SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION & SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Transcription

1 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER BUDGET DIVISION 135 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA BOARD OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT 555 FRANKLIN STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION & SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT LOCAL CONTROL & ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN AND RECOMMENDED BUDGET For Fiscal Year JUNE 13, 2017 (First Reading) VOLUME II OF II DISTRICT & COUNTY BUDGET OVERVIEW BOARD OF EDUCATION SHAMANN WALTON, PRESIDENT Hydra Mendoza-McDonnell, VICE PRESIDENT Stevon Cook Matt Haney EMILY M. MURASE, PH.D. RACHEL NORTON MARK SANCHEZ RECOMMENDED BY VINCENT MATTHEWS, ED.D. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS JUNE 2017

2

3 Table of Contents Acknowledgements... 5 Executive Summary... 6 How to Navigate the Budget Book... 8 How to Navigate Volume I: The Local Control & Accountability Plan... 8 How to Navigate Volume II: Budget Overview... 9 How to Navigate the Budget Dashboard (online)... 9 Other Budget Resources... 9 Overview of San Francisco Unified School District and San Francisco County Office of Education Our Foundation Mission Statement Vision of Student Success Vision 2025 Roadmap Our Universal Goals Our Core Beliefs Theory of Action Our Strategies in Action Our Multi-Tiered System of Supports Cycles of Continuous Improvement Highlights of Priority Investments Our African American Achievement and Leadership Initiative (AAALI) Our Children, Our Families (OCOF) Council Board Resolution: Human Trafficking and Exploitation Board Resolution: Immigrant Students and Their Families Spark*SF Public Schools Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Average Daily Attendance (ADA) Fund Structure District Funds County Office of Education (Fund 05) District General Fund Unrestricted General Fund Revenue Expenditure District General Fund Restricted General Fund Page 3 of 112

4 Federal Funds State Funds Local Funds Other District Funds Early Education Development Fund (12) Cafeteria Fund (13) Capital Facilities Funds Enterprise Fund - KALW (63) Self-Insurance Fund (67) County Office of Education (Fund 05) Special Education Services County Alternative Schools Page 4 of 112

5 Acknowledgements LEADS Budget Services Thu Cung Courtney Graham Jennifer Schuster Business Services Reeta Madhavan Department of Technology Court Jackson Shannon Lee Eddie Ngo Jason Wong Office of Family Empowerment Ruth Grabowski Policy & Operations Myong Leigh Superintendent s Office Jill Hoogendyk Court Alternative Schools Alysse Castro Translation & Interpretation Unit Lehmann Sio REVIEW TEAM Budget Services Joel Aguilar Courtney Graham Kelly Huang Jackelyn Koo Cora Marcelo Jennifer Schuster Jason Wong Teresa Wong Ann Yau REVIEW TEAM (continued) SMART (Strategic Management & Allocation of Resources Team) Elizabeth Blanco Thu Cung Don Daves-Rogeaux Melissa Dodd Guadalupe Guerrero Jill Hoogendyk Ritu Khanna Myong Leigh Reeta Madhavan Daniel Menezes Orla O Keeffe Carmelo Sgarlato Brent Stephens Kevin Truitt Meenoo Yashar ADVISORY COUNCILS District English Learner Advisory Council (DELAC) Danielle Uttley LCAP Task Force Parent Advisory Council (PAC) Georgia Williams-Bratt Student Advisory Council (SAC) Salvador Lopez-Barreras Cyrus Quan Page 5 of 112

6 Executive Summary Over the past several years, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) and San Francisco County Office of Education (SFCOE) have seen growth in revenues and, as a result, we have increased investments across many critical areas of work to better serve students. We have afforded increases in wages for staff and increases in services both academic and social emotional for students, particularly focal students. As we look ahead to and beyond, our priorities remain steadfast: Accelerating achievement for our most vulnerable students and the schools that serve them Employing top talent and creating the conditions for everyone to do their best work However, the fiscal landscape is beginning to shift. Whereas significant increases in revenue resulted from the State s implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in prior years, LCFF will reach 97 percent of full implementation in As a result, revenue growth in LCFF will begin to slow, more closely reflecting cost-of-living-adjustments (COLA) a much slower rate of growth than the leaps made in previous years to close the gap in funding. While revenue growth is slowing, expenditures continue to grow. Some are mandatory employer contributions to retirement for certificated staff are set to increase by 1.85 percent annually for the next three years. Other investment areas are vital to meeting the needs of students and staff. These include investments in core curriculum, development and adoption of new standards, professional development, wage increases, upgrades to technology and facilities, and more. Combined, these expenditures are likely to outpace the slowing growth in revenue. Given this context, the district and county have begun to plan for tradeoffs. We are looking at and beyond to explore where efficiencies can be achieved, potentially hold off on implementing new programs, and consider reducing services and staff in areas less directly tied to our priorities. For , all central departments were asked to reduce budgets by three percent. At the same time, we still maintained and increased site allocations, infusing $3.7 million into the Weighted Student Formula and additional funds to cover naturally occurring increases in step and column and benefits. This was to allow sites to maintain supports and potentially recover some centrally-funded reductions in services and supports. We recognize that these shifts in funding have ripple effects, and we have gathered feedback and recommendations from across the district. Through the Local Control & Accountability Plan (LCAP), we heard from many community voices. Additionally, school sites collected feedback via School Site Councils to develop their budgets and school site plans ( Balanced Score Cards ). Furthermore, we gathered input from department teams to understand how they plan to use funds for the upcoming year and what areas of need remain. Additionally, this year, the budgeting timeline was shifted so that both school sites and central offices were budgeting and planning simultaneously allowing for cross collaboration and validation of information throughout the district and county. Page 6 of 112

7 Based on the collective input from across the district and county, the current proposed Unrestricted General Fund (UGF) expenditures total nearly $578 million. In addition to the UGF, restricted funds, including federal, state and local funds, are being maximized to support programmatic needs where possible. While none are easy decisions, some level of tradeoffs are required to cover future expenditures. As we look to and beyond, we will continue to explore ways to maximize funds. Throughout the Local Control & Accountability Plan (Volume I) and Budget (Volume II) for SFUSD and SFCOE, a summation of the budget can be found. The LCAP (Volume I) focuses on how LCFF funding is allocated across goals and actions based on data. The budget (Volume II) focuses on how funds are received and allocated. It includes several exhibits that summarize where funds are allocated, including the Weighted Student Formula (direct site allocations). There are also descriptions of key funding sources, including the recently approved Bond, the Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF), and the Quality Teacher & Education Act (QTEA). Furthermore, this year, we have changed how budget information is relayed and, through the use of Tableau, we have made budgets more interactive and dynamic. To view department budgets, please click this link to see a two-year view of each department budget (link here as well: Lastly, many, many thanks to the multitude of voices and perspectives that helped inform this year s planning and budgeting cycle. It is with humbled appreciation that we present this year s LCAP and budget. Page 7 of 112

8 How to Navigate the Budget Book The San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) and San Francisco County Office of Education (SFCOE) are pleased to provide multiple, interactive resources to foster understanding of the district budget and fiscal transparency: Volume I: Local Control & Accountability Plan (LCAP) Volume II: Budget Overview Budget Dashboard (online) How to Navigate Volume I: The Local Control & Accountability Plan The recommended Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) for SFUSD and SFCOE contain the goals, actions, and services committed to through our budgeted investments. In addition, it includes the data used to measure our progress toward achieving our goals. The recommended LCAP is organized into the following sections: Introduction o The Introduction provides an overview of SFUSD and SFCOE, including the district s mission, vision, goals, and priorities for the upcoming year. It also contains a narrative description of our current district-wide strategies for improvement. Lastly, there will be a brief description of the LCAP and Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) including the funding available for Section 1: Stakeholder Engagement o Section 1 describes the process used to consult with community stakeholders including parents, students, school personnel, local bargaining units, and other community partners regarding the development of the LCAP. Section 2: Goals, Actions, Services, and Progress Indicators o Section 2 is a three year plan describing the goal, actions, and services identified for all students as well as specific sub-groups of students. It sets targets for the progress we will make in achieving our stated goals, and includes the budgeted investments required to implement the strategies and actions associated with them. o It will be helpful to note that this year s LCAP goals have been organized to align to the SFUSD refreshed Strategic Plan as follows: Goal 1: Achievement, Goal 2: Access & Equity, Goal 3: Accountability. Annual Update o The Annual Update is a report on the status toward achieving the goals and outcomes identified in the prior year LCAP as well as on the funds that have been spent toward implementing the identified actions and services. Section 3: Use of Supplemental and Concentration Grant Funds and Proportionality o Section 3 identifies the LCFF funds generated for the LCAP year based on the number and concentration of low income, foster youth, and English learner pupils. It also describes how these supplemental and concentration funds will be spent in support of these identified student populations. Page 8 of 112

9 In addition to the information included in this document, the district also provides additional LCAP resources on its website: This information will be updated to reflect the FY LCAP after it has been adopted. How to Navigate Volume II: Budget Overview The Budget Overview provides an overview of SFUSD and SFCOE, including the district s mission, vision, goals, and priorities for the upcoming year. It also contains a narrative description of our current district-wide strategies for improvement. The Budget Overview highlights the priorities and major focus areas of the district for the coming year it is in support of these priorities that the district budget was developed. Priority investments will also be highlighted. Next, there is a brief description of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and various revenue drivers and assumptions. The following section provides a narrative summary of the overall district revenues and expenditures. It is intended to give readers the district budget at a glance. To better understand the structure of the district budget, the Fund Structure section describes the budget s major funds, their structure and purpose, and how they are referenced throughout the Budget Book. All sections reference Exhibits, where readers will find charts, tables, and graphs which depict the district budget visually. How to Navigate the Budget Dashboard (online) This year, users will be able to interact with the detailed district budget like never before. The district budget will be shared via an online dashboard. The budget dashboard will visually display information that is easy to understand and interact with. Sharing the budget via a dashboard is an important part of the district s commitment to fiscal transparency and accessibility for our school communities. The budget dashboard is available online at (click on the Budget Dashboard link: Other Budget Resources In addition to the descriptions and budgetary information included in this document, the district also provides additional budget resources on its website: This information will be updated to reflect the FY budget after it has been adopted. Page 9 of 112

10 Overview of San Francisco Unified School District and San Francisco County Office of Education The San Francisco Unified School District ( SFUSD or the District ) educates 55,613 of San Francisco s pre-k, kindergarten, elementary, middle, and high school age children through a network of 136 pre-k 12 schools located throughout the City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco is both a city and a county; therefore, SFUSD s 9,992 employees administer both the school district and the San Francisco County Office of Education (SFCOE), which makes SFCOE a single district office of education. Page 10 of 112

11 SFUSD and SFCOE are governed by an elected seven-member Board of Education: Shamann Walton, President Hydra Mendoza-McDonnell, Vice President Stevon Cook, Commissioner Matt Haney, Commissioner Emily M. Murase, Ph.D., Commissioner Rachel Norton, Commissioner Mark Sanchez, Commissioner Our Foundation The SFUSD mission, vision, goals, and beliefs continue to serve as guiding principles for our work. Mission Statement Every day we provide each and every student the quality instruction and equitable support required to thrive in the 21 st century. Vision of Student Success Every student who attends SFUSD schools will discover their spark, along with a strong sense of self and purpose. Each and every student will graduate from high school ready for college and career and equipped with the skills, capacities and dispositions outlined in SFUSD s Graduate Profile. Vision 2025 Roadmap The Strategic Plan We strive to be an exemplary learning organization. This updated strategic plan, Transform Learning. Transform Lives., builds upon the previous version Impact Learning. Impact Lives., which developed from the original plan Beyond the Talk: Taking Action to Educate Every Child Now. The initial plan explicitly called for a commitment to equity and social justice. Page 11 of 112

12 These respective multi-year plans are meant to scaffold our intentional work toward: exploring and instituting models that accelerate learning; closing and eliminating achievement gaps; ensuring that every single child is equitably supported to realize high levels of achievement and the Vision of Student Success; and evolving into a world-class school system that operationalizes and embodies Vision Our Universal Goals Access and Equity Make social justice a reality by ensuring every student has access to high- quality teaching and learning. Student Achievement Create learning environments in all SFUSD schools that foster highly engaged and joyful learners and that support every student reaching their potential. Accountability Keep district promises to students and families and enlist everyone in the community to join in doing so. Our Core Beliefs The achievement gap is the greatest civil rights issue facing SFUSD. It is possible to increase academic achievement of high-performing students and accelerate achievement of those currently less academically successful. Quality schools offer engaging and challenging programs, caring and committed staff, strong and visible leaders, and instruction differentiated to meet each child s needs. Authentic partnerships are essential to achieving our vision for student success. Equity is the work of eliminating oppression, ending biases and ensuring equally high outcomes for all participants through the creation of multicultural, multilingual, multiethnic, and multiracial practices and conditions; as well as removing the predictability of success or failure that currently correlates with any social or cultural factor. Page 12 of 112

13 Theory of Action If we... Engage our students to learn via a rigorous Common Core-based curriculum in a safe and supportive classroom environment; Invest in building and developing the capacity of teachers, leaders and school staff; Enlist our partners and empower families in a community schools approach; And coherently align supports and resources to execute our strategies in action at all levels of the organization (classroom, school and central office, along with supportive policy and governance); Then, every student who enrolls in our schools will graduate prepared to succeed in college, career and life. Our Strategies in Action SFUSD has organized around a set of strategies to achieve our goals in the classroom, at our schools, and in central office. These strategies represent an aligned approach for impact at all levels of the system and provide a shared roadmap for raising student achievement. Additionally, they are the framework for the actions and services articulated in the LCAP. LCAP Priorities 9 & 10 (SFCOE) GOALS: Schools Central Office 1. ACHIEVEMENT Student Instructiona Centered l Guidance Learning Climate Teaching & Learning Safe & Supportiv e Schools 2. ACCESS & EQUITY Leadership Resource Management & Impact Professional Capacity Talent Development 1) Basic 2)Implement Standards 3)Parental Involvement 4) Pupil Achievement 5) Pupil Engagement 6) School Climate 7) Course Access 3. ACCOUNTABILITY Parent, Community, School Ties Family Empowerment & Community Partnerships Page 13 of 112

14 8) Other Outcomes Board Room & The City Policy and Governance / Priority Policy Areas / Collaboration with City Agencies and External Partners Our Multi-Tiered System of Supports To ensure that the decisions we make are informed by both quantitative data and the qualitative context of our school communities, SFUSD has, since the school year, utilized a variety of data sets to make decisions on how it supports schools that will target equity and performance gaps. We refer to this research-based framework as Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). In the simplest description, MTSS is the central offices Response to Intervention and Instruction strategy for schools. As sites utilize this data-driven, multi-tiered approach for supporting their students, the central office uses this approach to advance equity and excellence for its schools. The framework includes: 1. The Multi-Tiered System of Data that serves as the foundation of our MTSS work 2. High-level strategies that comprise our Multi-Tiered System of Supports 3. Our annual cycle of response and improvement Multi-Tiered System of Data We have access to a broad array of longitudinal data which incorporate key academic and social emotional indicators and capture degrees of implementation fidelity toward many of the strategiesin-action outlined in Transform Learning. Transform Lives. These sets of data now constitute a broader and deeper Multi-Tiered System of Data and incorporate multiple qualitative and quantitative measures. These measures include overall achievement and growth in language arts and mathematics, English Learner reclassification rates, attendance, instructional time, and data on school climate. Page 14 of 112

15 The more detailed school profiles that are generated from these data sets form the basis of a cluster analysis and define school performance and support tiers. This analysis provides the foundation of our Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) and provides evidence that enables us to: Affirm the many areas of strength in our system areas we need to celebrate, maintain consistency, learn from, and scale successful practices. Expose areas where persistent challenges exist and help clarify where we can provide better support, remove barriers, apply resources, and work systemically to positively address trend gaps. Multi-Tiered System of Supports Page 15 of 112

16 The disaggregated data from across all school sites make very clear which schools urgently need additional attention and differentiated support from central office. MTSS has evolved significantly since 2012 when it was first introduced as a strategy to focus support on the schools with the most challenging inputs like student equity factors and teacher stability and experience, and consequently, the lowest performance. Initially developed as a logic model around how central office would provide direct interventions and services, MTSS now also informs other aspects of central office s work, including two key areas: system reorganization and focused supports. 1. Site-Based Intervention Services and Supports Sites experience direct interventions and services in the form of dedicated staff members who are centrally managed and funded. Key areas of focus include providing additional student supports to address issues of crisis or trauma, building the efficacy of grade-level teams through effective collaboration and use of data, and increasing access to instructional coaching for teachers as they learn and implement a comprehensive approach to literacy. These limited supplemental resources continue to be prioritized and concentrated in schools that our equity factors show as having the most challenging inputs. Page 16 of 112

17 For a detailed list of allocations of direct interventions and services, please refer to SFUSD Budget, Exhibit 8A. 2. System Reorganization The qualitative measures outlined above serve as a framework for the reorganization at the site and central office levels. Bryk s Five Essential Supports are visible at each level, and are intentionally interconnected. For instance, it wouldn t be enough to hire literacy coaches to work in isolation. To systemically improve instruction, these coaches need to develop consistent models to deliver instruction and use common tools to measure success across schools. This work and its associated skills are best developed in a professional learning network. This network will build content knowledge, hone adult development skills, and reflect on implementation successes and dilemmas. This networked learning concept applies to each support position including Instructional Reform Facilitators, Family Liaisons, and Nurses. Bryk s research also finds that resources must be aligned and coordinated for maximum impact. In support of this, LEAD teams continue to build and strengthen Instructional and Student Support Leadership Team across networks. 3. Focused Supports Both qualitative and quantitative data indicate where to focus supports. After developing the cluster analysis of our schools, we identified schools needing the most additional support and guidance as our Tier 3 Support schools. These are schools with the most challenging inputs and below targeted performance outcomes. The central office, in collaboration with leadership teams, is developing Tier 3 Support plans for all identified schools. This new Tier 3 Structure of support replaced the former Superintendent s zone, allowing us to better customize services and supports and maintain our commitment to equity. The science behind MTSS the way central office deploys interventions and services, networks instructional support staff, reorganizes to optimize school support, and designs focused supports is important. Even more critical is how these levers increase the efficacy and capacity of site leaders and teachers who serve students each day. Page 17 of 112

18 Cycles of Continuous Improvement Reviewing measures of academic, school culture and climate, and student social-emotional learning, as well as focusing on student sub-groups, is an important lens for evaluating our implementation and impact. We have identified strategies across SFUSD, starting with our common goals of access and equity, student achievement and accountability. School Balanced Score Cards/Single Plans for Student Achievement (BSC/SPSA), and our district s Local Control Accountability Plan identify actions and measures that we will employ to help monitor and measure the implementation and impact of our work. We are committed to using cycles of continuous improvement to review progress toward our goals, implementation of our strategies, the impact of our work, and if needed, realign strategies and resources to meet our goals. In addition, SFUSD will be linking the information to strategies, practices and targets to identify challenge areas and build on success. Through our Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) conversations, the public has expressed interest in how we evaluate the efficacy of interventions, action, services and supports provided to our students. These services and supports are designed to increase student outcomes along a number of indicators, as well as build capacity across the areas called out in Transform Learning. Transform Lives. In addition to the broader measures of student success, we will continue to assess the conditions and other capacity indicators within schools by integrating key information learned from the implementation of: Comprehensive Approach to Literacy Framework Behavioral, Academic, Social Emotional Intervention System (BASIS) Rubric School Capacity Rubric Focal Areas (Bryk s 5 Essential Supports): o o o o o Leadership Instructional Guidance Professional Capacity Systems Student Centered Learning Climate Parent-School-Community Ties The cycle of continuous improvement is used for improving outcomes and creating a reflective mindset within the education system. It is an iterative, problem-solving method for making incremental improvements while gaining valuable learning and knowledge from the practice. Educators use the cycle to study and reflect on current practice or to address a shared problem. This cycle allows us to produce evidence and informs us on how to lead organizational transformation. Page 18 of 112

