person submitted a draft that didn't resemble the outline the district gave them.

    No waste and abuse? Think again.

    But they had a nice breakfast spread and I enjoyed the student poet.

  2. Posted numbers for site budgeting: 24:1 K and 27:1 1-3.

  3. Don, Don, Don.... The usual half-right, half-wrong arguments.

    Why I waste my time reading your posts is beyond me.

    That said, we DO agree that SFUSD doesn't truly embrace parent engagement or participation.

  4. Anonymous,anonymous, anonymous,

    If there was anything incorrect in what I said in my comment why don't you just say what it is? Every point in my comment is a point of fact. What I think is that you don't know anything about the issues I raised and your only interest is in character defamation.

    But technically speaking, since you said I was half right you only wasted half your time.

  5. Anonymous@9:57,

    Where are your facts to dispute what I have said? Apparently, you have none. The following is the argument are you making: I am wrong. Nice job, counselor.