Monday, October 25, 2010

SFGate: As S.F. schools struggle, board raises its budget

This from SFGate:

While San Francisco schools have been squeezing every dime out of their dwindling budgets, the city's school board has increased its own budget each of the past four years, spending more on travel to conferences, taking taxis around the city and paying for a board member's babysitter.

All told, the board has increased spending by 28 percent over the past four years, which includes the added cost of televising board meetings as well as increases in staff salaries and benefits, according to 600 pages of public records obtained by The Chronicle.

In each of those years, the board failed to stay within a set budget and dipped into the district's primary spending account to cover the difference.

In 2009-10, the board spent $492,629, including $22,000 for catered meals prior to board meetings for members and staff; $7,300 for a Portland conference attended by six of seven board members rather than the usual two or three; and $766 in taxis used by one board member during a five-day conference.

It's not a lot of money given the district's $500 million annual budget, but it's a spending pattern that stands in direct contrast to the slicing and dicing of programs and services at city schools.

"It does seem a little strange that they're increasing while everybody else has to decrease down to the bone," said parent Lorraine Woodruff-Long, who has two children at Aptos Middle School. "We don't have enough paper at my school. We've got to have a PTA drive for paper, and it's October."

Read the full story

71 comments:

  1. Only one Board Member should be able to attend any one conference. There should be daily caps on hotel and transportation when traveling for a conference. Maufas has double the spending of most of the Board and her expenses should be audited. There is no reason why she should not be at the conference hotel with everyone else. Babysitting should not be expensed. I don't know anyone else's job that covers babysitting expenses.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How much do the Board members make? I recall reading somewhere that in the mid-2000s at least it was more than $200K for some members but perhpas I am wrong. Anyone know?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Charging the public to baby sit her 7th and 10th grade kids. Remind me again why so many groups endorse Hydra Mendoza?

    Vote out Maufus and Mendoza!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, BOE members only get $500 per month. It is a volunteer job, basically.

    That said, it seems they should monitor and manage expenses just like schools have to.

    And it's AGAIN weird to see Kim-Shree Maufas who once again proves she has no ability to manage or monitor money - hers or SFUSDs.

    My first take on Hydra Mendoza's expenses was one of surprise - but if you have kids home alone for meetings that go till midnight, it's good to have someone at home with your kids. I would, too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Really, next we will see dog walking expenses being approved. I really question the judgment of a Board Member who is submitting baby siting expenses for junior high and high school age kids when the district is in a financial crisis and the rest of us spend hours touring schools and paying for babysitters out of our own pocket. Ofcourse, compared to the nearly $800 in taxis..this pales in comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wouldn't run for a position without first ensuring I had care for my children while I was away. And if I suddenly did not have care, I certainly wouldn't expect the organization to pay for my lack of planning. Nobody MADE her run for board member.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What the heck Lorraine, most of the last few years you've spent as an apologist for district. Once the Board's expenses are a news item, only now you come to the public's defense?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The teacher's union dues are paying to prop up Maufas and her past and future indiscretions, whether or not the rank and file were duly informed to cast a vote for their endorsement. I can't blame the four winds if I don't make the effort to get educated on elections. Neither should the teachers. If Maufas is reelected, it will be the fault of every teacher who failed to stand up to the leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "$766 for 21 taxi rides taken by board member Kim-Shree Maufas during a 2008 conference in Orlando. About $500 of that was submitted for reimbursement last year, 15 months after the conference - even though the district's policy is that such expenses should be submitted within 15 days. She said the hotel she selected, which cost $12 less per day than those used by other board members, was farther from the conference."

    Yeah, she probably didn't want to stay at the same hotel as the other board members because she didn't want them to see her sneaking out to Disney World in a district-funded taxi cab, instead of attending the conference events. What a scam artist!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't think the amount of the money is the issue. When you factor in the salary, the board is underpaid.

    However, anyone who turns in expenses 15 months late is not going to be able to balance a $100Million deficit over 2 years.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Don, are you seeing things now? Re: Lorraine?

    This news article was no surprise to me. The eye opener was to make sure some of the names in question do not get marked on my ballot. No Kim Shree, no Hydra. I wanted to vote for Mendoza, but im going to vote for the Yale grad for some non incumbent fresh perspective.

