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

Skip to page body

San Francisco Branch Libraries and Public School Libraries

San Francisco Branch Libraries and Public School LibrariesSUMMARY

The 1996-1997 Civil Grand Jury investigated the operation of the branch libraries within the City and County of San Francisco. Propositions A in 1988, and E in 1995, mandated a library system that would offer convenient access to quality facilities and services. The Jury's findings indicate that the branches have suffered under an administration which placed the opening of the new Main Library above the day-to-day operations of the branches. Due to well-publicized budget problems in the system as a whole, the branches continue to operate with outdated technology, minimal staffing and old furnishings. Much-needed renovations and retrofits at both large and small branches are years from realization.


In addition, the Grand Jury investigated the relationship between the branch libraries and neighboring public schools. The Grand Jury believes that these two systems must act together to educate and inspire the children and youth of the City. The San Francisco Public Library (SFPL) and San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) are not communicating effectively, and, as a result, are not making the best possible use of limited resources. Furthermore, the SFUSD does not adequately staff or fund the libraries within its schools, and consequently, has unduly burdened the Public Library system.


PROCEDURE

In preparing this report, the Civil Grand Jury visited a sampling of branch libraries throughout the City. The Jury examined the general operations and conditions of the branches, paying particular attention to children's services. The Grand Jury also examined numerous documents supplied both by the SFPL and the SFUSD. Interviews were held with staff at the SFPL, SFUSD, and a number of other City agencies.


BACKGROUND

In recent years, the voters of San Francisco have passed two propositions that directly affect funding of the SFPL: Proposition A "Library Bonds" in 1988 and Proposition E: "Library Fund" in 1995. Proposition A authorized the City to borrow $109,500,000 by issuing general obligation bonds. This money was to be used for the construction of a main public library and reconstruction of branch libraries. With the passage of Proposition E , the voters made an ongoing commitment to the library system by guaranteeing minimum funding levels for the next fifteen years. The proposition sets funding minimums for libraries of approximately $34 million per year. It does this through a combination of funding guarantees from the City's general fund and a reallocation of property tax revenues. According to the text of Proposition E, "Bincreasing library hours throughout the system and acquiring books and materials shall receive priority in appropriating and expending fund monies ." [1] The Proposition further states , "...the library department shall operate no fewer than 26 branch librariesB"

The SFPL system consists of the new Main Library and twenty-six branches located throughout the city. These vary greatly in size, ranging from large "resource" branches such as Chinatown, to very small "neighborhood" facilities such as Potrero Hill. The opening of the new Main Library has focused a great deal of attention on that facility, but the branches remain the primary locations for many patrons. Many of the branches house "special collections" that are invaluable resources to the people of San Francisco.

Physical plants at all of the branches visited appeared clean and well maintained. The process of retrofitting buildings for earthquake safety proceeds slowly, with the Mission branch slated for renovation beginning sometime in the coming year. Chinatown, the most heavily used branch, underwent a renovation and reopened in the summer of 1996. Other locations throughout the system are in need of both seismic upgrades and renovations, but funds for further improvements are presently unavailable.

The SFPL has within it a specialized Children's Services division. It is directed by a Coordinator of Children's and Youth Services, who is responsible for interagency coordination, a number of outreach programs, and children's services at both the Main Library and each of the branches. The primary purposes of the outreach programs are to encourage young people to become interested in reading and to increase access for traditionally underserved youngsters throughout the city.

Children's sections at the branches are staffed by librarians who are specialists in children's library programming and, at some larger locations, by a number of support personnel. The Children's Librarians are responsible for the selection and purchase of materials and for maintaining children's programs at the branch. These programs range from "story-times" for pre-schoolers and their parents, to making computers and homework help available for teenagers.


Communication and Coordination Between SFUSD and the SFPL

Of particular interest to the Grand Jury is the relationship between the branch libraries and the public schools. Children's Librarians are assigned the task of contacting and serving the schools in the vicinity of their branches. These contacts take place sporadically depending upon the availability of resources at the branch and the number of schools, both public and private, in the neighborhood.


