Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco

Kim noted the need to clarify the difference between a monitoring and regular business agenda in a future discussion. She then moved to item I, noting responses to agenda questions were available on BoardDocs, and officially adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.

Alexander then asked about missing committee appointments, which Huling said were omitted since this was a monitoring agenda.

Huling noted Kim’s recusal due to her SFUSD contracting to avoid conflict. The superintendent reported no changes. The board approved the consent calendar 6–0, with Kim recused.

Kim thanked district staff—Jess, Devin, Dr. Su, and others—for helping operationalize the committee. Alexander noted positive pre-meetings and said the first session would be held around a shared table to promote collaboration. Kim then exited for the consent-calendar item due to a standing recusal.

Kim launched the ad hoc committee on progress monitoring, chaired by Alexander with Huling and Ray. Alexander explained the committee’s goal—to assess and improve how progress is tracked, focusing on both process and culture. Four meetings are planned starting Nov 6.

Ray and Gupta agreed that enrollment policy and school reorganization should be prioritized over facilities. Kim and Alexander clarified that while excess capacity must be addressed, it doesn’t imply closures—just starting structured discussions on optimizing schools and programs.

Commissioners agreed that enrollment policy and school reorganization are the top priorities, with facilities important but secondary. Kim emphasized focusing on major strategic decisions, while Gupta and Ray supported limiting scope to the most impactful areas.

Commissioners clarified distinctions between action and consent items. Kim confirmed consent items are still board actions but streamlined. Curriculum selection falls under superintendent-led decisions; purchases require board approval. Staffing models are presented but not voted on.

Ray sought clarification on the “exhaustive list” wording and how management decisions are categorized. Kim explained that only major initiatives are exhaustive, while ongoing examples are illustrative. Consent items are still board actions but grouped to save time for strategy decisions.

Alexander said staffing links to budget and progress monitoring; the board should ensure budgets align with goals and reject those that don’t. He emphasized enrollment reform, school size, and community engagement must align as part of a single, transparent strategy.

Fisher suggested adding staffing as a major decision due to its link with goals and budget. Kim clarified the board’s role is policy-level, not operational. Staffing allocation falls under budget decisions, not direct board approval.

Kim explained facilities include bond strategy, land use, and the master plan. Huling added that facilities, reorganization, and enrollment should be planned together. Discussion focused on aligning priorities, adding staffing as a possible major board decision.

Kim and Huling led a discussion to define major board decisions like facilities, school reorganization, and enrollment policy. Alexander asked about “facilities,” and Kim clarified it includes bond investments, land use, and the facility master plan.

Commissioner Ray emphasized addressing chronic absenteeism to meet district goals and asked if the same schools were represented across literacy and math data. Staff clarified that lettered schools matched within each report but differed between subjects due to varying grade spans.

Alexander urged developing goal-specific district strategies and aligning departments like HR, budget, and curriculum to achieve them. Commissioners stressed tying resource allocation—such as coaching and staffing—to school needs, with clear coordination and accountability.

The board voted 7–0 to extend the meeting past 10 p.m. Commissioner Alexander noted the ad hoc committee supports but can’t replace strategy creation. He urged the superintendent to lead cross-department alignment on clear, goal-based strategies.

Commissioners urged focusing coaching and investments on schools with lower growth rather than evenly distributing resources. Leaders agreed equity-based coaching and addressing attendance, social-emotional needs, and student crises are key to improving outcomes

Commissioners urged focusing coaching and investments on schools with lower growth rather than evenly distributing resources. Leaders agreed equity-based coaching and addressing attendance, social-emotional needs, and student crises are key to improving outcomes.

K–5 schools have instructional coaches; middle schools had temporary math coaches due to funding limits. Kim urged defining and protecting key instructional investments like coaching and MTSS. The superintendent agreed on aligning funding with goals.

Leaders noted K–5 and K–8 schools have instructional coaches; middle schools had one-year math coaches due to funding limits. Principals could swap roles but must still ensure math coaching. Kim urged defining core instructional investments to protect in budgets.

Leaders clarified that PK–5 instructional coaches support both one-on-one and grade-level collaboration, using STAR data to target standards and refine lessons. They stressed shifting from standard-based planning to internalizing high-quality instructional materials.

Leaders said strengthening K–5 instruction needs structured collaboration time with skilled facilitators and focused coaching. They’ll use STAR data to target support and deepen teacher–coach cycles linking lesson internalization, feedback, and data-driven improvement.

Commissioner Fisher noted teachers find the ELA block too short for full implementation. Staff cited pacing, teacher learning curves, and limited decodable texts, saying data prompted shifts in PD, pacing guidance, and new resource supplements.

Staff explained that low student practice scores stem from pacing issues, new curriculum use, and teacher confidence. Training now emphasizes “internalization” of lessons and structured learning walks to boost student practice and classroom engagement.

Missed TNTP visits stemmed from schedule gaps or school events. Staff aim to build consistency with standards-based “look-fors” and more independent practice to strengthen literacy skills through targeted training and classroom support.

SFUSD plans to norm principals for consistent internal walkthroughs, reducing contractor dependence and cost. Missed visits stemmed from absent or mismatched class schedules.

Commissioners discussed limits of TNTP’s small classroom sample. Staff said TNTP ensures rating reliability but can’t observe all schools.

School G’s low literacy results stemmed from new leadership and mostly new staff. Only two math classes were observed, limiting data reliability. Added supports are planned, and student/family input is gathered through annual climate and SEL surveys.

Implementation gaps arose from leadership turnover and missing PD plans. Schools lacking returning principals or coaches showed weaker curriculum use; targeted coaching, complete PD plans, and stronger instructional support are now priorities.

Schools with stable staffing, clear PD plans, and structured schedules saw stronger use of curriculum and better instruction outcomes.