    Using the BOE as a spring board for the BOS is also a sickening eye opener. This city is heartbreaking.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lorraine, former PPSF ED, is quoted in the article. No I'm not seeing things. Just reading.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I work for the City. In my dept, we have a departmental policy that food can not be purchased for meetings for staff. In addition, all travel is eliminated or minimimized due to budget constraints. If I need to get to another site for work during the day, I take the bus or walk, even if it's across town. Why do these individuals display such a flagrant disregard for the public's resources and our kids? It gives all of us bad name. Shame...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hydra Mendoza's childcare expense is small potatoes. Keep your eye on the big picture: Knock off Maufas. Even the Chronicle had to say that Maufas went too far with charging personal expenses on public money.
    So it's Mendoza and Brodkin, for sure. The vote is split on the third candidate. A split vote may not be enough to knock off Maufas.
    It's torture!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why do people assume Maufas is going to receive votes?! I don't think we need to choose a lesser evil - we need to pick the best candidates on the list! Right now, I'm planning on:

    Margaret Brodkin, Emily Murase, Omar Khalif

    ReplyDelete
  16. Maufas will receive votes from the many hip, young SF residents who vote the SF Guardian's "Clean Slate."

    ReplyDelete
  17. Another poorly-written and out-of-context story by Jill Tucker about government largesse (aka what often serves as "journalism" for the Chronicle these days).

    Facts that Tucker left out or didn't emphasize, which would have given a more balanced perspective:

    *Kim-Shree Maufas doesn't own a car and frequently relies on public transit.
    *Maufas lives in the Mission, which, like other urban areas of SF, often necessitates single women to take cabs late at night out of safety.
    *The seven board members have to share one City car (which are widely misused by City employees - many have been caught keeping City cars overnight, etc. I'm expecting an earth-shattering expose on City cars by the Chron's ace reporters any day now...).
    *Maufas is currently unemployed but pays for the majority of cab rides out-of-pocket while attending school board-related events.
    *As one commenter just noted, school board members only make a $500/month stipend.
    *Other elected officials rely on staffers to drive them to events, but school board members are not provided with the staff to give them rides, so how are they expected to speak with parents and school site staff outside of board meetings?
    *Maufas spent money on a rental car in Pennsylvania. It would be different story if the conference was in Palo Alto or San Jose, a location close enough for her to take CalTrain, rent a City Car Share vehicle, or borrow a vehicle from a friend or family member.

    Sadly, those facts and perspectives would have made for a much less sensational yet balanced story.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And how do you account for her use of public money for personal expenses? Her daughter's theft?

    If Maufas can't afford to be a board member, she shouldn't be. I agree that the stipend seems too low -- but that's no excuse for her lack of ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 1:49, everyone at 555 Franklin knows Maufas is using the district-paid taxis and the board car for personal and campaign uses. If you aren't Kim-Shree herself, you are seriously duped and need to work hard on raising your skepticism level before the next purse or wallet that gets ripped off is yours.

    She's known to be using campaign contributions for personal expenses too.

    I'm not sure what I'd do if I were personal friends with someone that crooked. I'm pretty sure I'd at least lay low and not try to defend them. (And keep a close eye on my valuables.)

    ReplyDelete
  20. This is the problem with offering low pay for a political office: those with financial means (Kim) use it as a stepping stone to higher political office, whereas those without deep pockets (Maufas) compensate by overindulging on the financial perks of the position. Perhaps it would be cheaper to pay BOE members a more reasonable salary and limit their travel and other expenditures.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This boils down to judgment, neither Maufas or Mendoza has demonstrated good judgment and should not remain on the BOE entrusted with the education of this city's children. There are a lot of kids, even 13 year old girls, who live in the Mission, Bay View and Vistation Valley. Guess what? They are expected to take a city bus home at night from their after school activities. The excuse just demonstrates why Maufas should not be on the board.

    ReplyDelete
  22. At this rate, Maufas will make it back onto the Board. At least the Giants are in the World Series.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Interesting: Phil Ting's Reset San Francisco did a poll on its web site of San Franciscans with valid email addresses (Oct. 20-22).

