SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
 

Stay Connected

SHARE THIS

May 6, 2013 - Special Off-site

San Francisco Youth Commission
Minutes
Monday, May 6th, 2013
5:30pm-8:30pm
Ernest Ingold Boys and Girls Club - Gym
1950 Page Street
San Francisco, CA 94117

There will be public comment on each item.

Mia Shackelford, Chair
Nicholas Persky, Vice Chair, Paul Monge-Rodriguez, Co-Legislative Affairs Officer, Rachel Brodwin, Co-Legislative Affairs Officer, Christine Huynh, Communications & Outreach Officer
Sarah Armstrong, Angel Carrion, Brian Chu, Kyron Covington, Ramon Gomez, Alex Guzman-Ramos,
Lily Marshall-Fricker, Mia Tu Mutch, Vee Taumoepeau, Eric Wu, Ariel Yu


1. Call to Order and Roll Call


The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m.

Commissioners present: Persky, Armstrong, Brodwin, Carrion, Chu, Covington, Huynh, Marshall-Fricker, Monge-Rodriguez, Tu Mutch, Shackelford, Taumoepeau, Wu, Yu.

Commissioners absent: Guzman-Ramos, Gomez

There was quorum.

Commissioner Marshall-Fricker left at 8:02 p.m.

2. Approval of Agenda (Action Item)


Commissioner Carrion, seconded by Commissioner Chu, moved to approve the agenda for May 6, 2013. This motion was approved by acclamation.

There was no public comment.

3. Approval of Minutes (Action Item)


A. Tuesday, April 16, 2013
(Document A)

Commissioner Carrion, seconded by Commissioner Yu, moved to approve the minutes from April 16, 2013. This motion was approved by acclamation.

There was no public comment.

4. Presentations (Discussion Only)


A. Introduction and overview of Youth Commission
Presenter: Chairwoman Mia Shackelford

Chairwoman Shackelford provided and overview of the Youth Commission and its charge, as well as the upcoming budget and policy priorities presentation.

B. Overview of joint Youth Commission and Student Advisory Council’s Education committee priorities
Presenters: Commissioners Brian Chu, Rachel Brodwin, Ariel Yu and Student Advisory Council representatives Kristen Sinclair, Carmen Chan


Commissioner Chu introduced the Student Advisory Council and Youth Commission joint Education committee.

SAC representative Kristen Sinclair gave an overview of the committee’s work during this term.

Commissioner Yu spoke about the credit recovery joint resolution.

Commissioner Brodwin gave background on the establishment of A-G requirements. At the same time that graduation requirements went up, summer programs were cut. As a result, 45% of juniors are off-track to graduate in 2014.

SAC representative Chan gave a history on the proposed SFUSD budget supplemental proposed by Supervisor Kim.

There was no public comment.

C. Overview of SFUSD’s credit recovery options and update on evaluation and youth feedback on credit recovery options for students in Summer 2013
Presenter: Dr. Janet Schulze, Assistant Superintendent for High Schools, SFUSD


Commissioner Chu introduced Dr. Janet Schulze, Assistant Superintendent for High Schools. She reviewed the cohort graduation rates, i.e. how many ninth graders graduate four years later with their class. In the last two years, graduation rates have gone up overall and have gone up significantly among African American students and Latino students, with the quickest increase among African American students. Cohort graduation rates have gone up ten percent among special education students. Overall, the graduation rates are higher in San Francisco than the statewide averages.

Cohort graduation rates have increased the most at Burton, ISA, and Balboa. The goal with the new graduation requirements is to continue to have growth in graduation rates. Most of the off track students are missing a particular class, but are not behind on credits and are not behind by a full semester or more.

In October-December 2012, schools reached out to severely off track students for conferences. In January 2013, SFUSD began centralized and site specific evening school. In spring semester of 2013, school counselors met with students to plan for summer school.

