board communications date: january 15, 2016christina pritchett, president, area 3 jay hansen, vice...

José L. Banda, Superintendent

5735 – 47th Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95824

(916) 643-9314

Board of Education

Christina Pritchett, President, Area 3

Jay Hansen, Vice President, Area 1

Jessie Ryan, 2nd Vice President, Area 7 Ellen Cochrane, Area 2

Gustavo Arroyo, Area 4

Diana Rodriguez, Area 5 Darrel Woo, Area 6

Elizabeth Barry, Student Board Member

BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Date: January 15, 2016

SUPERINTENDENT – JOSÉ L. BANDA

BC NO. FROM REGARDING

S-106 José Banda Highlights of Calendar for the Week of January 18

S-107 José Banda School Services of California’s Sacramento Weekly Update

CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICER – DR. IRIS TAYLOR, INTERIM


CAO-43 Iris Taylor School Services of California Staff to Visit SCUSD Special

Education Preschool Programs

CHIEF COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER – GABE ROSS


CCO-258 Gabe Ross MLK Day of Service

CCO-259 Gabe Ross Stanford Research on Public Waldorf Schools

CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER – DR. AL ROGERS


CSO-22 Melody Hartman-Palmero 2014-2015 Physical Fitness Test Results

Board Communication Form for 2015-16

SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD COMMUNICATION

BC NO: S-106

CONFIDENTIAL ITEM - (Check a Box) No: ☒ Yes: ☐ Date: 1/15/2016

Approved by: José L. Banda, Superintendent

To the Members of the Board of Education

Prepared by: José L. Banda, Superintendent

Contact Email:

[email protected]

Subject: Highlights of Calendar for the Week of January 18

Monday, January 18

Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday

Welcoming Kaiser Permanente Volunteers

for the MLK Jr. Day of Service at Rosa

Parks K-8

Participating in the MLK365 March for the

Dream

Tuesday, January 19

Attending Superintendents’ Executive

Leadership Forum (SELF) – Session III

Wednesday, January 20

Attending Principals’ Meeting

1:1 Meetings with Cabinet Members

Operations Cabinet Meeting

Meeting with Members of Black Parallel

School Board

Thursday, January 21

Board Meeting Day

Friday, January 22 – Saturday, January 23

Attending Council of Great City Schools

Executive Committee Meeting



BC NO: S-107




Prepared by: José L. Banda, Superintendent

Contact Email:

[email protected]

Subject: School Services of California’s Sacramento Weekly Update

Attached is the weekly update from School Services of California for your review.

DATE: January 14, 2016

TO: Jose Banda

Superintendent

AT: Sacramento City Unified School District

FROM: Your SSC Legislative Team

RE: SSC’s Sacramento Weekly Update

Governor Jerry Brown released his 2016-17 State Budget proposal last week

that, once again, provides good news regarding additional funding for

California’s schools. Governor Brown’s proposal continues his commitment

to fully implement the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and he

proposed significant one-time discretionary funding to schools. Driven the

strong growth in Proposition 98, $2.8 billion is proposed for LCFF Gap

closure and $1.2 billion is proposed in one time funding. Governor Brown

also proposes to revamp three state early childhood education programs (state

Preschool, Transitional Kindergarten and Preschool Quality Rating) into a

single, flexible block grant using existing funds. The Department of Finance

notes the details of the proposal are expected to be worked out using a

stakeholder group with the goal of having a fleshed out proposal at the May

Revision.

The release of Governor Brown’s State Budget is the start of the annual

budget dance that will conclude, hopefully, by the June 30, 2016, state

constitutional deadline for the Legislature to pass a State Budget. It is during

this time that the Legislature will hold budget hearings and will weigh in with

its own priorities that will prompt negotiations between the two branches of

government and other outside special interest groups.

On January 11, 2016, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the

Legislature’s nonpartisan fiscal advisor, released its initial review of Governor

Brown’s budget proposal and was generally complimentary of Governor

Brown’s education proposals. However, issued a warning to the Legislature

that the state may be reaching the peak of the long economic expansion and to

be conservative in funding appropriations by allocating out more one-time,

rather than ongoing funds. This is the first of several reports that will be

issued by the LAO this year, with the release of an in-depth analysis of

Governor Brown’s proposed State Budget occurring in the next several weeks.