    It shows Mendoza in first place, Brodkin in second place, and Maufas, Hoehn and Murase bunched tightly together in 3rd, 4th and 5th place, respectively.

    http://www.resetsanfrancisco.org/pulsepoll

    Now, these kinds of polls are utterly unscientific but I think these results should be troubling to anyone who thinks Maufas should not be on the school board.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If Maufas is unemployed, other than her board position, and already knows she can't afford transportation to and from board events, why is she running again? She should realize it isn't in the best interest of the district to pay her transportation fees and take herself out of the race.
    Or, she should do what the rest of us do- pay our own way when we need to get to work.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Based on that Reset San Francisco poll:
    Brodkin, Hoehn, and Murase.

    That's the way an "Anybody but Maufas" slate should read. Mendoza is not on the list, only because her seat is safe. That's a calulated risk, not a knock against Mendoza.
    Brodkin, Hoehn, and Murase is our best chance of knocking off Maufas.
    How about it K Filers?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Vote Brodkin, Mendoza, Murase.

    Kim-Shree Maufas has proven again and again a lack of judgement and ethics. Everyone seems to excuse her - for what reason? Does she get to live by a different set of values than the rest of us?

    It started with charging personal expenses (car repair, shoes, etc.) on a district credit card. That alone was a red flag. Then she only pays it back - what 18 months?- after the fact AFTER it was exposed by the Chronicle. Again, apologists say they are 'picking on her'.

    Maufas said she 'didn't know' the rules - yet Mark Sanchez GAVE them the rules when he was Boe president and the card was issued. But that memo seems to have been lost - and no one will fess up to the fact that Kim-Shree alone is using SFUSD credit cards as her personal bank account when she doesn't have the cash.

    This is not someone who can prove to the public that they are a responsible steward of public dollars - on a small or a large scale.

    She's a flake - plain and simple.

    Fortunately, we have more GOOD choices for the 3 seats this year than in the past. Pick anyone but Maufas.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Here is a list of endorsers for Maufas.

    SAN FRANCISCO DEMOCRATIC PARTY! (The SF Democratic County Central Committee)

    UNITED EDUCATORS OF SAN FRANCISCO!
    (The ONLY 2010 Board of Education Candidate to receive Early Endorsement)

    THE HARVEY MILK LGBT DEMOCRATIC CLUB

    SAN FRANCISCO LABOR COUNCIL

    SF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION & TRADES COUNCIL

    SF PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTING #38

    SF FIREFIGHTERS IAFF #798

    SF TENANTS UNION

    SEIU #1021

    African American Democratic Club (AADC)

    San Francisco Women's Political Committee (SFWPC)

    San Francisco Young Democrats

    San Francisco for Democracy (SF4D)

    The San Francisco League of Conservation Voters

    Central City Democratic Club (CCDC)

    Richmond Democratic Club (RDC)

    The San Francisco Green Party

    Civic Leaders:

    Mark Leno; CA State Senator District 3

    Leland Yee; Ca State Senator District 8

    Tom Ammiano; CA Assembly District 13

    Aaron Peskin; Chair, Democratic County Central Committee

    David Campos: San Francisco Board of Supervisors (D9)

    Sophie Maxwell; San Francisco Board of Supervisors (D10)

    Bevan Dufty; San Francisco Board of Supervisors (D8)

    Chris Daly; San Francisco Board of Supervisors (D6)

    Ross Mirkarimi; San Francisco Board of Supervisors (D5)

    Eric Mar; San Francisco Board of Supervisors (D1)

    John Avalos: San Francisco Board of Supervisors (D11)

    Mike Hennessey; San Francisco Sheriff

    Sandra Lee Fewer; Commissioner, San Francisco Board of Education

    Norman Yee; Commissioner, San Francisco Board of Education

    Community Leaders:

    Dr. Kathy Emery; Co-Founder, S.F. Freedom School*

    Ian Kim; Human Rights Advocate

    Jazzie Collins; LGBT, Housing & Human RIghts Advocate

    Toye Moses; Former President, African-American Democratic Club

    Willie B. Kennedy; Former San Francisco Supervisor

    Doris Ward; Former San Francisco Assessor/Recorder

    Mari Villaluna; Former Youth Commissioner*

    Cassandra James; Former Youth Commissioner*

    Derek Toliver, Former Executive Directors of Young Community Developers*

    Sophie Hahn, Emerge Class of 2006 Attorney

    Martha Ehrenfeld, Emerge Class of 2006, Former SFUSD Teacher/Self-employed

    Maggi Rubenstein, LGBT & Women's Rights Advocate

    Randall Knox; Attorney at Law

    Tami Bryant; Parent and SEIU 1021 member

    John Steven Calder; Parent & Former Member Civil Grand Jury*

    Karling Aguilera-Fort, SFUSD Principal at Leonard R. Flynn*

    Bradley Reeves; Former Paraprofessional & Vice-President, United Educators of San Francisco*

