Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Small Schools Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board amends Small Schools by Design timeline and authorizes limited waivers to speed implementation
Summary
The board revised the Small Schools by Design implementation timeline, authorized a temporary mechanism for limited, nonmaterial waivers (president and vice president, with superintendent identification, until Sept. 1), and instructed staff to post the RFP and provide the rubric to the board.
The Board of Education voted to revise the timeline for selecting Small Schools by Design sites and to permit limited waivers of nonmaterial provisions of board policy P6.400 to facilitate implementation. The amended language narrowly authorizes the president and vice president, by consensus and only when the superintendent identifies the need for effective implementation, to waive nonmaterial provisions through Sept. 1, 2007.
The resolution was introduced against a backdrop of heavy public engagement. Task force members and community advocates told the board they supported the policy but urged close attention to the selection committees composition and the RFP rubric. Speakers included Louis Cohen of the Coalition of Essential Schools, task-force representatives and members of the small-schools campaign who stressed community ownership of the policy.
United Educators of San Francisco (UESF) president Dennis Kelly cautioned the board about delegating policy waivers to two members and urged caution: "Don't settle for a simple president-vice president consensus in order to make exceptions to any portion of it," he said.
Board members narrowed the delegation by adding limiting language (nonmaterial matters, superintendent-identified need and an end date of Sept. 1) and approved the amended resolution. Staff agreed to provide an electronic copy of the RFP and the rubric to the board and to continue consultations with task-force members about committee composition and oversight.
Board and staff noted budget and enrollment implications for opening a new school mid-cycle, including possible reallocation of staff and the need to preserve budget neutrality if a new site enrolls students after budgets are set.