1800 students are enrolled in credit recovery courses, in total. 277 students are enrolled in centralized evening schools. The district used city funds in the following ways: Sent 312K to 8 schools to replace 21st Century Fund Grants; 301K to supplement to credit recovery at all schools; 300K for central evening school; 300K to purchase three years of on line licenses; 187K for summer supplements, SAT prep classes, and Independence High School.

DCYF is funding summer schools for 9-11th graders. SFUSD funds summer school for seniors. Some of the big advances in graduation rates the school district has seen have come at sites that established a seven period day.

Dr. Schulze closed by asking the Youth Commission for support getting feedback, doing outreach and advocating for more credit recovery options. Dr. Schulze turned the floor over to Bill Sanderson to conclude the presentation. The district is reestablishing an office that focuses on extended learning. He underscored the importance of passing the Proposition H renewal to sustain these efforts. The district is updating the twenty year old student information system. The district hopes this will improve opportunities for student feedback, such as surveys to find out how students feel about credit recovery options. He invited feedback from Youth Commissioners and Student Advisory Council representatives in this process.

Commissioner Carrion asked a clarifying question about how total credits relate to “off-track” status.

Commission Huynh asked how multi-ethnic students are represented in the data. The presenters explained that whatever families put as a student’s ethnicity upon enrollment at the education placement center with the state is used for district reporting.

Commissioner Yu asked about credit recovery options for special education students. The presenters explained that the data is less reliable when speaking about the needs of special education students because we are working off individual education plans, and these students may not be on a cohort graduation track. The presenters invited youth commissioners to the upcoming principals’ meeting

Representative Chan asked about whether Cyber High will be provided in Summer. The presenters confirmed online options would be available through a few enrollment sites during Summer.

Commissioner Chu asked a clarifying question about how different ethnicity groups are experiencing improvements in credit recovery efforts. The presenters explained they would need to pull that data.

Commissioner Tu Mutch asked what the district is doing to address systematic inequalities that led to students getting off track, particularly for African American, Latino, and Pacific Islander youth. The presenters explained that there needs to be long term planning on this issue and the establishment of a department to expand these efforts. They also highlighted this is a Pre-K through 12th grade issue, not only high school. African American males are referred to special education disproportionately and this starts around fourth grade. This can compound issues where people are not challenged at grade level for multiple years in a row. Common core standardized curriculum is also necessary to intervene on inequalities.

Representative Sinclair asked about how students are served when they cannot learn certain subjects through online courses. What type of support is available for online learners to get extra tutoring? The presenters explained this was the logic for diversifying the type of credit recovery options offered. Even cyber high classes are supervised by a credentialed teacher in SFUSD.

Representative Chan asked whether ‘D’ grade students are allowed into credit recovery class slots when they are needed for students who earned an ‘F’ grade. The presenters recommended that if students who earned ‘D’s’ did not get a credit recovery slot, they should try other sites. Students who earned ‘F’s’ are given highest priority, but opportunities are being opened for students who earned ‘D’s’ as well..

With that, the chair thanked the presenters, as well as SAC coordinator, Judson Steele. The chair called a 3 minute recess at 6:53 for commissioners to call their parents regarding rides home.

D. Community Feedback

The meeting resumed at 7:02 p.m.

Mina Ching, member of the public, asked why students end up needing credit recovery. Is it unavailability of courses or that students have failed? What were the factors at Burton HS that improved student success rates? The presenters explained that the majority of students who get off track have failed a class and that a major factor for graduation success at Burton HS was the establishment of a seventh period in the day, so the district is exploring the possibility of expanding this option.

Patty Barahona, of Youth Leadership Institute, encouraged the YC and SAC to get involved in the evaluation process for credit recovery options.


There was no further public comment.

E. Overview of Initiative to Reform School Food in SFUSD and Feedback on Redesign of School Meal Plans
Presenters: Asha Mehta, Mark Elkin, Student Nutrition Services, SFUSD
(Documents B, C)


Asha Mehta explained that at the current moment, 55% of young people who qualify for free or reduced meals are using the program. The initiative would like to increase that to 80%. 20% of people who can pay for school food are buying school food, but the initiative would like to increase that to 50%. The initiative aims to improve the quality and diversity of food, as well as the student experience of getting food, such as wait time for food.