19 Highlights of Priority Investments Given the fiscal landscape, with revenues slowing, the district s central office departments reduced Unrestricted General Fund budgets by three percent to afford investments. Additionally, maximizing the use of restricted funds, such as the Public Education Enrichment Fund and the Quality Teacher & Education Act have allowed SFUSD to either sustain or slightly increased supports for priority areas. Some of the areas for priority investments are outlined below. Our African American Achievement and Leadership Initiative (AAALI) The African American Achievement and Leadership Initiative (AAALI) was established in 2013 by Superintendent Richard Carranza to provide recommendations to interrupt the inequitable pattern of outcomes for African American students in SFUSD. In 2015, through the leadership of the Superintendent and advocacy of the NAACP and San Francisco Alliance of Black School Educators, a Special Assistant to the Superintendent for African American Achievement and Leadership position was established to lead implementation of the initiative. The African American Achievement and Leadership Initiative holds SFUSD departments and City agencies accountable for providing a high quality educational experience to African American students, and provides a platform for African American student, parent, and community leadership. AAALI is committed to raising expectations for and belief in African American student achievement; engaging, affirming, and empowering African American students and families; coordinating comprehensive wraparound supports for African American students; and ensuring African American students receive culturally responsive, rigorous instruction. The budget supports staffing for AAALI, including the Superintendent s Office AAALI team (six FTEs), African American Male Achievement facilitators (four FTEs), and an African American Male Achievement Program Manager (one FTE). The budget also funds technical assistance and non- FTE costs for AAALI programming including the African American Parent Advisory Council, African American Village Roundtable, and African American Postsecondary Pathway. Our Children, Our Families (OCOF) Council San Francisco has a deep and long-standing commitment to ensuring that children and families thrive. In November 2014, San Francisco voters renewed their commitment to children, youth, and families by passing Proposition C, the Children and Families First Initiative, with 74% of the vote. This measure means a sustained investment in our children and guarantees funding for the Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF) and the Children and Youth Fund (formerly known as the Children's Fund) through Together, these city funds account for more than $135 million annually in funding for programs for children, youth, and families in San Francisco. Under the Children and Families First Initiative, SFUSD receives funding for PEEF (see detailed PEEF Expenditure Plan) as well as a baseline allocation from the Department of Children, Youth and their Families (DCYF). Page 19 of 112

20 The measure also created a new citywide Our Children, Our Families (OCOF) Council, which has just completed its second year. The Council is led by the Mayor and the district Superintendent and includes heads of City and district departments. Members of the public include guardians, youth, service providers, and other community members. The Council has created a citywide outcomes framework and a 5-year plan for city departments and the district to work together to support the children, youth, and families of San Francisco. OCOF is charged with four major deliverables: 1) An Outcomes Framework that articulates the milestones we want all children, youth, and families to reach; 2) A 5-Year Plan with recommendations on how to reach the outcomes outlined in the framework; 3) Systematic data sharing between the City and SFUSD to inform decision-making; and 4) A citywide inventory of publicly funded services for children, youth, and their families. In , the first two deliverables were achieved. In , significant progress was made toward all deliverables. The OCOF Council will continue to meet three times a year in , and will establish additional working groups to continue implementation of the 5-Year Plan which focuses on addressing areas such as education, health, safety, and housing. Issues that have been addressed include closing the achievement gap; increasing economic mobility; improving transit and street safety; and increasing housing stability. In annual progress reports of the 5-Year Plan, the OCOF Council will consider elements such as an equity analysis of services and resources available for children, youth, and families. The OCOF Council has used relevant success indicators based on data such as: the number of children in San Francisco who are thriving; the number of SFUSD graduates who continue on to higher education or the workforce; changes in housing stability for families in San Francisco; and the number of families that transition out of poverty in San Francisco. Board Resolution: Human Trafficking and Exploitation In October 2015, the San Francisco Board of Education unanimously approved a resolution in support of teaching school district staff and students to identify the signs of human trafficking. This resolution has been allocated funding to hire a staff person to coordinate the training for AB1426, which requires child abuse prevention training for all school districts. Human trafficking is modern slavery, and can include both forced labor and commercial sex. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has identified San Francisco as one of 13 high-intensity child exploitation areas, and, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the average age of commercially exploited children is between 11 and 14. The reality that our students are being trafficked is difficult to accept, and yet school sites are in a unique position to interrupt this exploitation. Page 20 of 112

21 Exploited youth are often the most vulnerable of our students foster youth, LGBQT youth, newcomer immigrants, homeless youth, and young people with histories of trauma. Prevention and intervention requires coordination of services from across programs. As such, SFCSD School Health Programs has created a multi-program task force, including Foster Youth Services, Health Education, school nurses, school social workers, Wellness Initiative, LGBQT Support Services, Caminos, and Mentoring for Success to design and implement district-wide staff training. This training is aimed at enhancing awareness of trafficking, increasing efforts of identification, and including this population in already existing prevention and intervention services As directed by the resolution, SFUSD staff added language to its existing Child Abuse Reporting Policy to address human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of children, and is enforcing a mandatory reporting protocol in partnership with the SF Human Services Agency, Huckleberry Youth Programs, and other city/county and community organizations, such as the Child Abuse Prevention Center. The district will also develop a comprehensive training for school administrators, teachers, and support staff regarding the identification and mandatory reporting of human trafficking. All school staff will receive online child abuse mandated reporter training annually, including training on identification of signs and reporting protocols for human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of children. Additionally, school wellness staff, including social workers, nurses and counselors, will receive additional training that will provide tools for prevention, screening, and intervention. Students will receive age-appropriate information about the signs of human trafficking for inclusion in existing health curriculum. These lessons were written in collaboration with expert communitybased organizations and SFUSD Health Education Teachers on Special Assignment. Student leaders will also be engaged to do peer outreach on the subject. Additionally, the resolution calls for the history of World War II comfort women under the Japanese military to be taught during history or social studies classes in secondary schools. Board Resolution: Immigrant Students and Their Families In May 2017, the San Francisco Board of Education (SFUSD) has unanimously approved a student-led resolution, Undocumented, Unafraid and United, reaffirming and strengthening district policies to protect and support immigrant students and their families. In response to increasing tensions in immigrant communities, SFUSD student leaders, along with Board of Education commissioners, reinforced their commitment to ensuring all students have the right to attend school regardless of their immigration status or the status of family members. The new policy reinforces district policy which requires, with the exception of the San Francisco Police and Sheriff's Department, any request accompanied by a warrant, from a law enforcement agency or immigration enforcement agency to access students, records, lands or buildings, to be Page 21 of 112

22 immediately referred to the Superintendent and the district s Legal Department. The district will determine the validity of the warrant and immediately explore all options for legal challenges to the warrant. Furthermore, the policy specifically calls for the creation or expansion of a central resource with expertise in assisting undocumented students and their families to access academic supports and community services. The policy also requires the district to provide staff stipends for an Immigrant and Refugee Liaison at each middle and high school to support undocumented students and their families. In addition, the following programs and professional development opportunities will be formally required under the new policy: specialized training for all counseling staff to effectively support undocumented students; bullying prevention and intervention programs for immigrant students; information to all students about the role of immigrants in history and economics; and expansion of existing community partnerships to provide legal assistance for students and their families. Spark*SF Public Schools Spark*SF Public Schools, a nonprofit foundation founded in August 2015, is comprised of dedicated and dynamic professionals raising funds and advocating on behalf of SFUSD. Their commitment is to actualize the District s Vision 2025 aspirational plan and to serve as the central structure for investing directly in the big changes required to prepare students to compete and thrive in today s world. Over the past several years, Spark*SF and the Fund Development Office have raised over $20 million. These financial resources assist schools and students in the form of new technological devices, new programs, and student and teacher support. Spark*SF is governed by a board of seasoned and emerging public education advocates who partner with the SFUSD Board of Education to attract new funders. The board will also monitor the use of the private and philanthropic investments. The structure for Spark*SF enhances support and engagement for SFUSD s long-standing community organizations who provide volunteers and grants for the District. This formalized system for communicating, reporting, and stewardship fosters a high degree of transparency and accountability for the investments made by funders. Spark*SF Public Schools has expanded and aligned private dollars to rapidly improve important initiatives such as Early Literacy; Science, Technology, Engineering and Math education (STEM); Personalized and Blended Learning; College and Career Readiness; Leadership; and cross-sector partnerships like My Brother and Sister s Keeper. Page 22 of 112

23 Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) The Governor s education budget implemented a new methodology for the allocation of state funding for K-12 education, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The LCFF provides a more equitable way of distributing education revenues to school districts, charter schools and county offices of education. LCFF replaced the then existing revenue limit funding system, as well as more than 40 state categorical programs, with a per pupil base grant plus supplemental and concentration funding for specific populations of students including students who are not English Language proficient, who are from low-income households or who are in foster care. LCFF was projected to be phased in over an eight year period, with full implementation occurring by FY The state education budget provides funding each year to close the gap between current levels of funding and the target funding levels to be reached at the end of the eight year phase in period. The majority of state categorical programs have been rolled into the LCFF, with the exception of programs that are federally-mandated (e.g. child nutrition and special education); programs that are the result of a voter ballot initiative (e.g. after school programs); or are the outcome of a legal settlement. Pupil Transportation and Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant (TIIG) funding continue as addon to the formula for those school districts that historically received funding through these programs. Economic Impact Aid (EIA) funding, previously a restricted program with specific Page 23 of 112

24 compliance and reporting requirements, is now rolled into the LCFF. Both Pupil Transportation and Economic Impact Aid are now unrestricted revenue sources. Under the LCFF, base grants are adjusted for grade spans, with different factors or weights applied for pupils in transitional kindergarten and kindergarten to Grade 3, primary (grades 4-6), middle schools (grades 7-8) and high school (grades 9-12). The TK-3 grade span receives additional funding to implement lower class sizes, and the high school grade span (grade 9-12) receives additional funding for career-technical education. A COLA of 1.56% is included in the base grant funding levels. Grade Level Base Base Base Grant COLA at 1.56% Grant Grant Augmentation Grades TK-3 $7,083 $110 $7,193 $748 Grades 4-6 $7,189 $112 $7,301 - Grades 7-8 $7,403 $115 $7,518 - Grades 9-12 $8,578 $134 $8,712 $227 The LCFF increases the base grant by a supplemental grant and a concentration grant. These grants are determined by the number of pupils who are either eligible for free and reduced priced meals, who are identified as English Learners or who are Foster Youth. Grants are determined on an unduplicated count of pupils, that is, a student can only be counted once, regardless of how many categories the student may fall under. The funding provided under these grants may be used for any locally determined educational purpose as long as it substantially benefits the pupils that generate the funds. The Superintendent of Public Instruction annually computes the percentage of unduplicated pupil count utilizing data reported through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). The supplemental grant is equal to the grade span base grant for each applicable grade level multiplied by 20% times the unduplicated pupil count of free and reduced price meal eligible students, English Learners, or Foster Youth. The concentration grant is equal to the grade span base grant for each applicable grade level multiplied by 50% times the percentage of unduplicated pupil count of free and reduced price meal eligible students, English Learners or Foster Youth that exceeds 55%. Page 24 of 112

25 LCFF Target Entitlement Distribution ( ) Concentration Grant, $15,725,204, 3% Add-Ons (TIIG and Transportation), $38,341,064, 8% Supplemental Grant, $50,987,043, 10% Grade Span Adjustment, $16,056,430, 3% Base Grant, $379,724,190, 76% In , SFUSD is projecting to receive an average growth of $188 per ADA or 43.97% over the prior year to close the gap toward full funding. The chart above displays the projected target entitlement that SFUSD will receive in These amounts are based on current projections for growth in State revenues and 1.56% COLA. Revenue Drivers & Assumptions Page 25 of 112

26 Average Daily Attendance (ADA) Average Daily Attendance is calculated using a formula based on the total number of days students are present divided by the total number of instructional days in the school year. ADA for regular attendance is based on the average number of pupils actually attending classes. Other types of ADA are based on classroom hours. After several years of decline, the district s ADA has stabilized. Meanwhile, charter school ADA has increased each year since FY , as new charters have opened and/or expanded grade offerings. District and charter school ADA data and growth trends are shown on Exhibit 1. The district projects its overall enrollment to increase slightly through The largest increases are projected to occur at the elementary and middle school level, while high school enrollment is projected to increase slightly. For the proposed FY budget, the district is using FY ADA to project funding under the Local Control Funding Formula. This estimate of ADA is based on ADA as of the end of the seventh school month in the prior year, covering a portion of the school year referred to as Period 2 ( P-2 ). ADA Comparison for District and Charter Schools (Exhibit 1) 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, Charter 2, , , , , , , , , ,114.8 District 49, , , , , , , , , ,404. Page 26 of 112

27 Fund Structure California school districts manage their finances using a system called fund accounting. Financial transactions are separated into various funds in order to permit administrators to ensure, and report on, compliance with laws and regulations that affect school districts. School districts vary in the number of funds they maintain, depending on the services or programs offered and the sources of revenue. Expenditures from the various funds must be consistent with each fund s designated purpose. Each fund maintains a fund balance, and revenues and expenditures are recorded and accounted for within each fund. Transfers are made between funds, but each transfer is for a specific purpose in accordance with California school accounting guidelines. Education Code Section requires all local educational agencies (LEAs), including school districts, to follow the guidelines and procedures in the California School Accounting Manual. District Funds The total district Operating budget is $854,755,472, maintained in the following funds (Fund numbers are in parentheses): District General Fund (01) Unrestricted General Fund (UGF), including previously restricted funding sources like Economic Impact Aid and Pupil Transportation which have been made unrestricted under the Local Control Funding Formula Restricted General Fund (RGF) o Federal Page 27 of 112

28 o o State Local Other District Funds Child Development Fund (12) Cafeteria Fund (13) Foundation Special Revenue Fund (19) Capital Facilities Funds o Deferred Maintenance (14) o Building Fund / 1990 Prop B School Facility Safety Tax ( ) o 2003 Prop A Bond School Facilities ( ) o 2006 Prop A Bond School Facilities ( ) o 2011 Prop A Bond School Facilities ( ) o Real Estate Leverage ( ) o Capital Facilities / Developer Fees (25) o State School Building (Old) (30) o State School Building (New) (35) o Special Revenue Fund (Capital Outlay) (40) Enterprise Fund - KALW (63) Self-Insurance Fund (67) General Fund The General Fund is the primary operating fund for all California schools districts. All transactions except those required or permitted by law to be in another fund are accounted for in the General Fund. Most of the district s financial transactions flow through the General Fund, which is further divided between the Unrestricted General Fund (UGF) and the Restricted General Fund (RGF). The Unrestricted General Fund makes up about three-quarters of the total General Fund, and as its name suggests, is primarily spent for general and discretionary purposes. In comparison to the prior year, this year s amount has increased significantly because EIA and pupil transportation funding is now unrestricted under the LCFF. School-based budgets, which are allocated through the district s Weighted Student Formula, comprise the largest portion of expenditures in the Unrestricted General Fund. The Restricted General Fund represents roughly one-quarter of the combined General Fund and is comprised of funds for various categorical programs. The funding for many of these programs is either based on the number of students meeting particular eligibility criteria and/or meant to be invested in specific strategies or activities. Other Funds The district s other funds are associated with specific and distinct activities such as student nutrition, early childhood education, debt service, facilities management and construction. The purposes of the remaining funds are described in other sections of this document. Page 28 of 112

29 County Office of Education (Fund 05) Most school districts in California are monitored by their respective County Offices of Education. County Offices of Education are also responsible for providing direct services to students enrolled in specific programs like special education, community and juvenile court schools. In San Francisco, the Board of Education and Superintendent and staff are responsible for the County Office of Education functions, as well as typical school district functions. For financial reporting and control purposes, a separate budget is maintained for the San Francisco County Office of Education. District General Fund Unrestricted General Fund The fund balance represents the starting and ending point of each year s financial activity. It also represents a crucial parameter for financial planning and budgeting due to the California Education Code requirement that school districts maintain an undesignated reserve for economic uncertainties in the Unrestricted General Fund (UGF). The size of this reserve is based on ADA; districts with ADA between 30,001 and 400,000 must maintain a reserve of not less than two percent (2%) of total General Fund expenditures, transfers out, and other uses. FY Staff is currently projecting an Unrestricted General Fund ending balance for June 30, 2017 (which would become the beginning fund balance for FY ) of $63.3 million. This balance contains the required 2% reserve and other designated fund balances totaling $23.4 million, including $7.6 million to fund ongoing technology needs and $0.6 million for supplies and materials inventory. FY As shown in Exhibit 2, the recommended budget anticipates completing Fiscal Year with an ending fund balance of $45.2 million, which maintains the 2% reserve for economic uncertainties and other designated uses. Multi-Year Projections through FY California school districts are required to demonstrate ability to meet all financial commitments while maintaining their required reserves for three fiscal years in order to retain a Positive Fiscal Certification from the California Department of Education (CDE). For purposes of adopting the budget for FY , SFUSD must forecast its financial position through FY Page 29 of 112

30 Revenue In aggregate, total Unrestricted General Revenues during FY are projected at $560.1 million, as indicated in Exhibits 3 and 4. Total unrestricted revenues are projected to decrease by $0.8 million compared to current projections for FY Proposition 55 Extension of Proposition 30 The Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 Proposition 30, The Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012, was approved by the voters on November 6, 2012, thus avoiding billions of dollars of mid-year trigger cuts to K-12 school districts, county offices of education and community colleges. This measure temporarily increases the state s sales tax rate for all taxpayers by 0.25% for four years, and the personal income tax rates for upper-income taxpayers on annual earnings over $250,000 for a period of seven years. The revenue generated by the measure s temporary tax increases is included in the calculations of the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee raising the guarantee by billions of dollars each year. A portion of the new revenues, therefore, would be used to support increased school funding, with the remainder helping to balance the state budget. The new revenues generated from Proposition 30 are deposited into a newly created state account called the Education Protection Account (EPA). Of the funds in the account, 89% is provided to K 12 education and 11% to community colleges. In November 2016, California voters approved Proposition 55, which extends the personal income tax legislation portion of Proposition 30 through Personal income tax revenue for the state is projected to generate $7 billion in and $7.3 billion in Gains in the income tax, including capital gains tax, have increased projected state revenues. Additionally, in 2015, nearly 48 percent of personal income tax was generated by the top 1 percent of income earners. Given that personal income tax is dependent on moving factors (such as stock market performance) and largely generated by a small group of income earners, fluctuations in either factor could impact the level of revenue generated by Proposition 55. Page 30 of 112

31 Proposition 39 The California Clean Energy Jobs Act of 2012 The California Clean Energy Jobs Act (Proposition 39) was approved by the voters of California on November 6, The initiative makes changes to corporate income taxes, and provides for the annual transfer of funds from the General Fund to the Clean Energy Job Creation Fund for five fiscal years, beginning with the fiscal year. In , the State enacted a budget providing $313.4 million in funding to LEAs under Proposition 39. In , the Governor proposes funding of $376.2 million, a decrease of $22.6 million from last year. $376.2 million will be allocated to school districts, COEs, state special schools and charter schools based on average daily attendance (ADA) as of the second principal apportionment for the prior fiscal year, $46.5 million will be allocated to community colleges based on full-time equivalent students, with the remaining funds going to the California Conservation Corps and the Workforce Investment Board. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) is responsible for distributing funds to school districts that serve grades K-12. These funds are to be used for energy efficiency and alternative energy projects, along with related improvements and repairs that contribute to reduced operating costs and improved health and safety conditions in public schools. Funds may also be used for job training and workforce development in the energy efficiency and renewable energy industry sectors. Proposition 39 establishes the following criteria for project eligibility: Projects must be cost-effective, with total benefits exceeding project costs over time. Projects must focus on energy efficiency and demand reductions first. All projects shall require contracts that identify the project s specifications, costs, and project energy savings. Recipients agree to submit to financial audits, to make information such as facilities data available to program evaluators, and to provide information as required by the annual expenditure report that is due to the SSPI by October 1 of each year. SFUSD will need to maintain documentation on project specifications and costs, which may also include technical assistance and projected energy savings, in order to complete the expenditure report. This program expires in and all funds must be encumbered by June 30, 2018, and projects completed by June 30, Other State Revenues Other State revenue sources are projected to total $8.9 million. These revenue sources include the mandated block grant, lottery proceeds, and charter school pass-through payments. There are currently no one-time discretionary funds projected to be received at this time. Page 31 of 112