Libraries and Librarians within the SFUSD

The public libraries provide a very broad range of children's services. In contrast, the stated purpose of the public school libraries and librarians is narrowly focused. They are responsible for supporting the curriculum of the school. The level of commitment by the SFUSD to its school libraries is of great concern to the Grand Jury. The District's central office commitment is very limited; there is one Program Administrator for Textbooks, Media and Library Services. The administrator is assigned a part-time Resource Librarian who assists those K-5 elementary schools that lack librarians on their staffs. Only four of the seventy-six elementary schools in the SFUSD have qualified, professional school librarians. The remaining seventy-two schools are served by a variety of volunteers, parents and paraprofessionals. This appalling lack of service is due to the School District's decision not to fund librarians on the elementary school level. The Grand Jury commends those school principals who have found creative funding sources for librarians and all those individuals who volunteer their time.

The SFUSD administration allocates a half-time librarian to each middle school. About half of the middle school principals find money elsewhere in their budgets and fund full-time librarians, leaving seven schools with only half-time coverage.

The SFUSD reports that high schools are each allocated a full-time librarian position. Again, some principals find money elsewhere to go beyond the allocation and fund additional half-time or full-time positions. Records provided to the Grand Jury show that some of the smaller and continuation high schools are operating with only half-time library staffing.

San Francisco Unified Schools does not fund librarians in any school during the summer session. This is of concern since summer classes are often remedial in nature, and some branch libraries report surges in classroom teacher requests for library services during the summer months.

Findings

Usage of children's sections at the branches is heavy and continues to increase, while staffing and budgets remain static or are frozen due to budget problems within the library system as a whole. Up-to-date computers and other technologies are in short supply at the branches.

The SFUSD has no effective means of facilitating ongoing communication with the SFPL Department of Children's Services. The School District makes no regular contact with librarians at the branches, and has no adequate mechanism for working with the Public Libraries Department of Children's Services despite having a mission statement which has as one of its stated goals "[t]o increase and expand inter-agency collaboration to better serve our students." [2]
The Grand Jury uncovered problems which can be attributed to this lack of communication and coordination. For example, some assignments given by teachers called for research material unavailable at the branches. In other cases, whole classes were given an assignment on one subject, although the branch had only one or two books on the topic. Children's Librarians at the various branches expressed frustration at their inability to assist their young patrons due to the unrealistic nature of these types of assignments, as well as the lack of prior notification.


Teachers in the SFUSD are inadequately trained in the use and availability of resources at the neighborhood branches.

The SFUSD does not adequately fund its libraries and, as a result, has shifted the burden of supporting the public school curriculum to an already strained public library system.

Because of the overwhelming number of requests by teachers for a very limited number of school-day hours, children's librarians limit the number of visits by each class to its neighborhood branch to one or two per year. The Grand Jury found both anecdotal and statistical evidence that indicated heavy after-school patronage of children's sections. Proposition E allows the Library Commission to increase branch library hours after the year 1999. It requires that public hearings be held and a study of community needs be taken into account.

The renovation of the Chinatown branch was problematic for a variety of reasons, and cost far more then was originally planned. The original building, like many older San Francisco structures, had manually opening windows and no central air conditioning system. The new structure has only a few windows that open, no air conditioning and inadequate ventilation. Grand Jury members who toured the facility noted the lack of fresh air, and staff members at the library have made similar complaints to supervisors. In addition, on warm days temperatures at the branch can become unbearable. These temperature and ventilation problems are exacerbated in the summer months, precisely when daytime usage by school-age children is heaviest.

The Mission branch is due for renovation beginning sometime in late 1997 or early 1998. A design similar to that used at the Chinatown branch is planned, and the Grand Jury is concerned that ventilation and temperature problems similar to those encountered at the Chinatown branch may occur. The Grand Jury recognizes the cost effectiveness of installing adequate ventilation and/or air-conditioning systems during initial construction rather than as a retrofit.

Recommendations

1. The SFPL should make no further cuts of either personnel or funds at the branches, and restore all frozen budget items as soon as possible.

2. The SFUSD should appoint a liaison to work with the SFPL's Coordinator of Children's and Youth Services in exploring ways in which the two agencies can collaborate on a regular and ongoing basis for the good of the children and youth of San Francisco.

3. The SFUSD should commit resources to staff development so that teachers can be made aware of the services at the branch libraries. Teacher training or "in-service" days should include a library segment.

4. The SFUSD and SFPL should jointly investigate the possibility of locating multiple computerized SFPL data bases in the schools, to enable school staff and students to access them more easily.