    Daniel McLaughlin; Former Executive Director of Envision Schools

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sometimes we forget that most voters know little about the schools or its politics. In a union town like SF, there is a lot of party line voting and Maufas is the party line candidate. Don't expect that she will readily lose just because of some limited bad press.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 10:35
    I think we agree that Maufas needs to lose. I disagree that your slate has the best chance of defeating Maufas. According to the Reset San Francisco poll, the leading vote getters were Mendoza and Brodkin, followed by Maufas, Hoehn, Murase, and Wolfe.

    Maufas comming in at third place is still Maufas winning a seat on the Board. And you and me losing. I urge you to vote for Hoehn and Murase to squeeze out Maufas at third place. Give your third vote to Brodkin or Mendoza.

    Anybody but Maufas:
    Hoehn, Murase, and
    Brodkin or Mendoza
    Caution: Vote for only three--four votes will invalidate your voting for the Board of Ed.)

    ReplyDelete
  30. The biggest thing to hit SFUSD has been the superintendent zones. This has been a major expansion of the central office with at least 2 dozen new highly paid employees including 7 new executive directors that each get $150,000 a piece - while schools go without. The Board members have said nothing about this in the media because they know it doesn't look good. But they are all willing to go right along.

    All these happenings go unreported here or in the Chron and are under the radar for a reason - because cutting classroom money while increasing management is unpopular. But not a word from Mendoza or anyone else. They are all for this new costly management structure.


    What has Mendoza done to warrant another term? She has sat back idly while Garcia has fumbled through the initial strategic plan called the Balanced Scorecard and into his new Balanced Scorecard 2.0. Few people know or care about this plan. I doubt anybody on this blog can tell me what it is or how it has helped the students of SFUSD, and that despite a cost of millions of dollars for training and salaries. Even the CDE busted Garcia and Co. for failing to comply with the law regarding school planning. In effect they cut out the parents and the communities and hod their operations from view. All kept hushed up and hence the euphemistic BSC 2.0.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Tonight is the final school board candidate forum, starting at 6:30 p.m. at Lincoln High School (20th Ave. at Quintara). KALW (91.7 FM) will be recording the forum and expects to broadcast it tomorrow night starting at 7:30 p.m. (assuming the sound quality is good).

    Eight of the 11 candidates on the ballot will be present (Bill Barnes, Tom Chan and Kim-Shree Maufas have declined).

    ReplyDelete
  32. want to know but can't make tonight's forumOctober 27, 2010 at 11:30 AM

    Can someone please, please report back on where the BOE candidates stand on the SAS, particularly whether or not they support MS feeder schools? Any other specific stands (besides the usual platitudes they have on their web sites) would also be useful to know. Thanks very much in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  33. All you guys and gals voting for Wolfe, Chan, Barnes, Khalif, Dajani, or Starchild, please help squeeze out Maufas. Maufas is not afraid of votes for Wolfe to Starchild. She is afraid of votes for Hoehn and Murase, most of all, and to a limited extent for Mendoza and Brodkin, who are probably going to be the top two vote getters anyway. Third place is just fine for her. Squeeze out Maufas by voting:

    1. Hoehn
    2. Murase and
    3. flip a coin for Mendoza or Brodkin

    Make your vote count. Turn your back to Maufas. Vote her out.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The problem isn't Maufas per se, although I would never vote for her. The problem is Carlos Garcia and his utterly corrupt regime.

    The Maufas credit card debacle and the BOE theft is a human interest story, but it is chump change.

    Garcia has once again restructured his administration at great expense to the students by hiring dozens of highly paid downtown administrators for his newest hair brained scheme - the superintendent's zone.

    Did you know that not one of the seven new executive directors for these zones has any previous experience in SFUSD? Every single one was brought in. That means they need to train just to get up and running. They cost the district millions.

    Superintendent Garcia raised K class sizes by 10% last school year just to save one million dollars. Yet he can find the cash to hire all these new central office staffers?