Another major issue that surfaced this week was the fate of two initiatives to

extend Proposition 30 taxes. As previously reported, the hybrid California

Teachers’ Association (CTA)-California Hospital Association proposal

excluded revenues generated under the Proposition from the calculation for

the deposits in the Proposition 2 Rainy Day Fund, beginning in 2019. In

Governor

http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/3305/fiscal-outlook-111815.pdf

http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/3305/fiscal-outlook-111815.pdf

School Services of California, Inc. January 14, 2016

Sacramento Update Page 2

Brown’s press conference on the State Budget he pointedly noted that he believed the proposed initiative

contained a “fatal flaw” by excluding the revenues from the Rainy Day Fund. The initiative proponents

took that message to heart and on January 12, the last day the initiative could be amended, submitted an

amended version of their initiative that does not include the provision to exclude the revenues generated by

the initiative from the Rainy Day Fund.

An additional, modest change from the original initiative, the Proposition would set aside 50% (originally

45%) of the revenues available after funding the minimum guarantee and a workload budget (the minimum

State General Fund budget that accounts for growth, cost-of-living adjustments, and other statutorily

required expenditures or adjustments) for the California Department of Health Care Services, to provide

critical, emergency, acute, and preventative health services to children and their families through hospitals

and

Medi-Cal providers. This allocation would be capped at $2 billion annually.

In other news this week, on Monday, January 11, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States heard

arguments in Friedrichs v. CTA, which challenges mandatory union fees paid by nonmembers. This

landmark case is asking the court to overturn the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision,

which ruled that the First Amendment permitted the government to condition a person’s employment in the

public sector on that person’s paying fees to a union. A decision on this issue is expected to be published in

June, 2016.

Nancy LaCasse Robert Miyashiro



Note: The new Assembly Speaker’s first challenge will be to navigate Governor Brown’s early childhood

education budget proposal.

Dan Walters: Assembly’s Next Boss Faces Test from Governor

By Dan Walters

Sacramento Bee

January 12, 2016

Anthony Rendon, who was elected the next speaker of the state Assembly this week, made it clear in

advance that expanding pre-kindergarten programs would be his highest priority.

Rendon headed an organization, Plaza de la Raza Child Development Services, that prepared children for

kindergarten, before being elected to the Assembly in 2012.

“They made the local schools better. They made parents more involved in their communities and more

vigilant,” Rendon told The Sacramento Bee in a profile after being designated as the next speaker.

“Staving off health maladies that often manifest themselves later in a child’s growth or life, you see how

these things tend to be caught early in these types of programs,” he continued. “It’s something that has

benefits way beyond in-classroom benefits.”

Last Thursday, just four days before the speakership vote, Gov. Jerry Brown indirectly rejected the pleas of

Rendon, other Democratic politicians, unions and child advocacy groups to expand early childhood

services.

He proposed a 2016-17 budget that provides no new financing for pre-K, but seeks to combine several

existing programs into a new block grant system that would allow local school districts to decide how the

money is to be used.

It’s similar in thrust to Brown’s approach to K-12 education, which has been to eliminate “categorical aids”

that target money for specific purposes and provide the money with few strings to local schools.

The new pre-K pot would total $1.6 billion, and each school district would receive at least as much money

as it is getting now.

The proposal’s biggest impact would be felt by the state’s “transitional kindergarten” program that

provides an extra year of schooling to children born between Sept. 2 and Dec. 2 each year regardless of

family incomes – a boon to affluent families by relieving them of providing care and schooling out of their

own pockets.

Under Brown’s proposal, school districts could devote the money to children of low-income families and

charge fees to those from more affluent families.

Brown’s plan also would give school districts power over funds that now go to nonprofit or private

organizations.



Rendon reiterated to reporters after his speakership election this week that early childhood education is

“very important to me,” signaling that he would make it a personal cause when he and other legislative

leaders negotiate a final version of the budget in June.

However, Brown’s disdain for new entitlement programs is well-established, and he wants to put an extra

$2 billion into the state’s rainy-day fund rather than expand the health, welfare and education commitments

fellow Democrats treasure.

The early childhood issue, therefore, will be a test of the mild-mannered Rendon’s political acumen and

resolve as Brown seemingly draws a line in the playground sandbox on restraining spending and preparing

the state for a recession he believes to be inevitable.

Note: The great unknown is whether the unions will get a deal to soften the blow if they lose this landmark

case.