5. The School Board and Superintendent should make a commitment to the school libraries and fund a full-time librarian in each and every public school in the City.

6. The Library Commission should take the earliest opportunity available under Proposition E to ascertain whether present hours make the best use of resources

in serving the adults and children of the City.

7. The SFPL should request that the Department of Health, Department of Public Works or other appropriate agencies make the necessary inquires and tests to ascertain the extent to which health or safety problems exist at the Chinatown branch. Should problems be verified, the SFPL should promptly make the necessary repairs or improvements. In any event, the SFPL should make repairs or improvements to the ventilation system so that patrons and staff can feel comfortable.

8. The SFPL and DPW should undertake a review of the retrofit and renovation plans for the Mission branch in order to avoid problems such as those which are apparent at the Chinatown facility. Renovation plans for other branches should undergo a similar review process.

REQUESTED RESPONSES

Mayor

San Francisco Board of Supervisors

SFUSD Superintendent

SFUSD Board

City Librarian

SFPL Coordinator of Children's and Youth Services

SFPL Chief of Branches

APPENDICES

1. Text and analysis of Proposition E: Library Fund 1995

2. Text and analysis of Proposition A: Library Bond 1988

3. San Francisco Unified School District Mission and Goals

APPENDIX 1
Text and Analysis of Proposition E: Library Fund 1995
Library Fund E

PROPOSITION E
Shall the City be required to maintain funding for the Library Department at a level no lower than that for the 1992-93 fiscal year, and to establish a Library Preservation Fund, to be used only for additional library services, by placing a certain amount of property tax revenues in that fund annually, and shall the City be required to keep open a main and 26 branch libraries for a specified minimum number of hours each week?

YES

NO

Analysis

by Ballot Simplification Committee

THE WAY IT IS NOW: The amount of money the City spends for public libraries is set each year through the budget process. The City is not required to spend a particular amount of money on libraries. The City does not have to keep open a specific number of branch libraries or to have libraries open a specific number of hours each week.

THE PROPOSAL: Proposition E is a charter amendment. Under Proposition E, for the next 15 years, the City would have to spend at least as much for libraries as it did in fiscal year 1992-93. The City would also have to use a specific percentage of its property tax revenues for a Library Preservation Fund. The Fund could only be used to increase spending for library operation, services and materials.

During the term of the Fund, the Library would have to operate a

main library and at least 26 branch libraries, including a library for the blind.

After public hearings, the Library Commission would set the hours that the main library and each branch are open. From 1995 through 1999, Proposition E specifies the average number of hours libraries must be open per week. After 1999, the Library Commission could change the average number of hours libraries must remain open, after holding public hearings and based on a study of needs and the adequacy of library services.

A "YES" VOTE MEANS: If you vote yes, you want to establish these funding and service requirements for libraries.

A "NO" VOTE MEANS: If you vote no, you do not want to make these changes.

Controller's Statement on "E"

City Controller Edward Harrington has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition E:

If the proposed charter amendment is adopted, in my opinion, it would mandate the current level of spending on library services ($20.8 million) plus reallocate funds (an additional $13.7 million in 1994-95) from current city services to expand specific library services as set forth in the measure, for a total funding commitment of approximately $34 million in 1994-95 with escalation factors in future years.

To the extent property tax revenues would be shifted to library programs, other current City spending would have to be curtailed or new revenues found to support these continuing expenditures.

Between 1994-95 and 2009-10, these dedicated funds would grow in two ways: The base $20.8 million would be increased by the general percentage increase in all City appropriations; the $13.7 million of additional funding would grow based on the increase in assessed values of City properties.

How "E" Got on the Ballot

On March 11, 1994, the Registrar of Voters certified that the initiative petition, calling for Proposition E to be placed on the ballot, had qualified for the ballot.

42,503 valid signatures were required to place an initiative charter amendment on the ballot. This number is equal to 10% of the registered voters at the time the petition was first filed with the Registrar.

A random check of the signatures submitted on February 23, 1994, by the proponents of the initiative petition showed that more than the required number of signatures were valid.

TEXT OF PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT

PROPOSITION E

To the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco:

We, the undersigned, registered and qualified voters of the State of California, residents of the City and County of San Francisco, pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI of the California Constitution and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 34450) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 4 of the Government Code, present to the Board of Supervisors this petition and request the following proposed amendment to the charter of this city and county be submitted to the registered and qualified voters of the city and county for their adoption or rejection at an election on a date to be determined by the Board of Supervisors.