    That's why I say it isn't specifically about Maufas. She's just more of the same. It is about ALL the current Board members.

    For example, take Rachel Norton. She's smart and seems to have some sense of fiscal responsibility. Where is her voice in this issue of expanding Board expenses? This is her turf. It is on her watch. When classroom allocations are taking unprecedented cuts, it is just plain stupid to increase the Board's budget in such a fiscally charged atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Don't know who the other directors are, but isn't Patricia Gray the director of one of the zones? She is the veteran principal of Balboa HS who is credited with turning the school from a gang-ridden reject to a star that's attracting applicants from private K-8s as well as SFUSD. Where did you get that information, Don? Who are the others?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Don, who are all of these new hires you are talking about? Can you name them?

    ReplyDelete
  37. There are now 7 area teams. 2 are called Superintendent Zones, Mission and Bayview. Each of the 7 has a newly added executive director position between the Assistant Superintendent and the principals within the zone or area.

    The Mission Zone is headed by Ass. Supe. Patricia Grey. The Executive Director is Aileen Murphy.The Bayview Zone is headed by Guadalupe Guerrero and the ED is Esther Adames.

    There are 3 area zones for elementary run by Ass. Supes Margaret Chiu, Nurjehan Khalique and Veronica Chavez and their respective EDs are Brent Stephens, Helen Ying and Matt Wayne.

    The MS team is run by Jeannie Ponand her EC Baje Thiara and the HS team is Janet Schultze and 2 ECs, Stephen Rochelle and Mary Richards.

    I have been told that only Mary Richards is from our district. I know for sure that almost all of them are from outside.

    What is the point though? Let's put aside the question of the value of these positions and the restructuring for now. These new offices have cost millions with new support staff as well. This is a major new hiring initiative at a time of tremendous turmoil. Why was this rollout so secretive? The answer is obvious.

    Also, I know that principals are not happy about having another layer of bureaucracy added while they don't have staff for basic services.

    Helen Ying was head of the Bay Area writer's project. Good person from what I understand. But is this really the time to top load administration?

    ReplyDelete
  38. I'm reading the District's high- cost summer retreat literature called 'Equity and Rigor" from the Administrator Leadership Institute held on July 28,29 and 30.

    There is so much rich stuff in this that I have to not eat while reading so I don't choke on it. I ask myself - how does any of this stuff do one thing to help our students? It epitomizes the insular, out-of-touch character of so much government nowadays.

    For example, on p.12 is say - "We believe every student who enrolls in our schools will graduate from high school both college and career-path ready and equipped with the skills, capacities, and dispositions necessary for 21st century success."

    Oh really? Mr. Garcia might want to look at the data. We have large demographics that are illiterate or close to it. This kind of kumbaya mentality is just the feel good stuff that Mr. Garcia should be talking about with his therapist, not the central policy initiative of a school district. Their fishbowls and roundtables might be "rich and affirming" to them, but what has the central office done to change one thing in the classroom besides cut staff? We need to address illiteracy. The administration is not about teachers, students, pedagogy and programs. Read it.

    Re: BSC - The euphemistically titled Balanced Scorecard 2.0 is not based upon the success of the first BSC. It is a reworking, and a costly one at that, designed to fix the failed first BSC which was an utter failure. This was the cornerstone of his administration and few know what is was, how it went wrong or how badly conceived were the first and second versions. It has nothing to do with teaching kids.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Aileen Murphy was previously Principal at Marina MS; before that she was Principal at Wallenberg and before that, AP at Balboa. She has been in the SFUSD for years.

    How many top level positions has Garcia eliminated? I heard that he virtually gutted the formerly top heavy Academic and Professional Development department.

    ReplyDelete
  40. 12:23

    Academics and Professional Dev - that's the department under free-spending Francisca (junket) Sanchez that got 13 new employees just the summer before last.

    I don't know about any cuts there. But even if there were some it is an old trick. Build up the cost base for administration in advance of the cutbacks. Then you end up back where you started after the hatchet comes down.

    Re: Executive Directors - My understanding is that the great majority of them are out of district. This is just to say that hiring people from outside is not good for short term results given the time necessary to train in the Balanced Scorecard.

    Of all the things to cut, Academics wouldn't be my first choice - everything department being equal in value. Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Just for the record, your information is wrong, Don -- which means you need to not trust that informant anymore, by the way, period. Not reliable. Don't believe. Fool me twice shame on me.