Union Power Challenged by Fed-Up Teachers, Seen as Bold Move to Weaken Labor Rights

By Nan Austin

Modesto Bee

January 12, 2016

Arguments were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday over agency fees, what unions call fair-

share fees, that teachers must pay in California whether or not they choose to become union members.

As lawyers pressed their cases in Friedrichs v. the California Teachers Association, union members rallied

outside the court at 1 First St. Southeast in Washington, D.C. But those who watched the oral arguments

said the plaintiffs found sympathetic ears among conservatives on the bench.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 10 California teachers and Christian Educators Association International,

takes aim at union dues on free speech grounds. If the plaintiffs win, it would be a knife straight to the

heart of union financial stability, ending a 40-year state guarantee of universal payments to teachers unions

and putting all so-called agency shop arrangements at risk in 23 states.

“Just as state budget cuts threatened the solvency of districts and we pulled out the stops to preserve our

organizations, the unions will see this issue as an equivalent priority,” wrote Ron Bennett, CEO of School

Services of California Inc., in an editorial posted online Jan. 6.

The roughly 275,000 teachers in California school districts (most charter schools are not unionized)

typically pay around $1,000 a year in union dues, money they would have to choose to spend on

membership if the enrollment requirement ends. Nonmembers of CTA locals pay around $650, according

to an analysis of case materials provided by Education Week.

The Center for Individual Rights, a libertarian-leaning nonprofit, sought out disaffected teachers to file the

lawsuit after sensing the court was sympathetic to the cause, President Terry Pell said in a conference call



with media Jan. 7. Business organizations, conservative think tanks and 17 states, led by Michigan, have

written amicus briefs for the plaintiff.

Public safety sector unions, the California attorney general, the U.S. Department of Justice and other

powerful voices have lined up squarely behind CTA, which also held a conference call for reporters that

day.

No one has to join the union or pitch in for its political activities. But California teachers do have to pay a

fee to the union for its collective-bargaining expenses, even if they choose to not join.

“It’s a reasonable compromise approved by court,” said Lily Eskelsen García, a sixth-grade teacher.

Collective bargaining is a service, an advocacy that keeps class sizes in check, keeps nurses and counselor

loads within reason, saves recess, she said. “(Teacher) working conditions are about what students need.”

It also is about what teachers need, which can sometimes just be knowing a collective voice will stand up

for them. Tough meetings where she has to advocate for families with problems are where kindergarten

teacher Reagan Duncan said having a union makes all the difference.

“Because I have a strong union behind me and beside me, I feel free to walk into those meetings and

advocate without fear of being pulled aside after the meeting (by an administrator),” Duncan said. “I’m

glad for those rights and fearful of losing them.”

To pay nothing to protect those rights, when union bargainers and legal staff do the hard work for

everyone, is just wrong, argued Eric Heins for CTA. He compared it to four friends going out to lunch at a

cafe chosen with a 3-1 vote, but after the meal the loser refuses to pay because it was not the cafe he

wanted.

But the plaintiffs argue not all teachers get to vote on the cafe, that many see themselves more like

vegetarians having to ante up for a group meal at Arby’s.

While the lawyers tick off constitutional points, teachers within the lawsuit present a case for better

customer service, more transparency and not assuming three guys at the top who are counting down to

retirement speak for everyone.

Rebecca Friedrichs, a fourth-grade teacher in Anaheim, said she was active in her union but came to see the

union leadership as a clique that did what was best for itself, not what mattered to the membership.

The example she gave was that when recession-era cuts threatened layoffs, she and other teachers

campaigned hard to convince the union to put the bargaining priority on saving jobs, even if it meant

cutting salaries by 2 or 3 percent. Union leaders refused. She asked them to survey the members. No dice.

“Without exception, the union would not listen,” she said.



Note: The proponents are hoping to get Governor Brown’s support their efforts to put Proposition 30 tax

extension before the voters.

Tax Increase Backers Add Reserve, per Jerry Brown Demand

By David Siders

Sacramento Bee

January 12, 2016

Less than a week after Gov. Jerry Brown criticized a ballot measure to extend temporary tax increases for

containing the “fatal flaw” of circumventing California’s budget reserve requirements, proponents of the

initiative said Tuesday that they have amended the proposal to address his complaint.

Education groups and other activists proposing to extend taxes approved in 2012 re-wrote their initiative to

include deposits into a reserve account approved by voters in 2014.

Democratic strategist Gale Kaufman said in an email that her group made the changes “after listening to

Gov. Brown’s concerns last week.”