32 Lottery income is projected to be $144 per ADA for unrestricted funds and $45 per ADA for Proposition 20 restricted funds (for instructional materials). Mandated cost revenues for FY are projected at $1.9 million, based on a rate of $28 per K-8 ADA and $56 per 9-12 ADA. Every year, the district has to select the option of either applying for the Mandate Block Grant or filing mandated reimbursements under the traditional method. In , the district opted to apply under the Mandate Block Grant and anticipates doing the same in There are no one-time discretionary revenues projected at this time based on the Governor s May Revised Budget. The per ADA funding rate may change with the enacted budget. Funds received under the one-time discretionary revenues will directly offset any unreimbursed claims that districts are owed under the mandated cost claims process. Other Local Revenues Local revenues are projected to equal $49.7 million in FY The largest source of local revenue is the City s non ad-valorem (sales) tax, which is anticipated to generate $35.5 million. This reflects an increase of about 1.0% from current projections for FY Also included is projected income from leases and rentals of district property, interest income, and administrative fees from Charter Schools. Assumptions Key revenue assumptions are described below and displayed on Exhibits 3 and 4. LCFF Revenue LCFF revenue includes base funding, grade span adjustments for Grades TK-3 and 9-12, as well as supplemental and concentration grant funding. Growth funding to close the gap towards the target entitlement levels is estimated at 43.97% or approximately $188 per average daily attendance. A statutory COLA of 1.56% is funded. A three-year rolling average of 62.7% is projected for the unduplicated pupil count, based on student enrollment data submitted through the California Longitudinal Pupil Data system (CALPADS). Note: LCFF revenue estimates are subject to revision when the State budget has been approved. If actual revenues reflected in the State s enacted budget vary from the May Revision funding levels, corresponding expenditure adjustments will be made. Federal Revenue Most federal revenue received by SFUSD is restricted. Approximately $0.65 M of unrestricted revenue includes a partial offset to the cost of the JROTC program. Page 32 of 112

33 Other State Revenue Lottery income is projected at $6.83M. Mandated Block Grant is projected at $1.90M. Other Local Revenue Sales tax revenues are projected at $35.45M. Interest revenue is projected at $3.53M. Ongoing Leases and Rentals are projected at $9.51M. Charter School Administrative Fees are projected at $0.72M. All other local revenue is estimated at $0.50M. Expenditure In aggregate, total Unrestricted General Fund Expenditures during FY are projected at $578.2 million (see Exhibit 5). These figures reflect Weighted Student Formula (WSF) allocations, costs of centrally budgeted functions, anticipated UGF contributions for special programs, and step and column increases. The projected expenditures included in this preliminary budget reflect several additional important salary and compensation factors. Collective bargaining agreements covering the budget year have not been settled for several bargaining units. Health care benefits, including dental coverage for which the district is self-insured, are projected to increase by 2%, reflecting changes in the demographics of new hires and tenured employees. Centrally Budgeted Functions Centralized budgets include Operational Support (e.g., Utilities, Custodial Services, Transportation); Other School Based Instructional Support (e.g., Curriculum and Instruction, Research and Planning); contributions to special programs, and Central Administration (e.g., Business Services, Board of Education, Superintendent). Page 33 of 112

34 Total UGF expenditures for centrally budgeted functions are estimated at $247.0 million for FY and includes contributions to the County Office of Education (Special Education, Special Education Transportation, and County Programs), Child Development Fund, Cafeteria Fund, and Debt Service Fund, which are projected to total $128.0 million. See Exhibit 6 for details. Weighted Student Formula (WSF - Direct School-Based Resources) During the school year, the district moved toward school site-based authority in resource planning and budget development by implementing the Weighted Student Formula ( WSF ) as the primary method of allocating local funds to schools. Instead of delivering resources through Full- Time Equivalent (FTE) staffing allocations, as had previously been the case, resources are allocated and distributed in dollars. Importantly, funding levels of the WSF are based on student needs. A basic funding amount by grade level is provided for each student and supplemented by an additional amount if the student requires ELL services or is from a low socioeconomic household or is a foster youth. Additional funding in the form of concentration grants is provided to schools with populations of these students exceeding 55%. In addition, budgetary decisions using WSF resources are made at the school site by local School Site Councils ( SSC s ) instead of centrally. In this way, the WSF method of allocation allows schools to be more creative, innovative, and responsive to local needs. It also makes the SFUSD s system of resource allocation more accountable and transparent to parents and other stakeholders. After doing a thorough assessment of current conditions and needs each year, each school conducts a monitoring process to see how well the strategies they have been implementing are meeting their goals. Each school s balanced scorecard ( BSC ) prioritizes the continuing needs of the school and outlines specific strategies to meet the school s objectives. School Site Councils prepare preliminary budgets using initial allocations based on enrollment projections. WSF and categorical/restricted program allocations for each school are indicated in Exhibit 8. These site budget allocations are subject to change as a result of changes in each school s actual enrollment and/or overall SFUSD funding levels. Preliminary budget allocations are posted on the SFUSD website at: These budget allocations will be updated in the fall to reflect the final numbers. School sites whose budget allocations change will prepare revised spending plans accordingly. The proposed budget reflects an increase of 4.9% in overall WSF funding as this was a priority for accelerating achievement for focal students. Allocations take into account factors such as adjustments for changes in enrollment, step increments and increases in benefits costs, and maintenance of class sizes of 22 in kindergarten through third grade. Funding Sources Managed by School Sites The funding sources below cover various funding sources managed by school sites. Weighted Student Formula Weighted Student Formula Special Education Title I Page 34 of 112

35 Supplemental Concentration Grant Low Income (SCG-LI) (formerly EIA-SCE) Supplemental Concentration Grant English Learner (SCG-EL) (formerly EIA-LEP) Concentration Funds Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant Public Education Enrichment Fund (Prop H) In addition, schools receive centrally allocated resources like literacy coaches, counselors, nurses, social workers, and family liaisons under the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support ( MTSS ). See Exhibit 8A for a detailed listing of school-specific MTSS allocations. FY Budget Assumptions Expenditure assumptions are described below, and all UGF expenditures are displayed on Exhibits 5, 6 and 8. Salary & Benefit Costs Salaries are prorated for scheduled step and column increases of 1%. Open positions are budgeted at the average salary for the particular job classification. Health care premiums are projected to increase by 2%. An increase in the employer contribution rate for CALSTRS of 1.85% is incorporated in the salary schedule. UGF Contributions to Other Funds Contributions to other funds total $100.8 million. $71.4M contribution to County Office of Education for Special Education $17.0M contribution to County Office of Education for Special Education Transportation $5.7M contribution to Early Education Fund $4.0M contribution to Cafeteria Fund $2.7M contribution to Debt Service Fund Other Factors $2.2M of Public Education Enrichment Fund ( PEEF ) Other General Uses funding to provide support for UGF $5.2M of Quality Teacher & Education Act ( QTEA ) contributes to certificated salaries LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Grants The funds are generated by the population of English Learner students, foster youth, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students in the district. They provide supplemental resources to school sites with these populations to support their unique needs. These expenditures are tracked using unique locally-defined resource codes. SCG-LI (Resource 07090) are funds designed to provide quality educational opportunities for all children in the district, recognizing that a wide variety of factors such as low family income, pupil transiency rates, and large numbers of homes where a primary language other Page 35 of 112

36 than English is spoken have a direct impact on a child s success in school and personal development and require that different levels of financial assistance be provided in order to assure a quality level of education for all pupils. SCG-EL (Resource 07091) funds provide supplemental resources to schools to help develop fluency in English in each student as effectively and efficiently as possible, promote students positive self-concepts, promote cross-cultural understanding, and provide equal opportunity for academic achievement, including, when necessary, academic instruction through the primary language. LCFF Concentration Grants (Resource 07092) are provided on a tiered basis to schools that have a concentration of low income, English Learner, and foster youth students that exceed 55% of the school s total student population. These funds are used to provide additional targeted services for these students. Home to School Transportation (Resource 07230) Provides transportation to and from school for district students. Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant ( Consent Decree ) (Resource 07940) Combines funds from the district s court-ordered and voluntary desegregation efforts. Although these funds are now part of the LCFF and therefore unrestricted, the district continues to allocate these funds in a manner that reflects the original equity goals of the desegregation court order/consent decree. Both Home to School Transportation and Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant funds are now part of the LCFF as add-ons to the calculation of LCFF target entitlements. District General Fund Restricted General Fund The Restricted General Fund (RGF) represents approximately one-quarter of the district s combined General Fund and is comprised of funds for particular programs to serve children with particular characteristics or needs. RGF programs are often referred to as Categorical programs. The funding for many of these programs is based on the number of students who meet particular eligibility criteria and is intended to serve these target student populations. SFUSD staff updates revenue and expenditure projections for restricted funds, such as state and federal grants, as information is released by awarding agencies. In many cases, the numbers that are indicated in this budget are preliminary and are reviewed with individual program managers based on anticipated grant awards and projected spending plans. Revenue projections are generally based on actual grant awards or, if grant awards for have not been received, a continuation of the funding levels. During the course of each fiscal year, additional grants are determined; as a result, actual restricted funding is typically higher than the total of funds reflected in the district s adopted budget. Each program is assigned a Resource code, which is used consistently throughout the state for state and federal programs. Page 36 of 112

37 Exhibit 7 indicates current estimates of total funding and spending by major object category for federal, state, and local restricted programs. In some cases, funding estimates are available but site administrators and/or program managers have not yet determined detailed (object-level) spending plans for the coming fiscal year. Only funds that can be appropriated at this time into a detailed account code are reflected in Exhibit 7. The following descriptions are a partial listing of the district s major restricted funds. Federal Funds Federal categorical funding represents approximately ten percent of the State s total K-12 education funding. Several of the most significant federal programs were created through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of The 2015 ESEA reauthorization is known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Many of the areas of emphasis in prior legislation continue to hold true, including the School Quality Improvement System (CORE Waiver) and No Child Left Behind. As legislation is proposed and adopted at the federal and state levels, we will continue to align our accountability and funding structures accordingly. The district s proposed budget for FY includes approximately $27.3 million in federal funds for various categorical programs and grants. Refer to Exhibit 7 Federally Funded Restricted Programs for more detailed budget information. The largest and most significant federal grant programs operated by the district are described below. Title I, Part A: Basic Grant (Resources , and Resource 31500) Provides supplemental funds to be used to narrow the educational gap between disadvantaged children and other children in those areas where the highest concentration of children from low-income families attend school. Districts including SFUSD target specific schools with the largest percentages of economically disadvantaged students for these supplemental services. Title II, Part A: Teacher and Principal Training and Recruitment (Resource 40350) Provides funds to increase student academic achievement by improving teacher and principal quality through professional development and recruitment. These funds assist SFUSD and other districts in increasing the number of highly qualified teachers and principals. 21 st Century Learning (Resources ) Provides funding for programs to focus on academic achievement, enrichment, and family literacy. This state-administered, federally-funded program provides five-year grant funding to establish or expand before- and after-school programs that provide disadvantaged K-12 students (particularly students who attend schools in need of improvement) with academic enrichment opportunities and supportive services to help the students meet state and local standards in core content areas. For , SFUSD s 21 st Century Learning funding for elementary schools was not granted this is a competitive grant. We are looking at alternative funding sources to cover shortfalls in funding resulting from the loss of part of this grant. Page 37 of 112

38 Title III, Part A: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient (LEP) and Immigrant Students (Resource 42030) Provides funding for supplementary programs and services for LEP students. Required activities include the provision of instruction and instructional support services related to English language development and academic progress in the core curriculum in a manner that allows LEP students to meet grade level and graduation requirements. Programs must also provide staff development of school staff assigned to LEP student populations. Title III funds may also be used for a variety of instructional support, curricular development, parental involvement, and related program activities. State Funds The majority of state categorical programs have been rolled into the LCFF, with the exception of federally-mandated programs (e.g. child nutrition and Special Education), programs that are the result of a voter ballot initiative (e.g. after school programs) or are the outcome of a legal settlement (e.g., formerly QEIA). The district s proposed budget for FY includes approximately $48.2 million in state categorical programs and grants. Refer to Exhibit 7 State Restricted Funded Programs for more detailed budget information. The largest state categorical programs operated by the district are described below. After School Education and Safety Program (ASES) (Resources ) The ASES program provides funding for after-school programs to focus on academic achievement and enrichment in collaboration with community partners. The state funded program provides threeyear renewable grant funding provide after-school programs that provide disadvantaged K-12 students in selected schools that meet the funding criteria with academic enrichment opportunities and supportive services to help the students meet state and local standards in core content areas. Educator Effectiveness Grant (Resources 62640, 62641) Provide funding to county offices of education, school districts and charter schools to provide beginning teacher and administrator support and mentoring, professional development, coaching and support services for teachers identified as needing improvement or additional support, professional development for teachers and administrators aligned to the state standards, and to promote educator quality and effectiveness. Funds are allocated on the basis of an equal amount per certificated FTE as reported in CALPADS for the fiscal year. School districts, county offices of education and charter schools will receive approximately $1,466 per certificated FTE. The estimated apportionment is $5,730,076 for SFUSD and $92,700 for SFCOE. LEAs have through June 30, 2018 to spend Educator Effectiveness Grant funding. Lottery income / Prop 20 (Resource 63000) Projected to be $45 per ADA, lottery income/prop 20 funding is meant to be used to purchase instructional materials. Page 38 of 112

39 Career Technical Education Incentive Grant (CTEIG) (Resources 63870) The California Career Technical Education Incentive Grant Program is hereby established as a state education, economic, and workforce development initiative with the goal of providing pupils in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, with the knowledge and skills necessary to transition to employment and postsecondary education. The purpose of this program is to encourage and maintain the delivery of career technical education programs during implementation of the school district and charter school local control funding formula. The allocation is based upon an ADA count plus the items listed as positive consideration in Education Code Section SFUSD is receiving $3,295,795. Tobacco-Use Prevention Education (TUPE) Program (Resources 66900) Provides funding for tobacco-specific student instruction, reinforcement activities, special events, and cessation programs for students as well as health education efforts aimed at the prevention and reduction of tobacco use. Common Core State Standards Implementation Support (Resource 07450, Previously Resource 74050) In California, the State Board of Education determines the curriculum standards for all students from kindergarten through high school. Since 2010, 45 states have adopted the same standards for English Language Arts and Math. These standards are called the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). For the and school years, Assembly Bill (AB) 86, Chapter 48/2013 established funding for implementation of the CCSS along with language outlining certain conditions for the receipt and expenditure of these funds. The enacted State Budget provided $1.25 billion in one-time funds for the implementation of the CCSS. Funds were allocated to school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and state special schools on a per-student amount based upon prior-year ( ) California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) enrollment. LEAs could encumber funds any time during the and school years. Additionally, these CCSS implementation funds were intended for the following purposes: 1. Professional development for teachers, administrators, and paraprofessional educators or other classified employees involved in the direct instruction of pupils that is aligned to the academic content standards adopted pursuant to California Education Code (EC) sections , , , and Purchase of instructional materials aligned to the academic content standards adopted pursuant to EC sections , , , and including, but not limited to, supplemental instructional materials as provided in sections , , and Integration of these academic content standards through technology-based instruction for purposes of improving the academic performance of pupils, including, but not necessarily limited to, expenditures necessary to support the administration of Page 39 of 112

40 computer-based assessments and provide high-speed, high-bandwidth Internet connectivity for the purpose of administration of computer-based assessments. SFUSD received $11,356,801 for the district and $133,832 for the SFCOE. These funds help further plans to provide professional development in CCSS ELA and Math standards, as well as SBAC and more formative assessment administration, to teachers and staff; funds also allow the district to purchase additional texts and provide necessary materials for SBAC piloting to schools; and funding provides much needed resources to bolster connectivity and technology resources to not only administer new assessments but to also support the development of 21 st century skills for students. Moving into , SFUSD proposes to continue supporting many of these programs, primarily in the areas of professional development and additional formative assessments. Ongoing & Major Maintenance (Resource 81500) As a condition of participating in (and receiving funds through) the State s school building program, each fiscal year the district is required to transfer from unrestricted general funds to its ongoing repair and maintenance account an amount equal to 3% of total general fund expenditures, transfers out, and other uses. While flexibility was provided under Education Code for a period of five years to lower the setaside requirement to zero (except as necessary to comply with the Williams requirements to maintain school facilities in clean and good working condition), the district has continued to maintain its support to the Ongoing and Major Maintenance program as required. This account is identified by and fiscally managed under a restricted resource code in the district s Restricted General Fund. Beginning in the year, the contribution to the Ongoing and Major Maintenance program was reinstated to the full 3% of district expenditures. For , the contribution totals $23.0 million. Local Funds The City and County of San Francisco supports the district through several restricted grant programs, including funds provided by the Department of Children, Youth, and their Families (DCYF). The largest restricted local grant program is the Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF), created by San Francisco voters approval of Proposition H in March The funding was reauthorized in November of 2014 under the Children and Families First initiative. The ballot initiative approved by the voters created an advisory body led by the Mayor and the Superintendent to align city, school district, and community efforts to improve outcomes for children, youth, and families. Additionally, the district receives support from local parcel tax revenues, the largest of which is the Quality Teacher and Education Act (QTEA), created by San Francisco voters approval of Proposition A in See Exhibit 7 for a detailed list of locally-funded programs operated by the district. Page 40 of 112

41 Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF) In March of 2004, San Francisco voters approved the ballot initiative Proposition H. The passage of Proposition H established the Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF) as law within the City Charter, Section The City contributed to this fund annually for 10 years, which totaled a minimum of approximately $40M per year for SFUSD since (before 25% deferral applied) plus or minus annual adjustments tied to changes in the City s annual revenues. Although the fund was set to expire on June 30, 2015, PEEF funding continued with the passage of Proposition C, the Children and Families First initiative, in November Proposition C meant a sustained investment in our children and guaranteed funding for PEEF and the Children and Youth Fund (formerly known as the Children's Fund) through PEEF provides critical funding to improve the quality of education for the youth of San Francisco and is shared by SFUSD and CCSF s Department of Early Care and Education. PEEF has been critical in allowing the district to maintain, and in most cases, expand programs during the budget crisis. One third of the total PEEF fund is allocated to CCSF s Department of Early Care and Education for preschool support. One third supports sports, libraries, the arts and music (SLAM). One third funds vital programs such as Wellness Centers, Student Support Professionals, Translation Services, Peer Resources, STEM, A-G Support, and Multilingual Pathways (Third- Third). Pre-school for All The funds allocated to CCSF s Department of Early Care and Education are one third of the total PEEF allocation. Preschool for All is San Francisco s universal preschool system that is expanding preschool access and improving preschool program quality for 3 to 5 year-olds residing within San Francisco County. Sports (Physical Education & Athletics), Libraries, and Arts and Music (SLAM) programs The funds allocated to SLAM programs are one third of the total PEEF allocation (one half of the total SFUSD allocation). The funds are restricted and cannot be used for any purpose other than for SLAM programs which include but are not limited to Physical Education teachers, Athletic Coaches, Librarians, Visual and Performing Arts Teachers, supplies, equipment, materials, and professional development funds to support the above programs. Other General Uses (Third-Third) The funds allocated to Other General Uses programs are one third of the total PEEF allocation (one half of the SFUSD allocation). The funds are discretionary and are used to fund programs for student and family support, academic support, and to support general infrastructure needs SFUSD PEEF Revenue Allocation Total - $68,510,000 The PEEF Expenditure Plan reflects the revenue estimate of $68,510,000 in response to the City and County of San Francisco s Office of the Controller s March 2017 fund estimate. Page 41 of 112