The proposed charter amendment reads as follows:

San Francisco Charter Section 6.416

LIBRARY PRESERVATION FUND

(a) There is hereby established a fund for libraries, which shall be called the San Francisco Library Preservation Fund and shall be maintained separate and apart from all other city and county funds and appropriated by annual or supplemental appropriation pursuant to sections 6.205 and 6.306 of this charter. Monies therein shall be expended or used exclusively by the library department specified in section 3.560 of the charter, solely to provide library services and materials and to operate library facilities in accordance with this section.

(b) So long as the Library Preservation Fund exists as provided in this section, the following requirements shall apply:

(1) The library department shall operate no fewer than 26 branch libraries, a main library, and a library facility for the blind (which may be at a branch or main library).

(2) Not later than November 1, 1994, at least one public hearing shall be held at the main and each branch library, which at least one library commissioner shall attend and which shall receive the results of a survey of users' preferences as to the facility's operating hours.

(3) Following these public hearings, effective no later than January 1, 1995, the library commission shall establish service hours for the main and each branch library, which shall not be reduced during the five

years beginning January 1, 1995. Total annual average service hours shall be at least 1028 hours per week (that is, a level approximating the total service hours during fiscal year 1986 - 1987).

(4) The public hearing process specified in subsection (2) shall be repeated at five-year intervals, being completed not later than November 1 of the year in question.

(5) Following these subsequent public hearings, the library commission may modify the individual and aggregate service hours established under subsection (3), for the five-year period beginning January 1, 2000 or January 1, 2005 respectively, based on a comprehensive assessment of needs and the adequacy of library resources.

Increasing library hours throughout the system and acquiring books and materials shall receive priority in appropriating and expending fund monies to the extent the funds are not needed to meet the preceding requirements of this subsection (b). Any requirement of this subsection may be modified to the extent made necessary by a fire, earthquake, or other event which renders compliance with the requirement impracticable.

(c) There is hereby set aside for the San Francisco Library Preservation Fund, from the revenues of the tax levy pursuant to section 6.208 of this charter, revenues in an amount equivalent to an annual tax of two-and-one-half cents ($0.025) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation for each of the fifteen fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1994 - 1995. The treasurer shall set aside and maintain said amount, together with any interest earned thereon, in said fund, and any amounts unspent or uncommitted at the end of any fiscal year shall be carried forward to the next fiscal year and, subject to the budgetary and fiscal limitations of the charter, shall be appropriated then or thereafter solely for the purposes specified in this section. Said fund shall be in addition to any other funds set aside for libraries.

(d) The fund shall be used to increase the aggregate City appropriations and expenditures for services, materials and operation of facilities provided by the library department. To this end, the City shall not reduce the amount of City appropriations for the library department

(not including appropriations from the Library Preservation Fund) in any of the fifteen years during which funds are required to be set aside under this section below the amount so appropriated, including appropriations from the San Francisco Children's Fund pursuant to section 6.415 of the charter and including all supplemental appropriations, for the fiscal year 1992-1993, adjusted as provided below. Said base amount shall be adjusted for each fiscal year after 1992-1993 based on calculations consistent from year to year, by the percentage increase or decrease in aggregate City appropriations for all purposes from the base year as estimated by the Controller. Errors in the Controller's estimate of appropriations for a fiscal year shall be corrected by adjustment in the next year's estimate. For purposes of this subsection, (i) aggregate City appropriations shall not include funds granted to the City by private agencies or appropriated by other public agencies and received by the City, and (ii) library department appropriations shall not include funds appropriated to the library department to pay for services of other City departments or agencies, except for departments or agencies for whose services the library department was appropriated funds in fiscal year 1993 - 1994. Within ninety days following the end of each fiscal year through fiscal year 2008 - 2009, the Controller shall calculate and publish the actual amount of City appropriations for the library department.

(e) If any provision of this section, or its application to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this section and its applications shall not be affected; every provision of this section is intended to be severable. Ô

APPENDIX 2
Text and Analysis of Proposition A: Library Bond 1988
Library Bonds A


PROPOSITION A
PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT BONDS, 1988. To incur a bonded indebtedness of $109,500,000 to pay the cost of additions to and improvement of a main public library and branch libraries of the City and County of San Francisco.