There are revenue issues at stake, because if we can increase participation the district can get federal rebates. The initiative is supported by a marketing firm that is looking at how to improve the user experience of food. The firm will work with the district to present recommendations to the Board of Education. There are several challenges involved in implementing these changes because of facility issues, i.e. schools not having kitchens.

At this point, the presenter asked for feedback from commissioners about what they like or dislike in the changes in school food. What do they notice about who participates in the school food program? What changes would they like to see?

Commissioner Carrion suggested more in-school advertising in schools and asked about the cost of on-site food preparation versus contracting with off-site companies. The presenter explained that if the district could secure funds for facilities upgrades, on-site food preparation would be an option.

Commissioner Chu asked whether they would rather see students bring food from home or eat lunch from school. The presenter explained that the goal is to have all students eating healthy lunches.

Commissioner Monge-Rodriguez asked how eligibility for free lunch is communicated and whether there might be language issues in communicating with eligible households. The presenter explained that information was not available now.

Commissioner Yu explained that the free lunch qualification process is unclear. It is not always clear what the next steps are for students who qualify.

Commissioner Shackelford shared that students assume they either are or are not eligible. She also shared that students have had positive feedback about the new lunches.

Commissioner Huynh shared that students like the new food, but that many students would like to be involved in creating a healthier product.

The only negative feedback commissioners had heard about the new lunch was that the line was too long to get lunch.

Commissioner Tu Mutch shared that environmental sustainability should perhaps also be a factor of consideration as well as cost sustainability.

The presenter shared some final opportunities for involvement: a photo diary project of daily health habits; Summer workshops that will function like consumer focus groups; A report to the BOE in September 2013.

Chairwoman Shackelford asked for a raise of hands of interested commissioners. Commissioner Shackelford, Yu, and Taumoepeau were interested in participating in the initiative’s Summer efforts.

5. Youth Commission Business (All Items to Follow Discussion and Possible Action)


A. [Second reading] Youth Commission Policy & Budget Priorities for Fiscal Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 (Document D)

Commissioners Huynh, Covington, Armstrong, and Shackelford read Priority #1, “Continuing SF Summer Jobs+ and Supporting Disconnected Youth in Employment” into the public record.

Commissioner Tu Mutch suggested strengthening the language around prioritizing disconnected TAY by calling for an earmarking special funds for undocumented youth. Commissioner Tu Mutch motioned to make the following edit: Page 10, last bullet: “and to earmark funds for undocumented youth who do not have right to work documents.” Commissioner Brodwin seconded the motion. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Monge-Rodriguez, seconded by Commissioner Tu Mutch, moved to approve the priority as amended. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Wu read priority #2: “Fully Fund the Plan for Affordable Housing for Transitional Age Youth” into the public record. Commissioner Brodwin, seconded by Commissioner Carrion, moved to approve the priority. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commission Tu Mutch read priority #3 “Expand Implementation of 12N Sensitivity Training and Efforts to Track LGBT Youth in City Services” into the public record.

Commissioner Chu asked if the document should list a deadline for documentation. Commissioner Brodwin suggested the commissioners did not have the necessary information to do this. Commission Tu Mutch said the document implied the policy should be implemented as soon as possible.

Commissioner Carrion, seconded by Commissioner Chu, moved to approve this priority. The motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioners Chu, Brodwin, and Yu read priority #4 “Urging the SFUSD to prioritize and evaluate the accessibility and quality of credit recovery programs with student feedback” into the public record. Commissioner Covington, seconded by Commissioner Tu Mutch, moved to approve this priority. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Carrion read priority #5: “Urging Against the Arming of Juvenile Probation Officers” into the public record. Commissioner Huynh, seconded by Commissioner Taumoepeau, moved to approve this priority. The motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Carrion read priority #6 “Fully Implement SFPD’s Crisis Intervention Team Model into the public record.