42 This PEEF Expenditure Plan was approved by the SFUSD Board of Education on March 21, The total budgeted amount for is $69,215,582; this includes $34,439,816 for Sports, Libraries, Arts and Music ($184,816 of which is funded by fund balance). $34,775,767 is budgeted for ongoing programs in the Other General Uses ($520,767 of which is funded by fund balance). Sports, Libraries, Arts and Music (SLAM) Revenue Allocation - $34,255,000 PEEF funding for SLAM programs has ensured that all students have greater access to high quality SLAM programs. Where projected revenue may not fully cover budgeted activities, estimated prior year fund balance will be used to cover expenditures. Other General Uses (Third-Third) Revenue Allocation - $34,255,000 PEEF has enabled the district to maintain its commitment to focus on providing essential supports for students, especially within the areas of student and family support as well as academic support. The Other General Uses portion of PEEF in particular has been essential in maintaining and expanding core programs. With a projected increase in revenue, there are new investments in the Other General Uses portion of PEEF intended to expand and deepen supports for students, including creating a Bayview Support Plan, expanding the Family Academy, expanding Tier 3 supports for Early Education schools, and piloting elements of the Middle School Redesign project. Funding will also support staffing for the operational support and evaluation of all PEEF programs, and grant writing support to bring in new resources to support schools. Funding will also help maintain school budgets by providing for the Weighted Student Formula (basic needs to school sites such as classroom teachers, school administration, and instructional materials) through the reserve fund. As the district identifies additional priorities which can be funded by PEEF, this reserve fund will be significantly reduced over time. Where projected revenue may not fully cover budgeted activities, estimated prior year fund balance will be used to cover expenditures Projected PEEF Program Name Revenue Total PEEF Revenue Total 68,510,000 Sports, Libraries, Arts and Music (SLAM) Projected Revenue Revenue Total Sports - Physical Education 6,340,601 Sports - Athletics 3,935,900 Libraries 10,276,500 Page 42 of 112

43 Arts and Music 13,702,000 SLAM Revenue Total 34,255,000 Budget Approved Budget Total Sports - Physical Education 6,340,601 Sports - Athletics 3,935,900 Libraries 10,276,500 Arts and Music 13,886,816 SLAM Budget Total 34,439,816 Other General Uses Revenue Projected Revenue Total Other General Uses Revenue Total 34,255,000 Budget Student and Family Support Approved Budget Total Student Support Professionals 9,066,450 Peer Resources 1,183,190 Wellness Centers 1,884,513 Wellness Policy 299,113 Restorative Practices 1,277,297 Family Academy Support 268,295 SOAR Supports 1,073,893 Translation and Interpretation Services 1,838,730 Students with Incarcerated Parents & Homeless Youth 95,396 Early Education Support 1,157,916 Academic Support Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) 3,175,363 Digital Learning 805,502 A-G Support: Additional Course Earning Offerings 2,916,204 AVID & AVID Excel 449,705 Multilingual Pathways 2,758,285 Career Technical Education 785,747 Formative Assessment System 218,596 Teacher and Leadership Development 307,185 Ethnic Studies Support 378,212 AAALI Program Support 548,139 Health Education 343,255 Bayview Support Plan 450,000 Page 43 of 112

44 Reading Intervention Supports 260,000 Infrastructure General Infrastructure 1,034,779 Reserve Fund 2,200,000 Other General Uses Budget Total 34,775,767 PEEF Budget Total 69,215,582 For more information and to view the entire PEEF Expenditure Plan, please visit: Page 44 of 112

45 PEEF Proposed Budget Amendment The following includes program descriptions and budget amounts for each of the newly funded programs and activities included in the proposed PEEF Budget Amendment. During the annual spring budgeting process, district staff identified priorities that remained unfunded or underfunded. At the same time, an updated allocation estimate was received from the Controller s Office in June This updated estimate of $69,520,000 means an overall growth of $1,010,000 from the PEEF Budget approved by the Board of Education on March 21, Through the spring budgeting process, a number of priorities were identified to be included in the PEEF Budget Amendment. Sports, Libraries, Arts and Music (SLAM) Increased Funding of $505,000 The revenue growth of $505,000 for SLAM programs has been budgeted for the program activities described below: Physical Education - $93,476 o $92,038 for 1.0 FTE PE Specialist o $1,438 for Supplies Athletics - $58,025 o $58,025 for Athletic Equipment Libraries - $151,500 o $150,020 for 1.5 FTE Teacher Librarian o $1,480 for Substitutes Visual and Performing Arts - $202,000 o $174,608 for 1.95 FTE Visual & Performing Arts Teachers o $27,392 for Extended Hours Other General Uses (Third-Third) Increased Funding of $505,000 With the most recent increase in PEEF funding (per the June Amendment), we are looking closely at school sites that were impacted by reductions in centrally-funded FTE supports. This increased revenue allows us to restore some of these allocations. As such, the revenue growth of $505,000 for Other General Uses will be prioritized for restoring centrally-funded FTE supports allocated to school sites via the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). Additionally, we are prioritizing a portion of estimated prior year fund balance to provide additional restoration of MTSS allocations, up to $270,000. In total, approximately $750,000 of allocation restorations will be made possible through PEEF revenue increases and fund balance. Page 45 of 112

46 The Quality Teacher and Education Act (QTEA) The Quality Teacher and Education Act (QTEA) Proposition A approved in 2008 and in place for 20 years makes San Francisco teacher salaries competitive with those in surrounding school districts; provides financial incentives for teachers to work at schools with historically high turnover and teach in hard-to-fill subject areas such as Special Education and Bilingual Education; increases teacher support while raising teacher accountability; improves academic innovation through research and development; upgrades school technologies and increases connectivity; and supports public charter schools in the district. QTEA authorizes the city to collect an annual tax per parcel of taxable property for 20 years. The annual tax amount is adjusted for inflation annually in 2008 it was $198; for , the amount was $ For , the parcel tax amount is projected to be $ and the total revenues are projected to be $40.79 million. Per negotiations with our bargaining members, QTEA s funding is allocated across two major categories Teacher Compensation (accounts for percent of funds) and Non-Teacher Compensation (accounts for percent of funds). The figure below gives a summary of the distribution of QTEA revenue: Teacher Compensation Teacher Compensation (UESF MOU Portion) of QTEA supports several programs and incentives. The majority of the teacher compensation allocation focuses on augmenting teacher salaries (59 percent see figure above); the second largest bucket within Teacher Compensation supports professional development (11 percent) including an additional 18 hours of professional development for teachers Page 46 of 112

47 and paraprofessionals. The Hard-to-Fill Subject and Hard-to-Staff School stipends account for another 11 percent. The retention bonuses and other stipends accounts for 5 percent, and stipends for teachers participating in the Master Teacher program and SF Urban Teacher Residency accounts for 4 percent. The remaining 10 percent of the Teacher Compensation portion of QTEA funds includes PAR Coaches, additional benefits, and the Impact & Innovation Awards. QTEA provides salary increases and stipends to thousands of employees. In , QTEA has allocated $17.2 million to salary increases for teachers. Since 2008, the contract between UESF and SFUSD has specified that QTEA would fund salary increases as shown in the Parcel Tax Add-On column in the teacher salary schedules. The Parcel Tax Add-On funds step increases ranging from $500 to $6,300 for certificated staff. In addition, as part of the most recent UESF contract for , QTEA contributed up to an additional 1.5 percent overall salary increase for certificated staff (1 percent in and ; 1.5 percent in ). To acknowledge teachers continued service at SFUSD, QTEA provides 4-Year Retention Bonuses of $2,500 and 8-Year Retention Bonuses of $3,000. Hard-to-Staff School stipends of $2,000 are given to teachers and administrators throughout the year for those who serve at high turnover school sites, which are also often those that serve higher concentrations of focal students. Hard-to-Fill Subject stipends of $1,000 are given to teachers for their work in Special Education and Bilingual Education. QTEA also provides professional development and growth opportunities. There are 18 hours of additional professional development provided to teachers and paraprofessionals. Additionally, the Master Teacher Program provides opportunities to develop and share best practices. Master Teachers are selected through an application process including peer evaluation, principal recommendation, classroom observation, interviews, and a selection committee. The Master Teachers meet monthly and work with a network of teachers in professional learning communities across sites. The San Francisco Teacher Residency (SFTR) is a partnership between SFUSD, the University of San Francisco, Stanford University, and the United Educators of San Francisco. This program recruits, prepares, and supports highly effective and equity-centered teachers in and for high-needs schools and subject areas. SFTR teacher residents spend a full year student teaching under the guidance of an experienced SFUSD educator called a Cooperating Teacher while concurrently earning a teaching credential and Master's degree at one of our partner universities. In exchange for incentives such as an AmeriCorps living stipend, housing stipend, tuition remission, and three years of intensive coaching, the residents commit to teaching in SFUSD for at least three years upon completing the program. In addition to supporting district teachers and staff, QTEA aims to recognize and reward schools for effective strategies and innovative best practices. The fourth annual QTEA Impact & Innovation Awards launched in fall This awards program is designed collaboratively between the district and UESF in effort to recognize the great work that is happening at schools. Page 47 of 112

48 The Impact & Innovation Awards aim to reward schools that have demonstrated achievement and to develop effective methods of sharing strategies that hard-working staff at these schools employ day-to-day to support student achievement. The Impact & Innovation Awards continue to showcase the creativity, problem-solving skills, and continual cycle of improvement integral to SFUSD schools. The awards program is two-fold: Impact Awards: Recognize and support the expansion of practices which have demonstrated impact on student achievement. The funding to each site will enable them to build and expand on these promising practices. Innovation Awards: Support schools in identifying an equity challenge and then assembling a diverse team to engage in a six week design process to conduct empathy- and inspirationbased research, unearth critical insights, and create new solutions that they will implement to address their unique challenge In , Impact Awards were awarded to nine schools and Innovation Awards were awarded to 18 schools, ranging from $7,500 to $36,000. More information about winners and the awards can be found here: To better understand the effectiveness of QTEA, the district partners with Stanford University to research and assess QTEA and its programs. Current research publications can be found here: Non-Teacher Compensation Non-Teacher Compensation (Non-UESF MOU Portion) of QTEA supports a multifaceted array of initiatives to further support teacher quality and retention. The majority of the Non-Teacher Compensation funds support technology (about 52 percent see figure above); support of other school personnel (21 percent) including Hard-to-Staff School stipends to administrators (principals and assistant principals), equity adjustments and QTEA oversight support; about 8 percent supports Innovation, Research & Development; another 10 percent supports charter schools; and 5 percent provides additional professional development, including professional learning communities (PLCs) for Paraprofessional and Teacher collaboration and support for the transition to the Common Core State Standards. The remaining 4 percent of QTEA funds is attributed to growth in the Non-Teacher Compensation portion. In the Non-Teacher Compensation portion of QTEA, several cross-departmental initiatives were supported with the help of QTEA in QTEA has had a significant impact on providing students, parents, and teachers with access to current technology and adequate resources to support student achievement. QTEA funds make up a significant portion of the Department of Technology (DoT) s budget. Page 48 of 112

49 Many technology initiatives continue to grow through QTEA. SFUSD s technology goals include redefining the classroom experience, developing critical tools and systems, and building resilient infrastructure. QTEA funds technology upgrade support, Synergy Student Information System implementation, and laptops for educators. QTEA enables the district to double the size of the technology staff that will provide stronger support of technology used at school sites and data systems for student data. In , QTEA funding of the Department of Technology (DoT) supported comprehensive improvements to teaching and learning through technology integration in SFUSD. These efforts resulted in improved technology experiences for students, parents, staff, and community members. For example, technology initiatives funded by QTEA in included: Technology Upgrade Support: Eight teams across the DoT improved the quality and effectiveness of technology services through educator-, student-, and family-centered projects and implementations. In addition to other activities, QTEA has allowed SFUSD to consolidate gradebook applications, create a school performance dashboard, improve training and support on critical systems, increase educational technology offerings, implement a unified communications and collaboration platform, and create a robust infrastructure foundation on which additional 21 st century learning opportunities can be built. Synergy Implementation: Funded costs associated with implementation of the Synergy, the Student Information System, including Gradebook and family/student portals project. Technology Access and Laptops for Educators Deployment: Thousands of devices were deployed across the district throughout the last few years. o 4,500 district-provided laptops for student learning and assessment, leading to a successful SBAC administration. o 4,500 laptops for educators to support classroom instruction, communication, and productivity. o 6,000 classroom devices through school and partner investments. o Currently more than 35,000 devices district-wide. QTEA provided funds to build capacity of SFUSD leaders and teachers and to innovate on existing models to ensure more powerful student learning experiences. Through the use of QTEA funds, IISJ has helped site leaders re-imagine their work and further collaborate on equity issues. For example, the ilab is a space where school site design teams can gather outside of the fray and perceived constraints of daily work life to dive deeply into a strategic problem of practice and, through a facilitated process, develop prototypes and plans for implementation. Modeled in many ways after the physical space of the Stanford Design School, the SFUSD ilab represents an inviting space that promotes and prompts creative thought, risk taking, and team work through its design and the programming it offers. Page 49 of 112

50 To help ensure accountability across QTEA, the QTEA Oversight Committee presented a review of the ballot measure s financial audit and programs to the Board of Education in April The financial audit was a great sign of the successes of QTEA, as there were no findings. QTEA continues to allocate funds and conduct transactions accurately and appropriately. However, the QTEA Oversight Committee expressed concern that QTEA cannot sustain planned expenditures, including the 1.5% salary increase for teachers, without relying on prior year carryover. Below is a breakdown of QTEA s budget for and high-level descriptions for each expenditure category: Teacher Compensation (UESF MOU Portion) QTEA Expenditure Category Description Adopted Budget Recommended Budget Salary Increases Salary adjustments for all certificated staff Step increases range from $500 to $6,300 and 1% contribution $15.2M $15.2M Additional Salary Increase 1% contribution to salary increases totaling $5,157,214 (additional funds will come from carryover) $1.2M (CY: $3.9M) $2.0 (CY: $3.2) Other Stipends Annual stipend of $500 for all eligible Early Education teachers Annual stipend of $250 for all eligible Paraprofessionals Annual stipend for qualified substitutes: $400 per semester ( 50 days at HTS schools) $200 per semester ( 60 days in any school(s)) $0.6M $0.6M Retention Bonuses 4-Year Retention Bonus of $2,500 for certificated staff 8-Year Retention Bonus of $3,000 for certificated staff $0.9M $1.0M Additional Professional Dev. Supports tuition reimbursement for Special Education teachers Additional 18 hours of PD for certificated staff and paraprofessionals $3.1M $3.1M Health Benefits Supports health and dental benefits for core substitutes at Hard-to-Staff schools Supports paraprofessional retirement $0.4M $0.4M PAR Coaches Provides five additional Peer Assistance Review (PAR) coaches $0.5M $0.5M Page 50 of 112

51 Teacher Compensation (UESF MOU Portion) QTEA Expenditure Category Description Adopted Budget Recommended Budget Hard-to-Staff Schools Stipend & Hard-to-Fill Subjects Stipend $2,000 stipend to certificated staff working at Hard-to-Staff schools 25 schools are designated Hard-to-Staff annually $1,000 stipend for certificated staff teaching in Hard-to-Fill subject areas Special Education and Bilingual Education are designated Hard-to-Fill. If subject is no longer designated Hard to Fill, stipends will continue for two additional years $3.1M $3.1M Master Teachers Develops a Master Teacher program and provide incentives for exceptional teachers to stay in the classroom to support student achievement and promote professional development $1.0M $1.0M Impact & Innovation Awards Supports best practices at schools by providing additional recognition and resources to schools that model effective school-wide strategies and show the most growth in student achievement $0.6M $0.6M Other Health Benefits Supports additional health benefits for dependents $0.3M $0.3M Teacher Residency Supports $2,500 stipends for SFTR Demonstration Teachers $0.08M $0.08M Indirect Costs Charged on all expenditures excluding Impact & Innovation Awards $1.1M $1.1M Growth $1,796 $42,163 Total $28.2M $29.1M Page 51 of 112

52 Non-Teacher Compensation (Non-UESF MOU Portion) QTEA Expenditure Category Description Adopted Budget Recommended Budget Compensation & Benefits for Other Bargaining Units Stipends to certificated administrators at Hard-to- Staff schools, equity adjustments, UASF professional development, and QTEA oversight activities $2.5M $2.4M Additional PD Provides administrative support for the professional development hours in Teacher Compensation Supports additional professional development activities focused on CCSS implementation $0.6M $0.6M Technology Support for Synergy, hardware/software upgrades, and resources for Help Desk support Support for Laptop for Educators (additional funds will come from carryover) $5.7M (CY: $3.7M) $6.1M (CY: $2.5M) Innovation, Research & Dev. Support for ilab and continuous growth of innovative teaching and learning opportunities $0.9M $0.9M Charter Schools Allocates a portion of funds to public charter schools $1.2M $1.1M Indirect Costs Charged on all expenditures $0.2M $0.4M Growth $279,265 $63,115 Total $11.4M $11.7M *All values are rounded. For additional information on QTEA, visit Page 52 of 112

53 San Francisco Department of Children, Youth and Their Families (DCYF) Grant The Department of Children, Youth and Their Families supports a series of programs and services for our children and youth, designed to ensure that they are ready to learn and succeed in school. This key partnership with DCYF is committed to strengthening and improving education and comprehensive services in our schools. For , DCYF funding at approximately $11 million will continue to support major SFUSD programs and services including: coaches for intramural sports, art and music teachers at elementary schools, student transportation for field trips, postsecondary success, Care Centers, truancy assessment and reduction initiatives, salad bars and fresh fruit in school cafeterias, the Wellness Centers, summer school/credit recovery, crisis intervention, Early Education and Special Education programs, the Community Schools program, district-wide LGBTQ coordination, high schools Game Design Academy, Reading Coaches to support early literacy, a Summer Resource Fair, and support for unaccompanied minors. S.D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation Grant SFUSD will receive $700,000 from the S.D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation for school year Since 2013, the Bechtel Foundation has been very generous by awarding of $4,200,000 total to SFUSD from 2013 through This money is dedicated to support the district s implementation of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics in grades K-8. This funding has supported professional development, coaching, and curriculum development for SFUSD teachers. It is through the Bechtel Foundation s support since 2013 that the SFUSD Math Core Curriculum and the associated policies have taken root in all of our schools. Salesforce Grant Support of Mayor Edwin Lee s STEM Initiative SFUSD, in partnership with the Office of Mayor Lee and Salesforce.org, will launch the fifth year of their STEM initiative in This important resource represents the largest investment by a private corporation in SFUSD history, bringing in $7M in (making a total of $26.7M over five years). It also brings the ambitious goal of moving all students to become college and career ready by the time they graduate as outlined in our Vision Under that broader goal, it has targeted improvement in student math proficiency, expansion of computer science opportunities. In , this grant will continue to support (1) our Digital Learning program to integrate technology with curriculum and best practices, (2) our math content coaching which supports middle school math teachers to increase student math proficiency, (3) the continued expansion of our computer science curriculum into the elementary grades, and (4) the expansion/support of AVID to foster college and career readiness for our students. This funding also continues additional investment directly to our middle grades schools through the Principals Innovation Fund (PIF), allowing them to address needs unique to their sites. Beyond these continued efforts, in , the grant will expand to create personalized learning pathways for students and the launch of the SF Embedded Master of Arts and Teaching to support and retain promising student teachers. Page 53 of 112