YES

NO

Analysis

by Ballot Simplification Committee

THE WAY IT IS NOW: The City operates a library system composed of the main library at the Civic Center and 26 branch libraries. The main library, built in 1917, does not meet present earthquake, fire and safety standards and is too small to hold the current collection. Eight of the branch libraries, built between 1909 and 1921, do not comply with earthquake regulations. Five of the large branches do not have handicapped access.

THE PROPOSAL: Proposition A would authorize the City to borrow $109,500,000 by issuing general obligation bonds. This money would pay for the construction of a main public library and reconstruction of branch libraries. The

interest and principle on general obligation bonds are paid out of tax revenue. Proposition A would require an increase in property tax.

A "YES" VOTE MEANS: If you vote yes, you want the City to issue general obligation bonds totaling $109,500,000 for the construction of a main public library and reconstruction of branch libraries.

A "NO" VOTE MEANS: If you vote no, you do not want the City to issue general obligation bonds for the construction of a main public library and reconstruction of branch libraries.

Controller's Statement on "A"

City Controller John C. Farrell has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition A:

"Should the proposed bond issue be authorized and when all bonds shall have been issued on a twenty (20) year basis and after consideration of the interest rates related to current municipal bond sales, in my opinion, it is estimated that the approximate costs would be as follows:

Bond redemption $109,500,000

Bond interest 79,332,750

Debt service requirements $188,832,750

Based on a single bond sale and level redemption schedules, the average annual debt requirement for twenty (20) years would be approximately $9,441,637 which amount is equivalent to two and sixty-seven hundredths cents ($0.0267) in the current tax rate."

How Supervisors Voted on "A"

On July 25, the Board of Supervisors voted 9-0 on the question of placing Proposition A on the ballot.

The Supervisors voted as follows:

YES: Supervisors Harry Britt, Jim Gonzalez, Thomas Hsieh, Willie Kennedy, Bill Maher, John Molinari, Wendy Nelder, Carol Ruth Silver, and Nancy Walker.

NO: None of the Supervisors present voted no.

ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING BOND ELECTION

PROPOSITION A

Calling and providing for a special election to be held in The city and county of san francisco on tuesday, november 8, 1988 For the purpose of submitting to the voters of the city and county Of san francisco a proposition to incur the following bonded debts Of the city and county for the acquisition, construction, or completion By the city and county of san francisco of the following municipal Improvements, to wit: $109,500,000 for additions to and improvement Of the public library and branch libraries of the city and county Of san francisco; and that the estimated cost to the city and County of said municipal improvements is and will be too great To be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the City and county and will require expenditures greater than the Amounts allowed therefor by the annual tax levy; reciting the Estimated costs of such municipal improvements; fixing the date Of the election and the manner of holding such election and the Procedure for voting for or against the propositions; fixing the Maximum rate of interest on said bonds and providing for the levy And collection of taxes to pay both principal and interest thereof; Prescribing notice to be given of such election; consolidating The special election with the general election; and providing That the election precincts. Voting places and officers for election Shall be the same as for such general election.

Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:

Section 1.A special election is hereby called and ordered to be held in the City and County of San Francisco on Tuesday, the 8th day of November 1988 for the purpose of submitting to the electors of said city and county a proposition to incur bonded indebtedness of the City and County of San Francisco for the acquisition, construction, or completion of the city and county of the hereinafter described municipal improvements in the amounts and for the purposes stated:

PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT BONDS, 1988. $109,500,000 in addition to pay the cost of additions to and improvement of a main public library and branch libraries of the City and County of San Francisco, including the acquisition, construction and reconstruction of public library facilities and all other works, property and structures necessary or convenient for such improvement and additions to the public library system of the City and County of San Francisco.

Section 2. The estimated costs of the municipal improvements described in Section 1 hereof were fixed by the Board of Supervisors by the following resolution and in the amount specified:

Public Library Facilities System Improvement Bonds, Resolution No. 545-88, $109,500,000.

The said resolution was passed by two-thirds or more of the Board of Supervisors and approved by the Mayor, and in said resolution it was recited and found that the sums of money specified were too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the city and county in addition to the other annual expenses thereof or other funds derived from taxes levied for those purposes and will require expenditures greater than the amounts allowed therefor by the annual tax levy.