Commissioner Chu asked if the “recommendations” section should mention tasers.

Commissioner Shackelford noted that this priority had been won, but perhaps the commission should ask that the proposal should not be brought up again?

Commissioner Monge-Rodriguez explained that the proposal from the beginning was to offer the CIT training as an alternative proposal.

Commissioner Armstrong, seconded by Commissioner Brodwin, moved to approve the priority. The motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioners Monge-Rodriguez and Carrion read priority #7 “Three Changes at the Police Department” into the public record. Commissioner Huynh, seconded by Commissioner Armstrong, moved to approve the priority. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Monge-Rodriguez read priority #8 “Following up on Recreation Access at Juvenile Hall” into the public record. Commissioner Yu, seconded by Commissioner Covington, moved to approve the priority. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioners Persky and Covington read priority #9 “Free Youth Transportation” into the public record.

Commissioner Persky, seconded by Commissioner Covington, moved to include the text “urges the Board to help find long term funding” to the “recommendations” section. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Persky, seconded by Commissioner Tu Mutch, moved to add in the last paragraph after the word ‘program’ “not only for 5-17 year olds, but all high school students, and possibly TAY in the future” and add reference to the BOS resolution in 2005 regarding youth pass eligibility for all SFUSD students. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Brodwin, seconded by Commissioner Chu, moved to amend the language to “the Youth Commission supports a permanent FMFY for low income youth program and, if funds are available, a program expanded to all youth. This amendment was approved unanimously through a roll call vote.

Commissioner Chu, seconded by Commissioner Persky, moved to approve the priority as amended. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioners Persky and Monge-Rodriguez read priority #10 Supporting Eligible Undocumented Students File for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program” into the public record. Commissioner Carrion, seconded by Commissioner Brodwin, moved to approve the priority. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Carrion read priority #11 “Support City College of San Francisco” into the public record. Commissioner Covington, seconded by Commissioner Brodwin, moved to approve the priority. This motion was approved by a roll call vote. Ayes: Armstrong, Brodwin, Carrion, Covington, Huynh, Monge-Rodriguez, Tu Mutch, Persky, Shackelford, Taumoepeau, Wu, Yu. Nayes: Chu.

Commissioner Persky, seconded by Commissioner Brodwin, moved to approve the entire Budget and Policy Priorities Document. This motion was approved by a roll call vote. Ayes: Armstrong, Brodwin, Carrion, Covington, Huynh, Monge-Rodriguez, Tu Mutch, Persky, Shackelford, Taumoepeau, Wu, Yu. Nayes: Chu.

There was no public comment.

B. [First Reading] Recommending the Inclusion of California’s History of Eugenics into the California High School Curriculum
Sponsor and Presenter: Commissioner Brodwin
(Document E)


This item was tabled by the chair.

6. Public Comment on Items not on Agenda (Discussion Only)


There was none.

7. Committee Reports (Discussion Only)


A. Executive Committee

B. Youth Justice Committee

C. Youth Employment Committee

D. Education Committee

E. Housing, LGBTQ, and TAY Issues Committee

F. Youth Advisory Council

This item was tabled by the chair.

8. Staff Report (Discussion only)


This item was tabled by the chair.

9. Attendance Review (Action Item)


A. Monday, March 18, 2013
i. Commissioner Armstrong
ii. Commissioner Marshall-Fricker
iii. Commissioner Taumoepeau

B. Monday, April 1, 2013
i. Commissioner Armstrong
ii. Commissioner Marshall-Fricker
iii. Commissioner Guzman-Ramos
iv. Commissioner Carrion
v. Commissioner Monge-Rodriguez

C. Tuesday, April 16, 2013
i. Commissioner Brodwin
ii. Commissioner Covington
iii. Commissioner Tu Mutch

This item was tabled by the chair.

10. Announcements (This Includes Community Events)


The chair tabled this item.

11. Adjournment


The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
Last updated: 9/11/2013 4:07:29 PM