54 Verizon Innovative Learning Schools Grant Through a partnership with the Verizon Innovative Learning Schools directed by Digital Promise initiative, SFUSD provides teachers and students with always-available access to technology and empowers them to be powerful users of technology: content creators, adept problem-solvers, and responsible consumers of digital media and learning resources. As a result, SFUSD has been able to bridge the digital learning gap and address digital equity by developing a 1:1 innovative learning model that leverages technology for students and prototypes a scalable, personalized-and-blended learning model to transform student learning in the district. This program provides SFUSD more than $3 million over two years in technology, professional learning, and implementation support, including: An ipad device (~3,000) with always-accessible Internet access for every student and teacher at Roosevelt, Hoover, and Denman middle schools Each ipad comes with 5GB of free, Verizon cellular data each month accessible from anywhere in the United States $25,000 per school/year to support a full-time instructional technology Learning Coach to build capacity among educators to personalize learning and blend technology into the student learning experience Ongoing project planning and implementation support in developing a 2-year Professional Learning Plan for schools with support of a dedicated Digital Promise Professional Learning Manager Page 54 of 112

55 Other District Funds Early Education Development Fund (12) The Early Education Department (EED), established in 1943, is the largest provider of early care and educational services for young children in the City and County of San Francisco. The goal of the Early Education Department is to implement high quality Pre-Kindergarten and create a coherent continuum of instruction between preschool and 3rd grade that aims to improve students early outcomes and provide the foundation for lifelong learning. Over 4,000 children are served in by the Early Education Department. Education provided includes infant/toddler (24 students), Pre-Kindergarten (1,523 spaces), Transitional Kindergarten (TK) (454 spaces) and Out-of-School Time (2,066 spaces) programs. PreK is offered at 35 schools throughout the City. Some of these classes are located on an elementary school campus and others are at independent early education schools. Out-of-School Time programs are offered at 23 sites. Approximately 90% of the children served receive subsidized childcare services and the remaining 10% pay tuition for services received. The EED s instructional and support services are funded by the Child Development Division of the California Department of Education (CDE), SFUSD, the Federal Title I Program, parent/guardian fees and tuition, and local grant funds, including Preschool for All (PFA). Expenditures in the EED exceed revenues received, requiring a contribution from SFUSD s Unrestricted General Fund. Summary Early Education Department revenue and expenditure budgets appear in Exhibit 10. Cafeteria Fund (13) Student Nutrition Services (SNS) is dedicated to ensuring students are properly nourished throughout the school day so they are prepared to learn and achieve academically. We know it is hard for students to learn if they are undernourished. Safe, nutritious meals fuel academic excellence and have implications for the long-term health and wellbeing of our students. SNS is focused on expanding school meal services today while creating a student-centered, studentembraced dining experience that meets students needs for healthful, delicious food in an environment that promotes community and healthy habits. Financial operations and activities of the SNS program are recorded and accounted for in the Cafeteria Fund. Federal and State statutes and regulations govern nonprofit school food service cafeteria accounts. School food authorities participating in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs must establish a nonprofit school food service (cafeteria fund/account). All federal, State, and local revenues, payments, and program reimbursement must be deposited into the cafeteria account and are to be used solely for the operation and improvement of this service. In addition, school nutrition program sponsors must comply with State and federal limitations on the use of cafeteria funds. See Exhibit 9 for an overview of revenue and expenditure for Fund 13. Page 55 of 112

56 SNS operates the largest public food service program in San Francisco serving 6.8 million meals annually at 115 schools throughout the city. This represents a 2% growth in the number of meals served annually by SNS, since the 2015/2016 school year. On a daily basis, SNS serves an average of 7,513 breakfasts, 20,292 lunches, 2,994 snacks, and 5903 suppers. Breakfast participation in up 1%, Lunch and Supper are each up 3.5%. In , we continued with our breakfast expansion programs at 3 schools, after-school supper at 5 additional programs, and expanded summer meals by adding 8 more summer locations during the summer of 2017 SNS will provide summer meals at 69 locations throughout the city. One of SNS s priorities for the school year is to continue to expand our breakfast after the bell offerings, through a partnership with Share Our Strength, and anti-hunger advocacy organization. In addition to serving healthy meals every day to our students, SNS is dedicated to comprehensively redesigning the school food experience through student-centered strategies that focus on the appeal and convenience of school meals and providing students with choice and comfortable dining spaces. The approach intertwines environmental interventions (e.g., distributed points of sale) with behavioral interventions (e.g., technology delivered education), both of which target students dietary intake. All costs associated with transforming school meals are funded by grants and private donations. With the generous support of a grant from the Sara + Evan Williams Foundation (SEWF), a comprehensive plan was developed through a student-centered design process led by awardwinning international design firm IDEO. 18 schools have had their dining spaces completely refreshed, and we will work during the 2016/17 school year to refresh 20 additional dining spaces. Additionally, during the 2017/18 school year, SNS will remove and replace old kitchen equipment, and start the process to completely remodel some of our kitchens with the goal of creating capacity for scratch cooking at some of our middle and high schools. With consultation from high school students participating in an SNS fellowship program, we are redesigning the SFUSD Refresh brand meals, to include more appealing items made with fresh ingredients that meet the SFUSD nutrition standards. The Early Education Department meal programs will transition to SNS starting July 1, 2017, allowing SNS to serve children from birth to high school graduation. For more information about SNS s innovative approach to transforming school meals, visit Capital Facilities Funds The SFUSD has multiple district funds that are dedicated to the maintenance, upkeep, and care of the district's facilities which include over 150 school and administrative sites. This includes funding for the construction of new school facilities and modernization and reconstruction of existing school sites. These funds are briefly described below, and summary budgets of revenues and expenditures in these funds appear in Exhibit 9A. Page 56 of 112

57 Deferred Maintenance (Fund 14) The Deferred Maintenance Program used to be funded by State grant funds and district matching funds. The State funding for Deferred Maintenance has been rolled into the LCFF. The requirement for a local matching contribution as a condition of eligibility for State funds has been eliminated permanently under the State-enacted budget. The district s Facilities Department staff identifies deferred maintenance projects, develops methods of repair, prepares contracts for bidding, and provides inspections for those projects included in the Five-Year Deferred Maintenance Plan. Capital Facilities / Developer Fees (Fund 25) In 1986, with the adoption of AB 2926, the State Legislature allowed school districts to collect school impact fees from developers of residential and non-residential (commercial/industrial) building space. The district collects these fees for all construction and building permits issued within the City and County of San Francisco. Developer fee revenues are utilized for capital improvements for the construction, reconstruction, and modernization of school facilities required due to growth in enrollment, expansion and growth of existing programs, or establishment of new programs at school sites. State School Building (Old) (Fund 30) The State Leroy Greene Lease Purchase Program is the previous State funding program for new construction, modernization, and building improvements with some outstanding funds still available for capital improvements. State School Building (New) (Fund 35) The SB 50 State School Building Program is the new State program for school construction, modernization, and renovation. Building Fund / School Facility Safety Tax (Fund ) In 1990, San Francisco voters approved Proposition B that authorized a special property tax to pay for the repair, restoration, replacement, seismic upgrading, and capital maintenance of school district facilities. This tax was renewed in June 2010 for twenty years School Bond (Fund ) In November 2003, the San Francisco electorate approved Proposition A, which authorized SFUSD to issue up to $295 million in general obligation bonds to modernize, reconstruct, and repair its facilities to current accessibility, health, safety, and instructional standards; replace worn-out plumbing, electrical, and other major building systems; replace aging heating, ventilation, and air handling systems; renovate outdated classrooms and other training facilities; and construct facilities to replace bungalows. Proposition A also authorized the use of any available State matching funds to finance those improvements. The district s Bond Project List specifically listed 31 school sites where bond funds may be spent. The project list includes $15 million set aside for use on the future School of the Arts (at 135 Van Ness Avenue only) and $2 million set aside for schoolyard greening projects at various school sites School Bond (Fund ) In November 2006, San Francisco voters approved Proposition A, which authorized SFUSD to issue up to $450 million in general obligation bonds to modernize, reconstruct, and repair its facilities to current accessibility, health, safety, and instructional standards. Proposition A also authorized the use of any available State matching funds to finance those improvements. Page 57 of 112

58 The district s Bond Project List specifically listed 64 projects located at 59 school sites where Bond funds may be spent. The project list included a $5 million set aside for schoolyard greening projects at various school sites School Bond (Fund ) In November 2011, San Francisco voters approved Proposition A, which authorized SFUSD to issue up to $531 million in general obligation bonds to modernize, reconstruct, and repair its facilities to current accessibility, health, safety, and instructional standards. This also included funding for the construction of the new Willie L. Brown Jr. Middle School. Proposition A also authorized the use of any available State matching funds to finance those improvements. The district s Bond Project List specifically listed 47 projects located at 47 school sites where Bond funds may be spent. The project list includes a $5 million set aside for schoolyard greening projects at various school sites and $5 million for sustainability projects at various sites School Bond (Fund for Facility Modernization and New Schools, for Information Technology; for Food Services) In November 2016, San Francisco voters approved Proposition A, which authorized SFUSD to issue up to $ million in general obligation bonds to modernize, reconstruct, and repair its facilities to current accessibility, health, safety, and instructional standards; to build new schools; funding for teachers housing; to improve information technologies, infrastructure and equipment; and to upgrade food preparation and services facilities. The district s Bond Project List specifically listed 49 projects located at 35 school sites where Bond funds may be spent. The project list includes a $100 million set aside for new school construction at Mission Bay and Bayview sites, a $100 million set aside for Ruth Asawa SF SOTA at 135 Van Ness, a $5 million set aside for schoolyard greening projects at various school sites, a $5 million for sustainability projects at various sites, and a $5 million for teachers housing. Proposition A also authorized the use of any available State matching funds to finance modernization project sites. In addition to the modernization projects, there are set asides of up to $100 million for information technology and up to $20 million for food preparation and services related work. Special Revenue Fund Capital Outlay Projects (Fund 40) The Special Reserve Fund for Capital Outlay Projects provides for the accumulation of General Fund monies for capital outlay purposes, and for transfers of revenues from proceeds from sales or leases of real property. Ongoing & Major Maintenance (Restricted General Fund, Resource 81500) Flexibility in the budget enacted by EC allowed the district to reduce the required 3.0% contribution of General Fund expenditures into the routine restricted maintenance account through FY , except as necessary in order to maintain facilities in clean and good working condition under the Williams requirements. The district continues to make contributions to the routine restricted maintenance account at the 3.0% rate. These expenditures are accounted for in Resource of the Restricted General Fund rather than through a separate fund. Fiscal year-end fund balance in is transferred to Fund 14 Deferred Maintenance to support facility repair and maintenance project. Page 58 of 112

59 Enterprise Fund - KALW (63) KALW is an enterprise fund and does not receive General Fund support. KALW is a public radio station that serves audiences with a wide variety of news, information, cultural, arts, educational, and public affairs programs of interest to the Bay Area community. Its mission is to create joyful, informative media that unites people across the divides in our community. In 2017, KALW completed major upgrades to its broadcast infrastructure and studios that will expand its capacity to produce original programming and host live musical performances. The station is also growing its educational activities, working with a larger cohort of SFUSD summer interns, formalizing its training program with inmates at San Quentin, and partnering with Oakland Voices to provide audio journalism expertise to their community reporting fellows. The culmination of a strategic planning process has KALW ready to re-launch its Friends of KALW 501c3. Organized community support is critical to the station s future sustainability. Self-Insurance Fund (67) The Self-Insurance Fund accounts for the district s risk management-related program expenses including the district s self-insured dental program, life insurance, workers compensation, property and excess liability coverage, and student accident medical insurance. The program is a combination of self-insurance and purchased commercial excess insurance. It funds the self-insured portions of claims settlements and legal costs as well as contracted administrative services managing those activities. Funded personnel costs include staff assigned directly to Risk Management as well as partial funding for staff that perform risk-management related functions in other departments such as Payroll and Human Resources. This fund functions as both an operational account for program functions and a reserve account for self-insured long-term liabilities for workers compensation. Page 59 of 112

60 County Office of Education (Fund 05) The County School Service Fund pays for Special Education Services, County Community Schools, the Regional Occupation Program (ROP), and other regional programs. Exhibit 11 provides a summary of the total budget for the County Office of Education, and Exhibit 12 displays the projected expenditures for the COE restricted programs. Special Education Services Special Education provides a full continuum of supports and services specially designed to meet each student s unique needs. Special education services include search and serve (child find) assessments, specially designed instruction (inclusive of accommodations and modifications) in an array of settings (general education classrooms, special day classes, day treatment facilities, home instruction, instruction in hospitals, and other alternative settings). The federal law that supports special education and related services is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). Under IDEIA, all eligible children and youth with disabilities, from birth to age 22, are entitled to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE), in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). An Individualized Education Program (IEP) is developed for each special education student. The IEP identifies educational services and the least restrictive environment for the student to receive a free, appropriate public education. Ensuring effective delivery of the IEP may include professional development. School Bus Transportation Services for Special Education Students The Transportation Department provides school bus transportation service for both SFUSD general education and special education students. The Transportation Department provides services to 1,500 Special Education students. In , this included services to the following sites: Pre K: 15 sites; 65 total students (7 wheelchair) Elementary Schools: 60 sites, 549 students: (21 students at 9 sites utilize lift buses) Middle Schools: 16 sites, 319 students: (10 students utilize lift buses) High Schools: 14 sites, 440 students: (26 students utilize lift buses) Non Public Schools: 20 sites, 47 students: (4 students utilize lift buses) Transporting 70 students to ERMHS or physical therapy between 15 sites Transportation services for Special Education students to the aforementioned sites includes the following operations: The current fleet: 189 van type vehicles and 28 lift (wheelchair) buses Special Education transportation usually receives an average of 40 to 50 requests for student transportation per week The state transportation funds, which previously were funded at $2.44M for general education transportation and $4.4M for both county and special education transportation, were rolled into the LCFF when the LCFF was implemented in The district now funds the cost of general education Page 60 of 112

61 transportation with unrestricted LCFF dollars, and special education transportation costs that exceed the $4.4M of state special education transportation funds are funded through a contribution from the general fund. Both the general education as well as the special education transportation costs combined (a budget that is approximately $29M) exceed any revenue that we had previously received from the state. County Alternative Schools In addition to schools in the Unified School District, San Francisco also operates schools under the County Office of Education. County schools serve as an additional safety net for extremely high-risk youth whose temporary circumstances require specialized supports and structures. County schools focus on addressing the unique needs of their students and building the skills they will need for their next transition. SF County students receive regular SFUSD credits. Local Control Funding Formula for county education agencies is described in CA Ed Code County Community Schools (under CA Ed Code 1981) serve students in grades 7-12 in multiple locations around the city. Programs focus on the needs of students who have been expelled, arrested, detained, chronically truant, homeless, and dealing with traumatic adverse life experiences. A temporary, typically voluntary placement, average enrollment is three semesters, with the goal of removing young people from the school-to-prison pipeline by addressing social, emotional, and academic skills gaps and successfully transitioning to their next educational placement. Current programs include Civic Center Secondary School, the Counseling Center, C.A.R.E., and Success Center (formerly Early Morning Study Academy). Juvenile Court Schools (under CA Ed Code ) provide the educational component of programing for youth under the custody of the juvenile justice system at Woodside Learning Center, which is located inside of the SF Youth Guidance Center and Log Cabin Ranch (in La Honda, California). The juvenile court schools provide quality learning opportunities for students to keep up and catch up with a rigorous and engaging middle school and high school diploma program. In addition to academic skills and credit recovery, students focus on finding their voice, reflecting on their personal stories, building transferable skills, and developing transition plans. County Opportunity Schools (under CA Ed Code & 48640) provide a supportive environment with specialized curriculum, instruction, guidance and counseling, psychological services, and tutorial assistance to help students overcome barriers to learning or attendance. Hilltop School provides a comprehensive education to pregnant or parenting youth, including child care, parenting education, and wrap around services for parent and child. Page 61 of 112

62 Page 62 of 112

63 Exhibit 1 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (First Reading) ADA Comparison for District and Charter Schools 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, Charter 2, , , , , , , , , , District 49, , , , , , , , , , Page 63 of 112

64 Page 64 of 112

65 EXHIBIT 2 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (First Reading) Summary Unrestricted General Fund Revenue, Expenditure and Fund Balance FY Projected Budget (Estimated Actuals) FY Recommended Budget Incr / (Decr) FY Recommended Budget vs FY Projected Budget Beginning Fund Balance $ 67,886,351 1 $ 63,324,512 $ (4,561,839) Revenues $ 560,886,667 $ 560,055,736 $ (830,931) Expenditures $ 571,198,506 $ 583,938,494 $ 12,739,988 Direct Support/Indirect Cost $ (5,750,000) $ (5,750,000) $ Subtotal Expenditures $ 565,448,506 $ 578,188,494 $ 12,739,988 $ Revenues less Expenditures $ (4,561,839) $ (18,132,758) $ (13,570,919) Ending Fund Balance (Projected) $ 63,324,512 $ 45,191,754 $ (18,132,758) Net Increase/(Decrease) in Fund Balance $ (4,561,839) $ (18,132,758) $ (13,570,919) Components of Ending Fund Balance FY Projected Budget (Estimated Actuals) FY Recommended Budget Incr / (Decr) FY Recommended Budget vs FY Projected Budget Ending Fund Balance (Adjusted) $ 63,324,512 $ 45,191,754 $ (18,132,758) Components of Ending Fund Balance: Reserve for Economic Uncertainties (2%) $ 15,212,000 $ 15,485,927 $ 273,927 Stores and Revolving Fund $ 600,500 $ 600,500 $ Tier III Fund Balance Designations $ $ $ Additional Designations Reserve for One time Expenditures $ 7,600,000 $ 7,600,000 $ Undesignated Fund Balance $ 39,912,012 $ 21,505,327 $ (18,406,685) 1 Audited FY Ending Fund Balance Page 65 of 112

66 EXHIBIT 3 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (First Reading) Unrestricted General Fund Revenue Sources One time Discretionary State Funds $0 0.00% Other State $8,856, % Other Local $49,715, % Federal Revenue $650, % Total Unrestricted General Funds Revenue Sources= $560,055,736 LCFF Revenue $500,833, % Page 66 of 112

67 EXHIBIT 4 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget and FY Projected Budget (First Reading) Summary Unrestricted General Fund Revenues FY Adopted Budget FY Projected Budget (Estimated Actuals) FY Recommended Budget Incr/(Decr) FY Proposed Budget vs. FY Projected Budget Revenue Sources District LCFF Revenue 1 $ 490,009,210 $ 491,082,045 $ 500,833,931 $ 9,751,886 Federal Revenue $ 500,000 $ 731,958 $ 650,000 $ (81,958) Other State Revenue Lottery Unrestricted $ 6,767,000 $ 6,767,000 $ 6,834,670 $ 67,670 Mandate Block Grant $ 1,866,164 $ 1,866,164 $ 1,901,536 $ 35,372 One Time Discretionary Funds 2 $ 12,023,944 $ 10,857,601 $ $ (10,857,601) All Other State $ 200,000 $ 202,400 $ 120,000 $ (82,400) Sub Total, Other State $ 20,857,108 $ 19,693,165 $ 8,856,206 $ (10,836,959) Other Local Revenue Sales Tax 3 $ 33,403,809 $ 35,102,891 $ 35,453,920 $ 351,029 Leases and Rentals $ 9,029,977 $ 9,419,820 $ 9,514,018 $ 94,198 Interest $ 3,510,111 $ 3,510,111 $ 3,527,661 $ 17,550 Charter School Admin Fee $ 720,000 $ 720,000 $ 720,000 $ All Other Local Revenue $ 500,000 $ 626,677 $ 500,000 $ (126,677) Sub Total, Local Revenue $ 47,163,896 $ 49,379,499 $ 49,715,599 $ 336,100 Total, Unrestricted General Fund Revenues $ 558,530,214 $ 560,886,667 $ 560,055,736 $ (830,931) Notes to the FY Recommended Budget 1 LCFF revenue includes base, supplemental and concentration grants, net of ADA revenue passthrough of $11,500,000 to the County Office of Ed 2 The state enacted budget appropriated one time funding to be provided to all school districts at the rate of $214 per ADA, reduced from $237 per A 3 Sales tax revenue is projected to grow in , based on the City and County of San Francisco's 5 year projections Page 67 of 112