    A number of those people are veterans whose names are well known to me and others. Based on the fact that that information was false, I wouldn't trust that the names I don't know AREN'T veterans as well. I know this is a minor side issue, but if you want to be credible (and you deserve to be, because you're usually quite well informed) you have to stop repeating inaccurate information.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Aaaand . . . back to the Board members. Is there anyone on this blog still undecided? KALW has broadcast last night's candidate forum (skipped by Kim Shree Maufas, Omar Khalif and a few other candidates):

    http://a4.g.akamai.net/7/4/27043/v0001/kalw.download.akamai.com/27043/KALW/BOE%20FORUM%20FINAL.mp3

    ReplyDelete
  43. and 8:19 a.m. is right. There are a few simple ways to make sure Maufas doesn't win.

    1)Don't bullet vote, even if there is one candidate you want to win more than others.

    2)Vote for Murase AND Hoehn and then either Brodkin or Mendoza, whichever candidate you like better.
    Kim-Shree Maufas still has a good chance, so this strategy is important if you think this woman should be voted off the BOE.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I'll take that as a compliment coming from a journo like yourself. But I think you are mistaken. I am talking about the EDs not the Ass. Supes, although a couple of those a pretty new too. 5 of the 7 are from out of the district according to their bios. Many principals were not happy to have newbies as their bosses.

    But as you said that isn't really the main point. Why is the district adding on so many new highly paid top administrators and support staffers during a fiscal emergency?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Don, of the people you list, these folks have been with SFUSD for years (the others I don't know)

    . Patricia Grey.
    Margaret Chiu
    Veronica Chavez a
    Jeannie Ponand
    Janet Schultze
    Mary Richards.


    You say:
    I have been told that only Mary Richards is from our district. I know for sure that almost all of them are from outside.

    Frankly, with the exception of Patricia Gray and Janet Schultze, it'd GREAT if we had people outside of SFUSD in those positions! I don't know where you get the idea that only from within is so great.

    Although, as one middle school principal told me: "The Orcs are regrouping" - meaning I think he thinks too many of the SFUSD middle management are taking control and moving away from what he believes is the good vision brought in by Carlos Garcia.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 9:58 here again..

    I agree with you Don, about Francesca Sanchez - I understood that she grew her department a great deal the year before last - yet not sure what there is to show for it.

    Along with Maufas, this woman has terrible judgment (but unlike Maufas, gets paid well from SFUSD.)

    ReplyDelete
  47. It is true that I was not clear in my initial post about this new executive director layer of management. I was referring to these new positions for each area and zone as outsiders. I should have been more clear.

    Someone asks what is the big deal that they are from outside? It isn't that big a deal, but it is true that SFUSD has a very particular way of doing things. Millions have been spent on Balanced Scorecard training for central office staff. None of the new people are recipients of this training but now they are supposed to oversee those that have been trained?

    I think this is a tacit a acknowledgment of the worthlessness of the BSC.

    On another note, has anyone ever looked over the directory and noticed how many people with 'lead, supervisor of director' in front of their listing have names of Hispanic origin? It seems at of all proportion. And equity is all about proportionality, right? Just an observation, but one that is well understood among the ranks.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You heard that you can listen to last night's candidate forum at KALW's website in podcast form.

    ReplyDelete
  49. http://www.kalw.org/

    I checked it out. You can listen to the forum at the url above.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Nothing is for sure in this BOE race. Vote Brodkin, Mendoza, and Murase as the best chance to keep Kim Shree off and to elect 3 women who will perform their duties responsibly.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thanks don for clearly that up. I was wondering myself b/c I recognized many of the names of the assistant superintendents. I only recognized one name from among the executive directors.

    So what do the directors do? What was the purpose behind restructuring the administration and creating this position?

    I have worked in a few districts. Never before have I seen a structure like this with another employee between the principal and her boss. Does anyone have the job definition for these positions?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Here is another example of Garcia's and the BOE's contempt for the law, whether it be the ED Code, the Public Records Act or their own resolutions.

    Read this from the Assignment redesign resolution:

    "Any revisions to this student assignment policy requiring Board approval will be approved at
    least six months before SFUSD begins accepting applications for any given year. For example, if SFUSD
    begins accepting applications in November, any revisions to this student assignment policy would have to
    be approved by April."