The Democratic governor, who championed the Proposition 30 tax measure in 2012 has said repeatedly

that higher taxes voters authorized that year should remain temporary. But when asked at a news

conference last week if there was any tax extension he could support, he demurred.

“I’ve already said more about ballot measures than I’ve ever said before,” he said.

Securing Brown’s support or, at a minimum, his neutrality on a tax measure is significant to proponents of

the effort. The fourth-term governor is not only relatively popular, but also holds about $24 million in his

campaign war chest.



BC NO: CAO-43




Prepared by: Iris Taylor, Interim Chief Academic Officer Contact Email:

[email protected]

Subject: School Services of California Staff to Visit SCUSD Special Education Preschool Programs

Nancy LaCasse, Associate Vice President of School Services of California, will visit SCUSD’s

Special Education Preschool programs on January 20. The purpose of the visit is to gain a deeper

understanding of the programs and to ascertain needs in order to support lobbying for increased state

funding and establishing a funding model for special education preschool programs.



BC NO: CCO-258




Prepared by: Gabe Ross, Chief Communications Officer Contact Email:

[email protected]

Subject: MLK Day of Service

Employees of Kaiser Permanente’s South Sacramento campus are organizing a Martin Luther King

Jr. Day of Service at Rosa Parks K-8 School from 8 a.m. to noon on Monday. They will be joined by

volunteers from SCUSD, Hands On Sacramento, City Year, Assemblyman Jim Cooper, City

Councilman Larry Carr, Board Member Diana Rodriguez and Superintendent Banda. Plans call for

painting basketball backboards, gardening and constructing planter boxes and benches.



BC NO: CCO-259




Prepared by: Gabe Ross, Chief Communications Officer Contact Email:

[email protected]

Subject: Stanford Research on Public Waldorf Schools

As anticipated in an October 16 Board Communication, the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy

in Education research’s report on Alice Birney Public Waldorf eK-8 praises the school as a

“powerful example of an alternative educational approach within a public system.” It should be

noted that the study also features A.M. Winn and George Washington Carver in a similarly positive

light.

Board members can access the full research report, titled “Growing a Waldorf-Inspired Approach in

a Public School District,” at www.edpolicy.stanford.edu/publications.

The report was written by Diane Friedlaender, Kyle Beckham, Xinhua Zheng and Linda Darling-

Hammond.

https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/scope-report-waldorf-inspired-school.pdf



BC NO: CSO-22




Prepared by: Melody Hartman-Palmero, Coordinator III, Assessment,

Research and Evaluation

Contact Email:

Melody-

[email protected]

Subject: 2014-2015 Physical Fitness Test Results

Summarized below are SCUSD’s spring 2015 Physical Fitness Test (PFT) results for grades 5, 7 and

9. An overall summary table of results by grade level with comparisons to previous year’s results is

also attached. Six fitness areas are assessed with results reported in three PFT categories: Healthy

Fitness Zone (HFZ), Needs Improvement Zone and Needs Improvement (NI)-Health Risk Zone.

Healthy Fitness Zone

• Grades 7 and 9 showed the largest improvements in flexibility, increasing the percent of

students scoring in the Health Fitness Zone by 6%.

• Fifth grade HFZ scores increased in aerobic capacity from 2014 by 1.4%.

Fitness Standards Met

• Fifty percent of 7th grade students met 5 of 6 fitness standards or above, representing a 1.3%

increase from 2014.

• While grades 5 and 9 did not show increases from the previous year, 50.5% of 9th grade

students met 5 of 6 fitness standards or above, followed by 37.2% of 5th grade students.

Please see the attached table for more information.

Students

Tested

% Meeting

6 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

5 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

4 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

3 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

2 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

1 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

0 of 6 fitness

standards

Students

Tested

% Meeting

6 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

5 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

4 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

3 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

2 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

1 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

0 of 6 fitness

standards

Students

Tested

% Meeting

6 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

5 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

4 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

3 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

2 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

1 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

0 of 6 fitness

standards

District 3,285 17.2 20.0 20.9 17.9 14.2 7.7 2.1 2,932 24.6 26.0 18.7 15.5 9.0 5.0 1.7 2,157 24.9 25.6 18.2 15.1 8.9 5.3 2.0

Elk Grove 4,812 30.4 24.9 19.0 12.6 8.4 4.1 0.7 4,849 40.8 27.4 16.5 9.9 3.8 1.4 0.2 4,682 45.9 28.5 12.6 8.2 3.0 1.4 0.3