68 EXHIBIT 5 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (First Reading) Unrestricted General Fund Expenditures Other School Based Instruction (including TK), $28,549,212, 5% School Based Funding (WSF), $307,505,639, 51% Operational Support, $68,761,717, 12% Instructional Support for Schools, $37,742,723, 6% Central Administration, $19,787,647, 3% Other Outgo, Indirect Costs, $(5,750,000), 1% Other Outgo and Financing Sources/Uses, $127,972,075, 21% Salary Savings & Other Offsets, $(6,380,519), 1% Total Unrestricted General Fund Expenditures: $578,188,494 Page 68 of 112

69 Central Administration Department EXHIBIT 6 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget and FY Adopted Budget Summary of Expenditures Unrestricted General Fund Adopted Budget Adopted FTE Recommended Budget Recommended FTE Variance in Budget ($) Variance in Budget (%) Variance in FTE 010 SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE $ 1,242, $ 1,241, $ (1,214) 0.1% OFFICE OF INSTRUCTION, INNOVATION & SOCIAL JUSTICE (IISJ) $ 248, $ 246, $ (2,023) 0.8% POLICY & PLANNING DIVISION $ 1,222, $ 1,184, $ (37,643) 3.1% STRATEGY & FUND DEVELOPMENT $ 677, $ 700, $ 22, % COMMUNICATIONS $ 888, $ 841, $ (47,025) 5.3% BOARD OF EDUCATION $ 551, $ 543, $ (8,043) 1.5% CFO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER $ 1,042, $ 705, $ (336,240) 32.3% BUDGET SERVICES $ 1,534, $ 1,429, $ (105,671) 6.9% FISCAL SERVICES $ 2,963, $ 2,870, $ (92,716) 3.1% HR:OPERATIONS & ANALYTICS $ 2,610, $ 2,946, $ 336, % LABOR RELATIONS $ 817, $ 839, $ 21, % HR:TALENT ACQUISITION & ASSGMT $ 2,735, $ 2,461, $ (273,725) 10.0% HR:TALENT MANAGEMENT* $ 611, $ 790, $ 179, % LEGAL OFFICE $ 2,777, $ 2,984, $ 207, % 1.00 Central Administration Total $ 19,924, $ 19,787, $ (136,689) 0.7% OFFICE OF CHIEF OF SCHOOLS** $ 274, $ 0.00 $ (274,120) 100.0% SFCSD CENTRAL OFFICE $ 392, $ 386, $ (6,582) 1.7% AFRICAN AMERICAN ACHIEVEMENT $ 499, $ 521, $ 22, % STUDENT ADVISORY COUNCIL $ 118, $ 121, $ 2, % STATE & FEDERAL PROGRAMS $ 538, $ 533, $ (5,231) 1.0% MULTILINGUAL PATHWAYS $ 2,361, $ 2,342, $ (18,984) 0.8% C&I:HUMANITIES $ 1,326, $ 1,346, $ 20, % C&I:CURRICULUM & INSTRUCT. DIV $ 739, $ 731, $ (8,101) 1.1% OFFICE OF EQUITY ASSURANCE $ 268, $ 268, $ % C&I:ACCESS & EQUITY $ 630, $ 701, $ 71, % OFFICE OF LEADERSHIP ACHIEVEMENT EQUITY DESIGN (LEAD)** $ 0.00 $ 1,051, $ 1,051, LEAD COHORT I (RICHMOND / MARINA)** $ 753, $ 427, $ (326,060) 43.3% LEAD COHORT II (CHINATOWN / CIVIC CENTER)** $ 830, $ 427, $ (402,748) 48.5% LEAD COHORT III (BAYVIEW / POTRERO)** $ 832, $ 419, $ (412,582) 49.6% 2.40 Instructional Support for School 134 LEAD COHORT IV (EXCELSIOR / VIS VALLEY)** $ 0.00 $ 426, $ 426, LEAD COHORT V (SUNSET / INGLESIDE)** $ 1,602, $ 414, $ (1,187,875) 74.1% LEAD COHORT VI (MISSION / BERNAL)** $ 1,107, $ 450, $ (656,718) 59.3% LEAD COHORT VII (HIGH SCHOOL)** $ 1,273, $ 1,149, $ (124,451) 9.8% PUPIL SERVICES $ 4,359, $ 3,980, $ (378,925) 8.7% EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENT OFFICE $ 2,817, $ 2,694, $ (123,747) 4.4% ACHIEVEMENT ASSESSMENTS OFFICE $ 1,502, $ 1,783, $ 281, % BALANCED ASSESSMENTS CMMN CORE $ 910, $ 955, $ 44, % TRANSLATION & INTERPRETATION U $ 1,036, $ 994, $ (42,059) 4.1% C&I:STEM $ 1,157, $ 1,289, $ 132, % INSTRUCTIONAL REFORM NETWORK $ 366, $ 216, $ (149,956) 40.9% 1.00 Page 69 of C&I:OFF OF PROF LRNG & LDRSHP $ 1,811, $ 1,915, $ 103, % 2.00

70 Department EXHIBIT 6 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget and FY Adopted Budget Summary of Expenditures Unrestricted General Fund Adopted Budget Adopted FTE Recommended Budget Recommended FTE Variance in Budget ($) Variance in Budget (%) Variance in FTE 193 ACADEMIC MTSS SUPPORTS $ 9,894, $ 10,477, $ 583, % C & I: ETHNIC STUDIES PRGM $ 442, $ 438, $ (4,377) 1.0% COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS $ 112, $ 0.00 $ (112,656) 100.0% STUDENT ATTENDANCE ACCOUNTING $ 211, $ 214, $ 3, % EVALUATION & ACCOUNTABILITY $ 1,039, $ 1,060, $ 21, % 0.30 Instructional Support for School Total $ 39,212, $ 37,742, $ (1,469,713) 3.7% ATHLETIC OFFICE $ 379, $ 368, $ (11,136) 2.9% JROTC $ 747, $ 851, $ 103, % C&I:COLLEGE & CAREER READINESS $ 1,307, $ 1,304, $ (2,556) 0.2% SCHOOL HEALTH PROGRAMS $ 6,968, $ 6,129, $ (839,496) 12.0% 8.96 Other School Based Instruction 153 FAMILY ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS $ 871, $ 857, $ (14,854) 1.7% SPECIALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS $ 3,591, $ 3,987, $ 395, % SFCSD:SECTION 504 SERVICES $ 758, $ 815, $ 56, % C&I:HUMANITIES/TEXTBOOKS $ 593, $ 583, $ (9,653) 1.6% Secondary School Redesign Init $ 410, $ 268, $ (142,174) 34.6% SUBS,LEAVES & RETIREE BENEFITS $ 10,824, $ 9,987, $ (837,102) 7.7% SUMMER SCHOOL $ 436, $ 390, $ (45,732) 10.5% 0.00 Other School Based Instruction Total $ 26,890, $ 25,544, $ (1,346,153) 5.0% STUDENT TRANSPORTATION $ 5,461, $ 5,361, $ (99,969) 1.8% PAYROLL OPERATIONS $ 2,559, $ 2,488, $ (71,022) 2.8% PURCHASING DEPARTMENT $ 2,196, $ 2,211, $ 15, % CONTRACT COMPLIANCE OFFICE $ 364, $ 364, $ (94) 0.0% DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY $ 12,682, $ 12,513, $ (169,011) 1.3% BUSINESS SYSTEM SUPPORT PROJ $ 2,671, $ 1,819, $ (851,476) 31.9% PERSN LEAVES FOR UNION BUSINES $ 562, $ 587, $ 25, % DOCUMENT PUBLISHING & DISTRIBU $ 797, $ 778, $ (18,537) 2.3% FACILITIES EXECUTIVE OFFICE $ 277, $ 234, $ (42,753) 15.4% 0.01 Operational Support* 320 REAL ESTATE OFFICE $ 494, $ 451, $ (43,061) 8.7% Rents and Leasing Expenditure $ 44, $ 39, $ (4,550) 10.3% REAL ESTATE PERMITS $ 407, $ 427, $ 20, % BUILDINGS/GROUNDS DEPARTMENT $ 178, $ 172, $ (5,217) 2.9% CUSTODIAL SERVICES $ 28,892, $ 28,258, $ (633,927) 2.2% Facilities ADA $ 204, $ 202, $ (2,240) 1.1% UTILITIES $ 5,600, $ 6,000, $ 400, % OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING $ 180, $ 180, $ (556) 0.3% SECURITY AIDES T10 $ 6,493, $ 6,668, $ 175, % 1.00 Operational Support Total $ 70,067, $ 68,761, $ (1,305,849) 1.9% Grand Total $ 156,094,514 1, $ 151,836,109 1, $ (4,258,404) 2.7% Total Centrally Budgeted Functions $ 156,094,514 1, $ 151,836,109 1, $ (4,258,404) 2.7% Page 70 of 112

71 EXHIBIT 6 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget and FY Adopted Budget Summary of Expenditures Unrestricted General Fund Department Adopted Budget Adopted FTE Recommended Budget Recommended FTE Variance in Budget ($) Variance in Budget (%) School Based Funding (including Weighted Student Formula)** $ 293,081,258 $ 307,505,639 $ 14,424, % Variance in FTE Allocation to Transitional Kindergarten Program $ 2,754, $ 3,005, Other Expenditures, Savings and Offsets Bargaining related proposed settlements (5% Acceleration) $ 2,221,293 $ Salary savings from vacancies and attrition $ (4,901,226) $ (2,630,519) Benefits costs reductions (revised rates & QTEA) $ (4,335,823) $ (3,750,000) Total, Other Expenditures, Savings and Offsets $ (7,015,756) $ (6,380,519) Other Outgo(excluding Transfers of Indirect Costs) Support to Special Education $ 74,324,733 $ 71,350,000 Support to Special Education Transportation $ 15,712,199 $ 17,046,443 LCFF Pass through to County Office of Education $ 11,500,000 $ 11,500,000 Total, Other Outgo $ 101,536,932 $ 99,896,443 Other Outgo Transfers of Indirect Costs From Child Development Programs $ (1,527,800) $ (1,285,096) From Student Nutrition Services $ (843,006) $ (709,088) From Restricted General Fund $ (4,465,140) $ (3,755,816) Total, Transfers of Indirect Costs $ (6,835,946) $ (5,750,000) Total Expenditures $ 539,615,664 $ 550,112,862 Exhibit 6 continues on next page Page 71 of 112

72 EXHIBIT 6 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget and FY Adopted Budget Summary of Expenditures Unrestricted General Fund Department Adopted Budget Adopted FTE Recommended Budget Recommended FTE Variance in Budget ($) Variance in Budget (%) Variance in FTE Other Financing (Sources) / Uses Interfund Transfers (In) / Out To Child Development Fund $ 5,484,689 $ 5,672,633 To Student Nutrition Fund $ 3,296,888 $ 4,029,857 To Debt Service Fund $ 2,644,822 $ 2,724,166 Total, Interfund Transfers (In)/Out $ 11,426,399 $ 12,426,656 Contributions To / (From) To Ongoing & Major Maintenance (3%) $ 22,778,406 $ 23,006,190 From PEEF (Third Third Unrestricted) to UGF $ (2,700,000) $ (2,200,000) From QTEA (for certificated bargaining increases) $ (5,157,214) $ (5,157,214) Total, Contributions To/(From) $ 14,921,192 $ 15,648,976 Total, Other Financing (Sources) / Uses $ 26,347,591 $ 28,075,632 Total Expenditures & Other Financing (Sources) / Uses $ 565,963,255 $ 578,188,494 * In , Org 235 was listed under Operational Support. It is now moved to Central Administration and this affects the total sum in both areas ** Org 014 Office of Chief of Schools is now moved to Org 130 Office of LEAD; additionally, administrative support (personnel and some non personnel) were moved from LEAD Cohort Orgs into Org 130 Page 72 of 112

73 EXHIBIT 7 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (1st Reading) Summary Restricted General Fund Programs 7000 OTHER SERVICES & 2000 CLASSIFIED 3000 EMPLOYEE 4000 BOOKS & 6000 CAPITAL OUTGO & CERTIFICATED OTHER OPER SALARIES BENEFITS SUPPLIES OUTLAY INDIRECT SALARIES EXP FUND RESOURCE RESOURCE DESCRIPTION CHARGES Grand Total Federal Funded Restricted Programs NCLB TITLE IA BASIC $ 498,989 $ 431,347 $ 426,209 $ 33,002 $ 125,771 $ 506,007 $ 2,021, NCLB TITLE IA SUPPORT ACTIVITI $ 654,734 $ 20,255 $ 267,631 $ 30,000 $ 615,127 $ $ 1,587, NCLB TITLE IA PROFESSIONAL DEV $ 1,322,111 $ 531,560 $ $ 1,853, NCLB TITLE I PARENT INVOLVMENT $ 416,956 $ 202,998 $ 9,425 $ 177,711 $ 807, NCLB TITLE I, MIGRANT ED REGUL $ 20,000 $ 106,478 $ 46,457 $ 3,811 $ 17,240 $ 7,779 $ 201, NCLB:Title I,MIGRANT ED SUMMER $ 25,000 $ 19,000 $ 14,378 $ 1,886 $ 3,251 $ 2,547 $ 66, IASA: Schoolwide Prgrams (SWP) $ 2,023,996 $ 799,981 $ 1,145,558 $ 369,838 $ 264,717 $ $ 4,604, VTEA High School Carl Perkins $ 5,000 $ 1,384 $ 6, NCLB Title II Part A Public $ 137,248 $ 243,251 $ 171,575 $ $ $ $ 552, NCLB:Title IIA MATH & SCIENCE $ 401,991 $ 157,271 $ $ $ $ 559, NCLB:TITLE IIA HUMANITIES $ 896,082 $ 43,494 $ 383,162 $ 561 $ 684 $ 35,826 $ 1,359, TITLE IIA NEW TEACHER SUPPORT $ 243,151 $ 15,000 $ 99,709 $ $ 1,626 $ $ 359, ST CENTURY FMLY LITERACY ES $ 6,280 $ 80,028 $ 9,800 $ 3,892 $ 100, ST CENTURY CLCP $ 89,741 $ 106,182 $ 92,186 $ 4,596 $ 2,061,539 $ 36,833 $ 2,391, ST CENTURY CLCP BASE $ 44,000 $ 23,443 $ 22,721 $ 154,945 $ 2,404,128 $ 63,118 $ 2,712, ST CENTURY CLCP SUPPLEMENTAL $ 53,069 $ 45,177 $ 41,622 $ 26,993 $ 1,954,527 $ 59,327 $ 2,180, st CENTURY CLCP BEFORE SCHL $ 3,866 $ 68,750 $ 2,384 $ 75, ST CENTURY CLCP DIRECT ACCES $ $ 7,170 $ 2,314 $ 57,431 $ 391,892 $ 18,489 $ 477, TITLE III IMMIGRANT EDUCATION $ 158,258 $ 13,000 $ 62,894 $ 5,226 $ 10,000 $ $ 249, TITLE III LEP Limtd Engl Prof $ 795,823 $ 85,746 $ 324,752 $ 109,297 $ 153,000 $ $ 1,468, Indian Education $ 6,000 $ 2,100 $ 2,366 $ 251 $ 13,924 $ 988 $ 25, MEDI CAL Billing Option $ 752,388 $ 267,931 $ 421,404 $ 400 $ 128,950 $ 11,383 $ 1,582, MEDI CAL Revenue $ 144,865 $ 70,659 $ 25,350 $ 2,518 $ 243, I3 Grant New Teacher Center $ 248,612 $ 14,970 $ 134,079 $ 2,800 $ 13,000 $ 17,232 $ 430, GSU GRP MENTRING FOR RESILIENC $ 36,647 $ 14,744 $ 5,613 $ $ 2,286 $ 59, SFCSD:CDC SCHL BASED SURVEILLN $ 23,370 $ 11,013 $ 24 $ 21,688 $ 2,249 $ 58, SFCSD:CDC SURV HIV/STD PREVNTN $ 177,031 $ 35,928 $ 82,424 $ 8,091 $ 78,450 $ 15,315 $ 397, SFUSD:CDC HIV/STD PREVTN YMSM $ 86,223 $ 33,067 $ $ 71,673 $ 7,658 $ 198, SFCSD:SCHL BASED VIOLENCE PRVT $ 169,251 $ 29,940 $ 81,600 $ 8,450 $ 259,637 $ 22,010 $ 570, MISSION PROMISE NGHBRHD MEDA $ $ 88,565 $ 43,962 $ $ $ 132,526 Federal Funded Restricted Programs Total $ 8,845,347 $ 2,984,147 $ 4,889,700 $ 842,783 $ 8,942,663 $ 9,800 $ 817,840 $ 27,332,280 State Funded Restricted Programs ASES PROGRAM BASE $ 100,088 $ 700,551 $ 362,562 $ $ 8,398,284 $ 140,653 $ 9,702, ASES PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL $ $ $ 8,016 $ 165,963 $ 5,871 $ 179, AFTER SCHOOL MIDDLE $ 40,000 $ 67,377 $ 37,974 $ 105,000 $ 683,732 $ $ $ 934, CSIS: California School Inform $ 52,354 $ 21,392 $ 166,569 $ 240, PROP 39: CA CLEAN ENERGY JOBS $ 217,001 $ 112,773 $ 20,912 $ $ $ 350,685 Page 73 of 112