    The middle school policy was delayed just a few weeks ago and yet the deadline to enroll for Round 1 end Jan 8. They changed their policy in violation of their own policy. What about the people with a 5th grader who decided to change residences after the policy was first passed in March only to find out that the new residency will be of no consequence with the MS delay?

    ReplyDelete
  53. I could imagine how ticked one might be if they actually moved based upon the new policy adopted in March. What if you spent 10 or 15K to move only to find out that your new residence does you no good in the school assignment process. Bummer.

    ReplyDelete
  54. That's incredible. Ppage 13 of the policy, available at the enrollment section on the SFUSD portal.

    Are people going to be suing the district? I haven't heard of that, but seems to be a slam dunk.

    Don you picked up on something big. Somehow I can't believe it is true. Maybe they revised that time requirement or perhaps they have another perspective on its application? I don't know. But how come we haven't heard about this before? Slipped through the radar?

    ReplyDelete
  55. My family recently relocated to the Sunset from the Western Addition. I won't say that we made the move only to be near a better school, but that was a part of our thinking. It came as a shock when we heard that the assignment system was postponed. Our child will not be off to 6th grade until the year after next so we were not directly affected by the decision. Who knows what they will end up deciding?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hmmm. Very very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  57. A lazy man wants to know what the candidates have to say concerning the middle school feeders. I'm guessing they didn't want to touch it. Update anyone?

    With respect to the timing of the postponement I would have to say that the delay is a good thing. They really didn't think it through. So all in all, better to bend the 6 month rule someone mentioned earlier than to hurt kids who might be adversely impacted by an ill-conceived feeder plan.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "What about the people with a 5th grader who decided to change residences after the policy was first passed in March only to find out that the new residency will be of no consequence with the MS delay?"

    Huh? The feeder pattern for middle school was based on what elementary school your child went to,not your address. Moving would not make any difference in that assignment.

    ReplyDelete
  59. We are doing the best we can. The school we would feed into was not acceptable. There is no sibling and we aren't in CTIP1. The last preference, #4, was the neighborhood area.

    ReplyDelete
  60. 6:32

    lazy is right!

    go to the candidates' websites and find out

    ReplyDelete
  61. No need to be rude. I'm not looking for canned responses and election advertising. I want to know how the candidate responds extemporaneously to important questions. I could not go to the forums because I have 2 toddlers no husband and no childcare.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Even Starchild did not touch the middle school feeder issue at the most recent forum. He did not give a simple answer of: No, I oppose the feeder plan.

    On SF K Files, however, Starchild has taken a position against feeder patterns. He is willing to disagree with the Superintendent on school assignment, and might be the only one.

    Khalif cites support from Student First, so there should be some basic disagreement over the new SAS, but Khalif has remained fuzzy about the whole subject. Except for Starchild, they are all fuzzy about the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "Why do people assume Maufas is going to receive votes?!"

    She is endorsed by the teacher's union, aft 2121.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Correction, she was endorsed by less than 30 people at a meeting who claim to be telling us all who teachers picked. No teacher I know is voting for her.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Any candidate that gets the endorsement of the teacher's union and the Democratic Party is going to get a lot of votes. Not all but many people in this city of young single people know little or nothing about school issues. They will vote the party line. The Guardian endorsed Maufas.

    Public school teachers make up a very small group of voters. On the other hand, their union dues, whether or not by agreement of the majority of teachers, will have a much larger impact on Maufas' ability to get reelected.

    If reelected Maufas will pay back the teachers with her continued support. Any outrage will dry up. Anyway, I'm not so sure teacher's are all that outraged. The criticism of UESF by teachers is just cheap talk. Let's see some pushback by outraged teachers.

    ReplyDelete
  66. 'Correction, she was endorsed by less than 30 people at a meeting who claim to be telling us all who teachers picked. No teacher I know is voting for her.'

    If only thirty people vote in any election, they then become the king makers.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Did you see the Examiner ad on page 7 of today's the Nov. 2nd issue?

    Here's what it says on bold print:

    "SF Teacher's Say VOTE for the 3 M's.

    Muafas, Mendoza, Murase"

    What else is there to say?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Did they really spell Maufas' name wrong, in the ad? Or was that you?

    ReplyDelete