The method and manner of payment of the estimated costs of the municipal improvements described herein are by the issuance of bonds of the City and County of San Francisco in the principle amounts not to exceed the principal amounts specified.

Said estimates of cost as set forth in said resolution are hereby adopted and determined to be the estimated costs of said improvements.

Section 3. The special election hereby called and ordered to be held shall be held and conducted and the votes thereat received and canvassed, and the returns thereof, made and the results thereof ascertained, determined and declared as herein provided and in all particulars not herein recited said election shall be held according to the laws of the State of California and the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco providing for and governing elections in the City and County of San Francisco, and the polls for such election shall be and remain open during the time required by said laws.

Section 4. The said special election hereby called shall be and hereby is consolidated with the General Election of the City and County of San Francisco to be held Tuesday, November 8, 1988, and the voting precincts, polling places and officers of election for said General Election be and the same are hereby adopted, established, designated and named, respectively, as the voting precincts, polling places and officers of election for such special election hereby called and as specifically set forth, in the official publication, by the Registrar of Voters of precincts, polling places and election officers for the said General Election.

The ballots to be used at said special election shall be the ballots to be used at said General Election and reference is hereby made to the notice of election setting forth the voting precincts, polling places and officers of election by the Registrar of Voters for the General Election to be published in the San Francisco Progress on or no later than October 31, 1988.

Section 5. On the ballots to be used at such special election and on the punch card ballots used at said special election, in addition to any other mater required by law to be printed thereon, shall appear thereon the following, to be separately stated, and appear upon the ballot as a separate proposition:

"PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT BONDS, 1988. To incur a bonded indebtedness of $109,500,000 for the construction of a main public library and reconstruction of branch libraries of the City and County of San Francisco."

Each voter to vote for any of said propositions hereby submitted and in favor of the issuance of the Bonds, shall stamp a cross (X) in the blank space opposite the word "YES" on the ballot to the right of said proposition, and to vote against said proposition and against the issuance of the Bonds shall stamp a cross (X) in the blank space opposite the work "NO" on the ballot to the right of said proposition. On absent voters ballots, the cross (X) may be marked with pen or pencil.

If and to the extent that punch card ballot cards are used at said special election, each voter to vote for any said proposition shall punch the ballot card in the hole after the word "YES: to the right of said proposition, and to vote against said proposition shall punch the ballot card in the hole after the word "NO" to the right of said proposition.

Section 6. If at such special election it shall appear that two-thirds of all the voters voting on the proposition voted in favor of and authorized the incurring of a bonded indebtedness for the purposes set forth in said proposition, then such proposition shall have been accepted by the electors, and bonds shall be issued to defray the cost of the municipal improvements described herein.

Such bonds shall be of the form and character known as "serials," and shall bear interest at a rate not to exceed 12 per centum per annum, payable semiannually, provided, that interest for the first year after the date of any of said bonds may be payable at or before the end of that year.

The votes cast for and against each of said respective proposition shall be counted separately and when two-thirds of the qualified electors, voting on such proposition, vote in favor thereof, such proposition shall be deemed adopted.

Section 7. For the purpose of paying the principal and interest on said bonds, the

Board of Supervisors shall, at the time of fixing the general tax levy and in the manner for such general tax levy provided, levy and collect annually each year until such bonds are paid, or until there is a sum in the Treasury of said city and county set apart for that purpose to meet all sums coming due for the principal and interest on said bonds, a tax sufficient to pay the annual interest on such bonds as the same becomes due and also such part of the principal thereof as shall become due before the proceeds of a tax levied at the time for making the next general tax levy can be made available for the payment of such principal.

Section 8. This ordinance shall be published once a day for at least seven (7) days in the San Francisco Examiner, a newspaper published daily in the City and County of San Francisco, being the official newspaper of said city and county and such publication shall constitute notice of said election and no other notice of the election hereby called need be given.