74 EXHIBIT 7 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (1st Reading) Summary Restricted General Fund Programs 7000 OTHER SERVICES & 2000 CLASSIFIED 3000 EMPLOYEE 4000 BOOKS & 6000 CAPITAL OUTGO & CERTIFICATED OTHER OPER SALARIES BENEFITS SUPPLIES OUTLAY INDIRECT SALARIES EXP FUND RESOURCE RESOURCE DESCRIPTION CHARGES Grand Total State F EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS GRANT $ 832,876 $ 76,851 $ 335,819 $ 5,000 $ 90,497 $ 54,949 $ 1,395, $ 206,263 $ 75,494 $ 281, Lottery: Instructional Materi $ 2,936,560 $ 2,936, C&I:CA CAREER PTHWYS TRT IMPLM $ 232,922 $ 86,553 $ 80,525 $ 65,000 $ 20,000 $ 485, CTE Incentive Grant $ 660,256 $ 106,625 $ 374,612 $ 500,000 $ 229,646 $ 550,000 $ 100,000 $ 2,521, SpEd WSF School Site Allocat $ 24,731 $ 8,790 $ 8,555 $ 260,023 $ 3,200 $ 305, TUPE PROGRAM GR 6 12, COHORT E $ 144,481 $ 100,994 $ 89,083 $ 37,409 $ 98,800 $ 19,112 $ 489, COLLEGE READINESS BLOCK GRANT $ 194,454 $ 50,000 $ 98,045 $ 74,061 $ 175,921 $ 25,746 $ 618, SB828 STEM PD $ 82,068 $ 31,916 $ 3,251,077 $ 134,939 $ 3,500, CDE:CLASS EMP TCHR CRED PRG $ 62,500 $ 12,156 $ 21,488 $ 3,855 $ 100, CDE:CCSF CITY CHOICE PROGRAM $ 40,000 $ 91,493 $ 72,528 $ 33,333 $ 97,866 $ 14,458 $ 349, CDSS:REFUGEE SCHOOL IMPACT $ 61,514 $ 20,321 $ 12,458 $ 129 $ 3,820 $ 98, Ongoing & Major Maintenance Ac $ 13,078,125 $ 6,744,208 $ 1,268,518 $ 1,615,117 $ 58,000 $ 904,380 $ 23,668,347 State Funded Restricted Programs Total $ 2,610,492 $ 14,621,820 $ 8,483,989 $ 5,320,904 $ 15,084,200 $ 608,000 $ 1,427,782 $ 48,157,188 Locally Funded Restricted Programs / Grants KEY GOVERNMENT FINANCE EQUIP $ 551,062 $ 551, DCYF:HS Credit Recovery $ 13,510 $ 7,603 $ 1,993 $ $ 23, DCYF:MAYORS CROSSING GUARD PRG $ 86,883 $ 34,102 $ $ $ 120, QTEA:QLTY TCHR EDUC ACT 08 $ 12,789,624 $ 372,541 $ 3,612,627 $ 10,000 $ 1,055,245 $ 17,840, QTEA:ADDITIONL TCHR SUPPORT $ 2,542,077 $ 293,967 $ 1,231,662 $ $ 16,833 $ 4,084, QTEA:MASTER TEACHERS $ 720,146 $ 12,600 $ 247,787 $ 4,939 $ 56,716 $ 1,042, QTEA:STPNDS HARD TO STAFF SC $ 1,644,737 $ 455,263 $ 2,100, QTEA:INNOV,RESEARCH & DVLPMT $ 15,180 $ 501,889 $ 239,373 $ 1,450 $ 40,000 $ $ 797, QTEA:STPNDS HARD TO FILL SBJ $ 783,208 $ 216,792 $ 1,000, QTEA:IMPACT INNOVATION AWARDS $ $ 500,000 $ 100,000 $ 600, QTEA:EQUITY ADJUSTMENTS $ 900,180 $ 82,759 $ 1,337,762 $ 434,564 $ 2,755, QTEA:ADDITIONAL TEACHER PD $ 134,414 $ 251,604 $ 158,553 $ 6,000 $ 30,625 $ 581, QTEA:TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES $ 536,280 $ 3,378,903 $ 1,815,062 $ 10,000 $ 1,049,402 $ 6,789, QTEA:PARCEL TAX CHARTERS $ 1,142,587 $ 1,142, QTEA:UASF PROF DEVLPMNT FUND $ 27,112 $ 27, QTEA:OVERSIGHT $ 45,746 $ 22,555 $ 1,698 $ 25,000 $ 95, QTEA:ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS $ 67,294 $ 103,621 $ 77,698 $ 2,250 $ 24,836 $ 275, QTEA:HEALTH BEN,MEMBR DEPDNT $ 322,420 $ 322, QTEA:URBAN TEACHER RESIDENCY $ 58,741 $ 16,259 $ $ $ 75, QTEA:IT LAPTOPS FOR EDUCATORS $ 275,788 $ 135,847 $ 1,545,000 $ 100,000 $ 2,056, MICROSOFT CA GOVT ENTITIES STL $ 12,396 $ 12, DCYF:SP ED MENTAL HEALTH SUPRT $ 300,000 $ 300, DCYF SFCSD LGBTQ COORDINATOR S $ 7,041 $ 118,812 $ 48,482 $ 4,068 $ 12,114 $ 190,516 Page 74 of 112

75 EXHIBIT 7 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (1st Reading) Summary Restricted General Fund Programs 7000 OTHER SERVICES & 2000 CLASSIFIED 3000 EMPLOYEE 4000 BOOKS & 6000 CAPITAL OUTGO & CERTIFICATED OTHER OPER SALARIES BENEFITS SUPPLIES OUTLAY INDIRECT SALARIES EXP FUND RESOURCE RESOURCE DESCRIPTION CHARGES Grand Total DCYF:JOINT USE OF FACILITIES $ 15,000 $ 15, DCYF:POST SECONDARY SUCCESS $ 148,018 $ 49,251 $ 85,402 $ 55,328 $ 337, DCYF:SUMMER PROGRAM $ 268,122 $ 14,611 $ 82,251 $ $ 364, DCYF:SFUSD CBO PARTNERSHIPS $ 36,520 $ 17,738 $ 12,757 $ 890 $ 67, DCYF:WELLNESS INFRASTRUCTURE F $ 20,421 $ 7,284 $ $ 6,725 $ 34, DCYF:EXCEL AFTER SCHOOL SUPPRT $ $ 8,617,930 $ 8,617, DCYF:UNACCOMPANIED MINORS SUPP $ 34,835 $ 13,847 $ $ 4 $ 48, DCYF:SF ED FND LIT DEVELOPMENT $ 200,000 $ 200, DCYF:CRISIS INTERVENTION SUPRT $ 149,806 $ 58,799 $ 208, DCYF:SHARED SCHOOLYARDS FARREL $ 83,413 $ 41,940 $ $ 125, DCYF:SUMMER TRANSITIONS BRIDGE $ 10,000 $ 10, SFCSD:DPH NUTRITION EDU PRJCT $ 87,648 $ 97,532 $ 67,206 $ 1,877 $ 7,250 $ 10,487 $ 272, ENERGY CONSERVATION IN CURRICU $ 56,854 $ 31,515 $ 1,630 $ $ $ 90, PEEF:STEM SCIENCE EQUITY FUND $ 4,850 $ 1,253 $ 8,000 $ 85,897 $ 100, PEEF:FOCAL STUDENT SUPPORTS $ 61,300 $ 30,224 $ 91, PEEF:PROP H, SPORTS $ 1,283,256 $ 355,205 $ 973,464 $ 1,382,000 $ $ 3,993, PEEF:PROP H, LIBRARY $ 5,933,739 $ 71,150 $ 2,418,503 $ 1,208,031 $ 44,000 $ 9,675, PEEF:ACADEMIC SUPPORT,STEM $ 1,941,837 $ 73,294 $ 918,990 $ 136,704 $ 275,845 $ 3,346, PEEF:ACADEMIC SUPPORT, A G $ 1,611,501 $ 400,893 $ 691,815 $ 41,376 $ 126,500 $ 2,872, PEEF:AVID & AVID EXCEL $ 163,980 $ 112,573 $ 101,075 $ $ 75,135 $ 452, DCYF MAYOR'S WELLNESS PRGRM FB $ $ 20,000 $ 24,403 $ 44, DCYF:TRUANCY PREVENTION $ 52,969 $ 19,502 $ 18,673 $ 150,000 $ 241, DCYF:MAYOR'S DCYF WELLNESS PRG $ 1,713,762 $ 532,478 $ 877,324 $ 48,000 $ 44,835 $ $ 3,216, PEEF:PROP H, PHYSC EDU SUPPORT $ 3,816,179 $ 111,183 $ 1,625,784 $ 415,648 $ 263,484 $ $ 6,232, PEEF:PROP H, ARTS & MUSIC $ 7,772,193 $ 653,799 $ 3,409,962 $ 906,656 $ 612,519 $ 13,355, PEEF:PROP H OTHER, WELLNESS $ 1,063,147 $ 232,477 $ 511,168 $ 9,750 $ 12,104 $ 1,828, PEEF:PROP H, OTHER GENRL USES $ 3,473,101 $ 1,907,722 $ 2,412,917 $ 386,602 $ 1,160,162 $ 9,340, DCYF Art/Music/Athletic/Field $ 731,832 $ 81,438 $ 248,335 $ $ 250,000 $ 1,311, DCYF CARE Acad Re entry & Empo $ 150,200 $ 59,975 $ $ 210, PEEF:PROP H, LEARNING SUPPORT $ 6,972,777 $ 78,766 $ 2,826,071 $ 15,469 $ 51,500 $ 9,944, PEEF:PROP H, RESTORATIVE JSTCE $ 793,133 $ 63,907 $ 334,455 $ 10,314 $ 44,655 $ 1,246, DCYF:ELEMENTARY MUSIC PROGRAM $ 429,346 $ 170,823 $ 600, DCYF COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SUPPORT $ 62,182 $ 30,203 $ 954 $ $ 93, DCYF:OCOF DATA SHARE $ 98,812 $ 47,984 $ 146, PEEF:ACADEMIC SUPPT & COACHING $ 368,779 $ 27,081 $ 176,851 $ 75,361 $ 13,571 $ 661, PEEF:CROSS DEPARTMENTAL PRGMS $ 84,937 $ 178,106 $ 220,818 $ 7,332 $ 436,927 $ 928, SSSD EDUC SUPRT FR DEPND YOUTH $ 25,439 $ 51,330 $ 38,229 $ $ 114, SFCSD:CV AMERICORP HLTHY CHCES $ 122,718 $ 197,964 $ 69,446 $ 5,555 $ 68,593 $ 14,351 $ 478, NATIONAL BOARD SEED/NT3 GRANT $ 165,939 $ 55,132 $ 6,197 $ 15,600 $ 10,025 $ 252,892 Page 75 of 112

76 EXHIBIT 7 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (1st Reading) Summary Restricted General Fund Programs 7000 OTHER SERVICES & 2000 CLASSIFIED 3000 EMPLOYEE 4000 BOOKS & 6000 CAPITAL OUTGO & CERTIFICATED OTHER OPER SALARIES BENEFITS SUPPLIES OUTLAY INDIRECT SALARIES EXP FUND RESOURCE RESOURCE DESCRIPTION CHARGES Grand Total CCSF ADULT EDU BLK GRANT:DATA $ 10,000 $ 7,500 $ 18,035 $ 4,465 $ 40, CCSF ADULT EDU BLOCK GRANT $ 247,625 $ 94,303 $ 721 $ 23,852 $ 366, SNS:USDA AFRI GRANT $ 99,745 $ 52,950 $ $ $ $ 152, BECHTEL FDNTN CCSS M IMPLMNTN $ 370,917 $ $ 140,623 $ 6,473 $ 155,000 $ 26,988 $ 700, SALESFORCE.COM FDTN MS LDRSHP $ 2,052,079 $ $ 1,013,251 $ 128,756 $ 69,172 $ $ 3,263, DCYF:SUMMER EXCEL PROGRAM $ 250,000 $ 250, OCOF:SFUSD CONTRIBUTION $ 2,500 $ 279,167 $ 281, STUPSKI FOUNDATION $ 64,233 $ 21,693 $ 13,869 $ 30,000 $ 5,205 $ 135, PINTEREST $ 64,007 $ 26,917 $ 90, VERIZON:DIGITAL PROMISE $ 52,354 $ 21,392 $ 73, OCOF:PRIVATE CONTRIBUTION $ 500 $ 99,500 $ 100, SRI INTERNATIONAL $ 441,818 $ 59,849 $ 197,647 $ 151,113 $ 140,748 $ 39,972 $ 1,031, LOST TEXTBOOK $ 646 $ DISCRETIONARY FUNDS $ 22,150 $ 17,894 $ $ $ 40, PTA $ 1,585,031 $ 443,011 $ 905,950 $ 30,000 $ 2,963, SITE SPECIFIC TRUST FUND #3 $ 13,614 $ 13, SITE SPECIFIC TRUST FUND #4 $ 529 $ SITE SPECIFIC TRUST FUND #6 $ 95 $ RPA EVALUATION FEES REVENUE AC $ 35,500 $ 12,500 $ 48, SFUSD SFPUC SFE ENVIRONMT DIR $ 114,815 $ 53,345 $ 6,840 $ $ 175,000 Locally Funded Restricted Programs / Grants Total $ 64,184,018 $ 11,858,507 $ 30,547,684 $ 6,864,737 $ 17,488,961 $ $ 2,739,424 $ 133,683,331 Grand Total $ 75,639,857 $ 29,464,474 $ 43,921,374 $ 13,028,424 $ 41,515,824 $ 617,800 $ 4,985,046 $ 209,172,798 Page 76 of 112

77 School Actual Enrollment Projected Enrollment Increase / (Decrease) EXHIBIT 8 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (First Reading) Preliminary Site-Based Budget Allocation WSF (Unrestricted Resources) Special Ed- WSF Site Allocation TIIG Title I SCG-LI SCG-EL Concentration Grant TK Site Allocation PEEF Arts PEEF PE Total Preliminary Allocations ALAMO ES $ 2,603,427 $ 2,250 $ - $ - $ - $ 48,381 $ - $ - $ 5,340 $ - $ 2,659,398 ALVARADO ES $ 2,543,532 $ 3,000 $ 109,760 $ - $ - $ 60,767 $ - $ 99,734 $ 5,160 $ - $ 2,821,953 ARGONNE ES $ 2,196,094 $ 1,350 $ - $ - $ - $ 37,157 $ - $ - $ 4,420 $ - $ 2,239,020 BRYANT ES $ 1,265,418 $ 1,100 $ 235,800 $ 63,743 $ - $ 57,283 $ 60,000 $ - $ 2,190 $ - $ 1,685,534 CARVER ES $ 1,179,773 $ 1,200 $ 257,870 $ 44,715 $ - $ 4,645 $ 30,000 $ - $ 1,940 $ - $ 1,520,144 CHAVEZ ES $ 2,285,469 $ 4,050 $ 445,500 $ 113,533 $ - $ 130,436 $ 60,000 $ - $ 4,360 $ - $ 3,043,347 CHIN ES (5) $ 1,451,988 $ 350 $ - $ 70,086 $ - $ 48,768 $ 45,000 $ - $ 2,650 $ - $ 1,618,842 CHINESE EDUCATION CENTER ES (12) $ 805,866 $ - $ 22,403 $ 22,833 $ - $ 28,255 $ 60,000 $ - $ 1,200 $ - $ 940,558 CHINESE IMMERSION SCHOOL (17) $ 1,947,178 $ 350 $ - $ - $ - $ 53,026 $ - $ - $ 3,890 $ - $ 2,004,444 CLARENDON ES $ 2,618,753 $ 2,900 $ - $ - $ - $ 27,868 $ - $ - $ 5,450 $ - $ 2,654,971 CLEVELAND ES $ 2,039,367 $ 900 $ 179,500 $ 85,942 $ - $ 101,794 $ 45,000 $ - $ 3,870 $ - $ 2,456,373 COBB ES $ 834,713 $ 900 $ 109,725 $ 28,542 $ - $ 5,419 $ 30,000 $ - $ 1,340 $ - $ 1,010,639 DREW ES (5) $ 1,193,714 $ 1,500 $ 546,787 $ 55,181 $ - $ 5,419 $ 45,000 $ 99,734 $ 2,090 $ - $ 1,949,425 EL DORADO ES $ 1,266,812 $ 800 $ 279,000 $ 48,204 $ - $ 27,094 $ 45,000 $ - $ 2,180 $ - $ 1,669,089 FAIRMOUNT ES $ 1,989,681 $ 1,950 $ 200,000 $ 73,891 $ - $ 68,121 $ 27,000 $ - $ 3,850 $ - $ 2,364,493 FEINSTEIN ES $ 2,468,527 $ 2,400 $ - $ - $ - $ 39,479 $ - $ - $ 5,060 $ - $ 2,515,466 FLYNN ES (27) $ 2,217,309 $ 2,150 $ 437,400 $ 97,993 $ - $ 76,636 $ 30,000 $ 99,734 $ 4,310 $ - $ 2,965,533 GARFIELD ES (8) $ 1,206,054 $ 1,900 $ 75,600 $ 38,373 $ - $ 25,932 $ 27,000 $ - $ 2,170 $ - $ 1,377,029 GLEN PARK ES $ 1,936,595 $ 2,500 $ 131,250 $ 68,817 $ - $ 49,155 $ 27,000 $ - $ 3,740 $ - $ 2,219,058 GRATTAN ES $ 1,977,352 $ 2,450 $ - $ - $ - $ 14,708 $ - $ - $ 3,990 $ - $ 1,998,500 GUADALUPE ES (5) $ 2,134,350 $ 1,250 $ 102,250 $ 95,456 $ - $ 94,827 $ 45,000 $ - $ 4,090 $ - $ 2,477,223 HARTE ES $ 1,240,615 $ 750 $ 266,258 $ 48,521 $ - $ 38,318 $ 45,000 $ 99,734 $ 2,170 $ - $ 1,741,366 HILLCREST ES $ 2,355,725 $ 3,850 $ 236,196 $ 118,607 $ - $ 98,311 $ 55,000 $ - $ 4,560 $ - $ 2,872,248 JEFFERSON ES $ 2,526,959 $ 3,550 $ - $ - $ - $ 61,541 $ - $ - $ 5,140 $ - $ 2,597,190 KEY ES (12) $ 2,681,154 $ 3,850 $ - $ - $ - $ 64,250 $ - $ - $ 5,500 $ - $ 2,754,755 KING ES $ 1,735,024 $ 1,550 $ 173,628 $ 54,229 $ - $ 30,577 $ 27,000 $ - $ 3,310 $ - $ 2,025,319 LAFAYETTE ES (18) $ 2,640,906 $ 3,150 $ - $ - $ - $ 53,800 $ - $ - $ 5,420 $ - $ 2,703,276 LAKESHORE ES $ 2,469,691 $ 3,900 $ 72,720 $ 85,308 $ - $ 47,994 $ 27,000 $ - $ 4,960 $ - $ 2,711,573 LAU ES (2) $ 3,407,931 $ 1,650 $ 96,768 $ 180,764 $ - $ 182,688 $ 55,000 $ - $ 6,770 $ - $ 3,931,571 LONGFELLOW ES (7) $ 2,782,284 $ 2,850 $ 138,000 $ 129,072 $ - $ 120,760 $ 45,000 $ - $ 5,520 $ - $ 3,223,486 MALCOLM X ES $ 618,828 $ 600 $ 238,279 $ 24,419 $ - $ 3,483 $ 55,000 $ - $ 870 $ - $ 941,479 MARSHALL ES $ 1,461,555 $ 700 $ 116,064 $ 65,963 $ - $ 68,895 $ 45,000 $ - $ 2,640 $ - $ 1,760,817 MCCOPPIN ES (4) $ 1,181,744 $ 200 $ 39,312 $ 44,081 $ - $ 37,157 $ 30,000 $ - $ 2,080 $ - $ 1,334,574 MCKINLEY ES $ 1,964,328 $ 800 $ 43,280 $ - $ - $ 11,999 $ - $ - $ 3,960 $ - $ 2,024,367 MILK ES $ 1,280,469 $ 850 $ 98,885 $ - $ - $ 8,128 $ - $ - $ 2,370 $ - $ 1,390,703 MIRALOMA ES $ 1,928,345 $ 2,800 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,806 $ - $ - $ 3,900 $ - $ 1,940,850 MISSION EDUCATION CENTER ES $ 1,391,897 $ 500 $ 23,000 $ 51,375 $ - $ 62,702 $ 60,000 $ - $ 2,420 $ - $ 1,591,894 MONROE ES (6) $ 2,772,512 $ 1,250 $ 190,570 $ 120,827 $ - $ 142,047 $ 45,000 $ - $ 5,490 $ - $ 3,277,696 MOSCONE ES (2) $ 2,048,244 $ 1,550 $ 72,800 $ 104,336 $ - $ 101,794 $ 55,000 $ - $ 3,890 $ - $ 2,387,614 MUIR ES $ 1,427,089 $ 1,000 $ 311,401 $ 57,083 $ - $ 31,351 $ 45,000 $ - $ 2,610 $ - $ 1,875,534 NEW TRADITIONS ES $ 1,375,685 $ 800 $ - $ - $ - $ 8,515 $ - $ - $ 2,610 $ - $ 1,387,610 ORTEGA ES (8) $ 2,048,293 $ 1,400 $ 58,992 $ - $ - $ 56,122 $ 27,000 $ - $ 4,040 $ - $ 2,195,848 PARKER ES $ 1,368,071 $ 350 $ 43,360 $ 62,792 $ - $ 62,702 $ 55,000 $ - $ 2,430 $ - $ 1,594,704 PARKS ES $ 2,607,548 $ 3,200 $ 169,449 $ - $ - $ 54,574 $ 27,000 $ - $ 5,110 $ - $ 2,866,881 PEABODY ES (3) $ 1,427,230 $ 3,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 15,869 $ - $ - $ 2,740 $ - $ 1,448,839 REDDING ES (1) $ 1,405,089 $ 450 $ 42,192 $ 61,523 $ - $ 48,381 $ 45,000 $ 99,734 $ 2,550 $ - $ 1,704,920 Page 77 of 112