Natomas 1,005 29.3 25.3 17.1 15.2 8.5 4.1 0.3 1,084 27.8 24.6 19.2 14.6 8.9 4.3 0.6 1,073 31.9 23.8 20.4 15.1 5.9 2.0 1.0

San Juan 3,269 25.2 24.9 19.1 14.9 9.5 5.0 1.3 3,249 30.6 24.8 17.5 13.5 8.7 3.7 1.3 3,344 40.6 25.4 16.8 10.5 4.2 2.1 0.4

Twin Rivers 2,043 19.6 21.0 20.9 15.3 14.4 7.0 1.9 1,060 21.7 19.5 22.9 15.4 11.8 6.4 2.3 1,436 26.5 24.6 19.9 14.1 9.2 4.6 1.0

Stockton 2,980 11.5 17.8 20.6 19.3 15.7 11.4 3.6 2,662 20.6 18.8 18.4 15.6 11.8 9.4 5.6 2,310 18.6 19.0 21.1 21.2 13.0 5.6 1.6

Fresno 5,462 14.1 19.1 21.3 20.0 14.8 8.2 2.5 4,886 20.8 19.1 20.3 17.4 13.1 7.9 1.4 4,153 23.5 19.1 21.8 16.2 11.3 6.0 2.1

Students

Tested

% Meeting

6 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

5 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

4 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

3 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

2 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

1 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

0 of 6 fitness

standards

Students

Tested

% Meeting

6 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

5 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

4 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

3 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

2 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

1 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

0 of 6 fitness

standards

Students

Tested

% Meeting

6 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

5 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

4 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

3 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

2 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

1 of 6 fitness

standards

% Meeting

0 of 6 fitness

standards

District 3,285 17.2 20.0 20.9 17.9 14.2 7.7 2.1 2,932 24.0 26.0 18.7 15.5 9.0 5.0 1.7 2,157 24.9 25.6 18.2 15.1 8.9 5.3 2.0

Long Beach 5,606 25.6 23.9 18.9 14.3 10.4 5.3 1.6 5,382 35.0 24.3 17.4 11.7 7.3 3.3 1.0 5,447 37.4 25.7 14.7 10.7 6.7 3.2 1.5

Los Angeles 43,788 20.1 20.7 20.5 17.2 13.3 6.7 1.6 36,643 22.1 21.5 19.4 17.3 12.4 5.8 1.5 38,943 28.3 21.2 20.3 14.7 9.1 4.5 1.8

Oakland 3,020 21.3 23.7 21.9 15.2 11.0 5.1 1.8 2,270 22.0 21.1 21.1 15.5 12.0 5.8 2.5 2,031 19.9 22.2 21.5 15.7 10.5 7.3 3.0

San Bernardino 3,931 23.2 21.6 18.1 18.0 12.0 6.3 0.7 3,566 17.4 19.0 22.6 19.8 14.0 5.9 1.4 3,233 23.7 20.0 24.1 15.0 9.2 5.2 2.8

San Diego 9,140 24.8 23.6 19.9 15.0 10.5 5.1 1.2 8,197 30.1 26.0 18.2 13.4 7.9 3.6 0.7 8,000 46.3 24.8 15.0 8.3 3.8 1.4 0.4

San Francisco 3,730 24.3 24.5 20.7 15.1 9.4 4.2 1.8 3,293 32.3 25.8 18.5 12.3 6.9 3.4 0.7 3,645 35.6 23.0 18.0 11.9 7.2 3.2 1.1

Sacramento County 18,068 25.8 23.6 19.5 14.6 10.2 5.1 1.2 16,299 33.2 25.3 17.7 12.4 7.1 3.4 0.9 15,800 37.0 25.5 16.9 11.7 5.6 2.6 0.8

State of California 455,897 26.4 23.1 19.0 14.7 10.3 5.2 1.3 439,476 32.5 23.5 17.9 13.4 8.3 3.6 0.9 441,730 37.6 23.5 17.4 11.7 6.3 2.7 0.9

Sacramento City Unified School District

2015 Physical Fitness (PFT) Results

District Comparison

7th Grade

Percent of Students by Physical Fitness Areas Met

9th Grade


7th Grade


9th Grade


Surrounding Districts

5th Grade


Similar Districts

5th Grade


board communications date: january 15, 2016christina pritchett, president, area 3 jay hansen, vice...

Documents