Section 9. The appropriate officers, employees, representatives and agents of the City and County of San Francisco are hereby authorized and directed to do everything necessary or desirable to the calling and holding of said special election, and to otherwise carry out the provisions of this ordinance.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

LOUISE H. RENNE By: Robert A. Kenealey

City Attorney Deputy City Attorney

APPENDIX 3
San Francisco Unified School District Mission and Goals
The mission of the San Francisco Unified School District is to provide each student with an equal opportunity to succeed by promoting intellectual growth, creativity, self discipline, cultural and linguistic sensitivity, democratic responsibility, economic competence and physical and mental health so that each student can achieve to his or her maximum ability.

To achieve this mission, the Board of Education has adopted the following goals: 1) To improve teaching and learning to enhance the academic achievement of all students; 2) To improve staff, parent and community participation in the education process; 3) To maintain school environments that are safe, secure and attractive; 4) To build a school environment that is fully integrated in all its programs and activities and provides equal opportunity for all students; 5) To improve and expand the Early Childhood Education Program and integrate it into the K-12 Program; and 6) To increase and expand inter-agency collaboration to better serve our students.

For each goal there are a number of measurable objectives. Every school has developed a school site plan to achieve each objective and identified their individual school priorities: 1) To improve teaching and learning to enhance student achievement; to provide necessary support for LEP students; 2) To decrease student absences and tardies and improve in-class attendance; 3) To be fully integrated in all programs and activities, thus providing equal opportunity for all students; 4) To improve all students' scores on the CTBS, proficiency and college preparatory tests/examinations; 5) To improve staff, parent and community communication and participation in the education process.

In order to achieve these objectives, the Board has adopted the following set of philosophical tenets:


All individuals can learn.

All individuals are both potential learners and potential teachers.

All individuals want to learn and to be recognized for their achievements.

All individuals are entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

Learning can be subdivided into a number of specific, concrete competencies that can be used as a focus for teaching.

All individuals should learn to live and work in a world that is characterized by interdependence and cultural diversity.

Learning has both cognitive and affective dimensions.

If individuals do not learn, then those assigned to be their teachers should accept re- sponsibility for this failure and should take appropriate remedial action.

All individuals learn in many different ways and at varying rates.

Each individual learns best in a particular way.

Parents want their children to attain their fullest potential as learners and to succeed academically.
The mission of the San Francisco Unified School District is to provide each student with an equal opportunity to succeed by promoting intellectual growth, creativity, self discipline, cultural and linguistic sensitivity, democratic responsibility, economic competence and physical and mental health so that each student can achieve to his or her maximum ability.

To achieve this mission, the Board of Education has adopted the following goals: 1) To improve teaching and learning to enhance the academic achievement of all students; 2) To improve staff, parent and community participation in the education process; 3) To maintain school environments that are safe, secure and attractive; 4) To build a school environment that is fully integrated in all its programs and activities and provides equal opportunity for all students; 5) To improve and expand the Early Childhood Education Program and integrate it into the K-12 Program; and 6) To increase and expand inter-agency collaboration to better serve our students.

For each goal there are a number of measurable objectives. Every school has developed a school site plan to achieve each objective and identified their individual school priorities: 1) To improve teaching and learning to enhance student achievement; to provide necessary support for LEP students. 2) To decrease student absences and tardies and improve in-class attendance. 3) To be fully integrated in all programs and activities, thus providing equal opportunity for all students. 4) To improve all students' scores on the CTBS, proficiency and college preparatory tests/examinations. 5) To improve staff, parent and community communication and participation in the education process.

In order to achieve these objectives, the Board has adopted the following set of philosophical tenets:


All individuals can learn.

All individuals are both potential learners and potential teachers.

All individuals want to learn and to be recognized for their achievements.

All individuals are entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

Learning can be subdivided into a number of specific, concrete competencies that can be used as a focus for teaching.

All individuals should learn to live and work in a world that is characterized by interdependence and cultural diversity.

Learning has both cognitive and affective dimensions.

If individuals do not learn, then those assigned to be their teachers should accept responsibility for this failure and should take appropriate remedial action.

All individuals learn in many different ways and at varying rates.

Each individual learns best in a particular way.

Parents want their children to attain their fullest potential as learners and to succeed academically.

Footnotes
1. Text of Proposition E, 1995. Hours for the branches were set by Proposition E in 1995 and are due for review in 1999. Times-open vary by branch and are limited primarily by staffing concerns. Hours during the school day are very limited at all branches.

2. SFUSD Mission Statement, Goal #6.

 

 

Last updated: 9/15/2009 12:47:34 PM