78 School Actual Enrollment Projected Enrollment Increase / (Decrease) EXHIBIT 8 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (First Reading) Preliminary Site-Based Budget Allocation WSF (Unrestricted Resources) Special Ed- WSF Site Allocation TIIG Title I SCG-LI SCG-EL Concentration Grant TK Site Allocation PEEF Arts PEEF PE Total Preliminary Allocations SAN FRANCISCO MONTESSORI ES $ 1,053,572 $ 1,100 $ 18,700 $ - $ - $ 10,450 $ - $ - $ 1,870 $ - $ 1,085,693 SANCHEZ ES $ 1,580,799 $ 2,250 $ 363,004 $ 56,132 $ - $ 69,669 $ 55,000 $ - $ 2,870 $ - $ 2,129,724 SERRA ES $ 1,621,423 $ 500 $ 149,500 $ 77,697 $ - $ 60,380 $ 55,000 $ - $ 2,990 $ - $ 1,967,489 SHERIDAN ES $ 1,222,009 $ 1,100 $ 79,560 $ 51,692 $ - $ 34,060 $ 45,000 $ 99,734 $ 2,160 $ - $ 1,535,316 SHERMAN ES $ 1,974,755 $ 3,150 $ - $ - $ - $ 30,964 $ - $ - $ 3,920 $ - $ 2,012,789 SLOAT ES $ 1,994,768 $ 1,600 $ - $ - $ - $ 47,994 $ - $ - $ 3,940 $ - $ 2,048,303 SPRING VALLEY ES $ 1,891,840 $ 900 $ - $ 87,845 $ - $ 98,698 $ 55,000 $ - $ 3,550 $ - $ 2,137,833 STEVENSON ES $ 2,524,357 $ 3,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 82,055 $ 27,000 $ 99,734 $ 5,050 $ - $ 2,741,196 SUNNYSIDE ES $ 1,968,928 $ 2,050 $ 55,872 $ - $ - $ 14,708 $ - $ - $ 3,950 $ - $ 2,045,508 SUNSET ES $ 2,003,973 $ 2,100 $ - $ - $ - $ 22,062 $ - $ - $ 4,040 $ - $ 2,032,175 SUTRO ES $ 1,425,298 $ 800 $ - $ 52,326 $ - $ 67,347 $ 45,000 $ - $ 2,610 $ - $ 1,593,381 TAYLOR ES (14) $ 3,336,982 $ 2,300 $ 91,808 $ 161,102 $ - $ 162,948 $ 45,000 $ - $ 6,480 $ - $ 3,806,620 TENDERLOIN ES $ 1,705,398 $ 1,450 $ 194,000 $ 88,162 $ - $ 67,347 $ 60,000 $ - $ 3,150 $ - $ 2,119,507 ULLOA ES $ 2,637,296 $ 900 $ - $ 99,896 $ - $ 100,633 $ 30,000 $ - $ 5,260 $ - $ 2,873,985 VIS VALLEY ES (5) $ 2,033,095 $ 1,050 $ 153,650 $ 99,579 $ - $ 70,443 $ 55,000 $ - $ 3,900 $ - $ 2,416,717 WEBSTER ES $ 1,667,457 $ 750 $ 161,722 $ - $ - $ 32,512 $ 27,000 $ - $ 3,170 $ - $ 1,892,611 WEST PORTAL ES $ 2,891,162 $ 1,550 $ - $ - $ - $ 78,184 $ - $ - $ 5,940 $ - $ 2,976,836 YICK WO ES (5) $ 1,351,560 $ 1,950 $ - $ - $ - $ 29,416 $ - $ - $ 2,510 $ - $ 1,385,436 BUENA VISTA HORACE MANN K $ 3,121,700 $ 4,950 $ 523,800 $ 109,410 $ - $ 116,115 $ 27,000 $ - $ 8,010 $ 2,364 $ 3,913,349 CARMICHAEL K $ 3,214,788 $ 1,450 $ 309,500 $ 144,928 $ - $ 92,505 $ 45,000 $ 99,734 $ 8,070 $ 2,256 $ 3,918,232 LAWTON K $ 3,024,207 $ 3,650 $ - $ - $ - $ 61,541 $ 27,000 $ - $ 7,980 $ 2,436 $ 3,126,814 LILIENTHAL K $ 3,436,456 $ 1,500 $ - $ - $ - $ 29,416 $ - $ - $ 9,120 $ 2,508 $ 3,478,999 REVERE K $ 2,572,818 $ 3,500 $ 489,312 $ 102,750 $ - $ 85,151 $ 45,000 $ - $ 6,180 $ 1,668 $ 3,306,379 ROOFTOP K $ 2,965,352 $ 3,050 $ - $ - $ - $ 21,288 $ - $ - $ 7,910 $ 2,376 $ 2,999,976 S.F. COMMUNITY K $ 1,634,255 $ 1,450 $ 142,500 $ 50,424 $ - $ 20,901 $ 27,000 $ - $ 3,790 $ 1,128 $ 1,881,447 YU, ALICE FONG K $ 3,094,289 $ 650 $ - $ - $ - $ 40,253 $ - $ - $ 7,920 $ 2,376 $ 3,145,488 APTOS MS 1, (16) $ 4,635,797 $ 7,200 $ - $ 176,007 $ - $ 57,283 $ 27,000 $ - $ 19,720 $ 11,832 $ 4,934,839 BROWN MS $ 2,199,860 $ 2,050 $ 178,000 $ 56,449 $ - $ 11,612 $ 30,000 $ - $ 8,400 $ 5,040 $ 2,491,410 DENMAN MS $ 4,008,616 $ 6,850 $ 286,388 $ 152,540 $ - $ 72,765 $ 27,000 $ - $ 16,760 $ 10,056 $ 4,580,974 EVERETT MS $ 3,699,633 $ 5,300 $ 572,710 $ 115,118 $ - $ 83,603 $ 27,000 $ - $ 15,060 $ 9,036 $ 4,527,460 FRANCISCO MS (17) $ 3,290,079 $ 3,550 $ 90,288 $ 131,292 $ - $ 93,666 $ 30,000 $ - $ 13,100 $ 7,860 $ 3,659,835 GIANNINI MS 1,200 1,192 (8) $ 5,469,301 $ 8,950 $ - $ - $ - $ 30,964 $ - $ - $ 23,840 $ 14,304 $ 5,547,359 HOOVER MS 1,028 1,025 (3) $ 4,837,655 $ 3,150 $ 35,756 $ 197,889 $ - $ 59,606 $ 27,000 $ - $ 20,500 $ 12,300 $ 5,193,856 KING, M. L. MS $ 2,569,157 $ 3,250 $ 263,752 $ 102,116 $ - $ 41,414 $ 30,000 $ - $ 10,360 $ 6,216 $ 3,026,266 LICK MS (2) $ 3,330,943 $ 7,250 $ 341,500 $ 129,389 $ - $ 82,829 $ 30,000 $ - $ 13,660 $ 8,196 $ 3,943,767 MARINA MS $ 3,922,214 $ 4,550 $ - $ 162,053 $ - $ 56,509 $ 27,000 $ - $ 16,300 $ 9,780 $ 4,198,406 PRESIDIO MS 1,136 1,125 (11) $ 5,173,800 $ 7,600 $ - $ - $ - $ 37,931 $ - $ - $ 22,500 $ 13,500 $ 5,255,331 ROOSEVELT MS $ 3,420,801 $ 4,250 $ - $ - $ - $ 31,351 $ 15,000 $ - $ 14,360 $ 8,616 $ 3,494,378 VIS VALLEY MS $ 2,593,407 $ 2,100 $ 296,000 $ 83,088 $ - $ 58,832 $ 30,000 $ - $ 9,700 $ 5,820 $ 3,078,946 ACADEMY - SAN FRANCISCO $ 1,966,231 $ 2,150 $ 112,350 $ - $ 57,978 $ 15,482 $ 27,000 $ - $ 7,260 $ 4,356 $ 2,192,807 ASAWA SCHOOL OF THE ARTS HS $ 4,077,474 $ 4,600 $ - $ - $ 34,846 $ 6,967 $ - $ - $ 14,000 $ 8,400 $ 4,146,287 BALBOA HS 1,282 1,268 (14) $ 6,406,161 $ 10,850 $ 173,794 $ - $ 231,913 $ 88,634 $ 27,000 $ - $ 25,140 $ 15,084 $ 6,978,577 BURTON HS 1,063 1,049 (14) $ 5,347,119 $ 7,150 $ 679,252 $ - $ 167,493 $ 67,734 $ 27,000 $ - $ 20,560 $ 12,336 $ 6,328,644 DOWNTOWN HS $ 1,463,101 $ 2,350 $ 40,000 $ - $ 24,011 $ 13,160 $ 30,000 $ - $ 5,300 $ 3,180 $ 1,581,102 GALILEO HS 1,894 1, $ 9,894,803 $ 14,600 $ 454,130 $ - $ 408,484 $ 144,370 $ 45,000 $ - $ 38,840 $ 23,304 $ 11,023,531 INDEPENDENCE HS $ 1,622,245 $ 1,450 $ - $ - $ 26,061 $ 2,709 $ 27,000 $ - $ 7,200 $ 4,320 $ 1,690,985 Page 78 of 112

79 School Actual Enrollment Projected Enrollment Increase / (Decrease) EXHIBIT 8 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (First Reading) Preliminary Site-Based Budget Allocation WSF (Unrestricted Resources) Special Ed- WSF Site Allocation TIIG Title I SCG-LI SCG-EL Concentration Grant TK Site Allocation PEEF Arts PEEF PE Total Preliminary Allocations JUNE JORDAN SCHOOL FOR EQUITY HS $ 1,438,541 $ 4,200 $ 280,370 $ - $ 42,166 $ 21,675 $ 27,000 $ - $ 5,200 $ 3,120 $ 1,822,271 LINCOLN HS 2,111 2, $ 10,676,045 $ 12,250 $ - $ - $ 301,019 $ 139,725 $ 27,000 $ - $ 42,800 $ 25,680 $ 11,224,519 LOWELL HS 2,744 2,710 (34) $ 14,664,558 $ 9,050 $ - $ - $ 298,091 $ 23,997 $ - $ - $ 53,780 $ 32,268 $ 15,081,743 MARSHALL HS $ 3,424,020 $ 5,550 $ 637,216 $ - $ 72,619 $ 99,859 $ 45,000 $ - $ 12,320 $ 7,392 $ 4,303,976 MISSION HS 1,180 1, $ 6,249,239 $ 11,850 $ 619,800 $ - $ 153,731 $ 166,432 $ 27,000 $ - $ 24,240 $ 14,544 $ 7,266,835 O'CONNELL HS (48) $ 3,110,828 $ 4,150 $ 709,095 $ - $ 63,249 $ 29,803 $ 27,000 $ - $ 7,660 $ 4,596 $ 3,956,381 SF INTERNATIONAL HS $ 2,877,298 $ 300 $ 85,625 $ - $ 47,730 $ 121,534 $ 60,000 $ - $ 9,540 $ 5,724 $ 3,207,750 WALLENBERG HS $ 3,367,891 $ 5,600 $ - $ - $ 97,509 $ 31,351 $ 27,000 $ - $ 12,800 $ 7,680 $ 3,549,832 WASHINGTON HS 2,078 2,062 (16) $ 10,400,435 $ 11,950 $ - $ - $ 334,986 $ 126,178 $ 27,000 $ - $ 41,240 $ 24,744 $ 10,966,533 WELLS HS $ 1,454,795 $ 2,700 $ 40,000 $ - $ 28,696 $ 9,676 $ 45,000 $ - $ 5,300 $ 3,180 $ 1,589,347 Total $ 281,849,773 $ 305,300 $ 14,192,954 $ 4,604,093 $ 2,390,582 $ 5,797,622 $ 2,784,000 $ 797,875 $ 830,130 $ 339,576 $ 313,891,906 Page 79 of 112

80 Page 80 of 112

81 EXHIBIT 8A San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (First Reading) Summary of FTEs - Multi-Tiered System of Equitable Supports (MTSS) Fund Leadership and Professional Capacity Supports Parent-School- Student-Centered Learning Climate Specialized Instructional Staff Other Community Ties Cohort School Name Assistant Principal Instructional Reform Facilitator Literacy Coach Academic RtI Facilitator EED Coaching Nurse Social Worker Wellness Coordinator CHOW Counselor Elementary Adivisor OR Attendance Liaison (0.75 FTE) Family Liaison EED Family Support Specialist Career Technical Education Ethnic Studies VAPA Librarian PE Math Teacher Teacher on Special Assignment Cohort EED Argonne EED Cohort EED Havard Cohort EED Jefferson EED Cohort EED Mahler Cohort EED McLaren Cohort EED Noriega Cohort EED Presidio EED Cohort EED Rodriguez Cohort EED San Miguel Cohort EED Serra Annex Cohort EED Stockton Cohort EED Tule Elk Cohort 1 Alamo Cohort 1 Argonne ES Cohort 1 Chinese D'Avila Cohort 1 Cobb Cohort 1 Grattan Cohort 1 Lafayette Cohort 1 Lilienthal K Cohort 1 McCoppin Cohort 1 McKinley Cohort 1 New Traditions Cohort 1 Peabody Cohort 1 Presidio MS Cohort 1 Roosevelt MS Cohort 1 Sutro *With the most recent increase in PEEF funding (per the June Amendment), we are looking closely at sites that were impacted by reductions in centrally-funded supports; increased revenue allows us to restore some of these supports Page 81 of 112

82 EXHIBIT 8A San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (First Reading) Summary of FTEs - Multi-Tiered System of Equitable Supports (MTSS) Fund Leadership and Professional Capacity Supports Parent-School- Student-Centered Learning Climate Specialized Instructional Staff Other Community Ties Cohort School Name Assistant Principal Instructional Reform Facilitator Literacy Coach Academic RtI Facilitator EED Coaching Nurse Social Worker Wellness Coordinator CHOW Counselor Elementary Adivisor OR Attendance Liaison (0.75 FTE) Family Liaison EED Family Support Specialist Career Technical Education Ethnic Studies VAPA Librarian PE Math Teacher Teacher on Special Assignment Cohort 2 Carmichael Cohort 2 Chinese Ed Center Cohort 2 Francisco MS Cohort 2 Garfield Cohort 2 John Yehall Chin Cohort 2 Lau Cohort 2 Marina MS Cohort 2 Muir Cohort 2 Parker Cohort 2 Parks Cohort 2 Redding Cohort 2 SF Montessori Cohort 2 Sherman Cohort 2 Spring Valley Cohort 2 Tenderloin Cohort 2 Yick Wo Cohort 3 Carver Cohort 3 Drew Cohort 3 Harte Cohort 3 Malcolm X Cohort 3 Starr King Cohort 3 Webster Cohort 3 Willie Brown Jr. MS Cohort 4 Cleveland Cohort 4 Denman MS Cohort 4 E.R. Taylor *With the most recent increase in PEEF funding (per the June Amendment), we are looking closely at sites that were impacted by reductions in centrally-funded supports; increased revenue allows us to restore some of these supports Page 82 of 112

83 EXHIBIT 8A San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (First Reading) Summary of FTEs - Multi-Tiered System of Equitable Supports (MTSS) Fund Leadership and Professional Capacity Supports Parent-School- Student-Centered Learning Climate Specialized Instructional Staff Other Community Ties Cohort School Name Assistant Principal Instructional Reform Facilitator Literacy Coach Academic RtI Facilitator EED Coaching Nurse Social Worker Wellness Coordinator CHOW Counselor Elementary Adivisor OR Attendance Liaison (0.75 FTE) Family Liaison EED Family Support Specialist Career Technical Education Ethnic Studies VAPA Librarian PE Math Teacher Teacher on Special Assignment Cohort 4 El Dorado Cohort 4 Guadalupe Cohort 4 Hillcrest Cohort 4 Longfellow Cohort 4 MLK Jr. MS Cohort 4 Monroe Cohort 4 S.F. Community K Cohort 4 Vis Valley ES Cohort 4 Vis Valley MS Cohort 5 Alice F. Yu K Cohort 5 Aptos MS Cohort 5 Clarendon Cohort 5 F.S. Key Cohort 5 Feinstein Cohort 5 Giannini MS Cohort 5 Hoover MS Cohort 5 Jefferson ES Cohort 5 Lakeshore Cohort 5 Lawton K Cohort 5 Miraloma Cohort 5 Ortega Cohort 5 Rooftop PK Cohort 5 Sheridan Cohort 5 Sloat Cohort 5 Stevenson Cohort 5 Sunnyside Cohort 5 Sunset *With the most recent increase in PEEF funding (per the June Amendment), we are looking closely at sites that were impacted by reductions in centrally-funded supports; increased revenue allows us to restore some of these supports Page 83 of 112

84 EXHIBIT 8A San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (First Reading) Summary of FTEs - Multi-Tiered System of Equitable Supports (MTSS) Fund Leadership and Professional Capacity Supports Parent-School- Student-Centered Learning Climate Specialized Instructional Staff Other Community Ties Cohort School Name Assistant Principal Instructional Reform Facilitator Literacy Coach Academic RtI Facilitator EED Coaching Nurse Social Worker Wellness Coordinator CHOW Counselor Elementary Adivisor OR Attendance Liaison (0.75 FTE) Family Liaison EED Family Support Specialist Career Technical Education Ethnic Studies VAPA Librarian PE Math Teacher Teacher on Special Assignment Cohort 5 Ulloa Cohort 5 West Portal Cohort 6 Alvarado Cohort 6 Bryant Cohort 6 Buena Vista Horace Mann K Cohort 6 Chavez Cohort 6 Everett MS Cohort 6 Fairmount Cohort 6 Flynn Cohort 6 Glen Park Cohort 6 Lick MS Cohort 6 Marshall ES Cohort 6 Milk Cohort 6 Mission Ed Center Cohort 6 Moscone/Las Americas Cohort 6 Revere PK Cohort 6 Sanchez Cohort 6 Serra Cohort HS Asawa SOTA Cohort HS Balboa HS Cohort HS Burton HS Cohort HS Civic Center Cohort HS Downtown HS Cohort HS Early Morning GED Cohort HS Galileo HS Cohort HS Hilltop *With the most recent increase in PEEF funding (per the June Amendment), we are looking closely at sites that were impacted by reductions in centrally-funded supports; increased revenue allows us to restore some of these supports Page 84 of 112

85 EXHIBIT 8A San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (First Reading) Summary of FTEs - Multi-Tiered System of Equitable Supports (MTSS) Fund Leadership and Professional Capacity Supports Parent-School- Student-Centered Learning Climate Specialized Instructional Staff Other Community Ties Cohort School Name Assistant Principal Instructional Reform Facilitator Literacy Coach Academic RtI Facilitator EED Coaching Nurse Social Worker Wellness Coordinator CHOW Counselor Elementary Adivisor OR Attendance Liaison (0.75 FTE) Family Liaison EED Family Support Specialist Career Technical Education Ethnic Studies VAPA Librarian PE Math Teacher Teacher on Special Assignment Cohort HS Ida B. Wells HS Cohort HS Independence HS Cohort HS June Jordan HS Cohort HS Lincoln HS Cohort HS Log Cabin Cohort HS Lowell HS Cohort HS Marshall HS Cohort HS Mission HS Cohort HS O'Connell HS Cohort HS SF International HS Cohort HS The Academy HS Cohort HS Wallenberg HS Cohort HS Washington HS Cohort HS Youth Guidance Center Total FTEs *With the most recent increase in PEEF funding (per the June Amendment), we are looking closely at sites that were impacted by reductions in centrally-funded supports; increased revenue allows us to restore some of these supports Page 85 of 112

86 EXHIBIT 9 San Francisco Unified School District FY Recommended Budget (First Reading) Summary District Operating Funds Special Reserve Capital Outlay (40), $2,724,166, 0% KALW (63), $2,443,004, 0% Restricted General Fund (01), $209,172,798, 25% Other, $95,469,812, 11% Cafeteria Fund (13), $26,213,923, 3% Self Insurance Fund (67), $21,729,107, 3% Unrestricted General Fund (01), $550,112,862, 64% Early Education Development Fund (12), $42,359,612, 5% Total All District Operating Funds Budget = $854,755,472 Page 86 of 112