S.F. supervisors propose full-time school board

[alp227]

San Francisco school board members would become full-time workers, with an 800 percent raise, health benefits and a pension, under a proposed City Charter amendment introduced Tuesday at the Board of Supervisors.

If the measure makes it through the supervisors and passes muster with voters next November, the city's seven school board members would receive $50,000 a year plus benefits and be required to work full time for the city's schools - with the city footing the bill.

They would be among a handful of California school board members earning a full-time paycheck to do what has long been considered a largely volunteer position.

In San Francisco, the seven school board members currently receive a $500 monthly stipend, shared use of a district car and a life insurance policy they can cash out when they leave. There are no term limits.

Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who authored the measure, believes the stipend is not nearly enough given the board's workload, including oversight of a $500 million budget and the crafting of policies affecting the district's 55,000 students.

The monthly pay has remained the same since 1983.

Despite an expected $400 million budget shortfall next year, the city would be required to cover the $400,000 or so to compensate the board for full-time status - at least at first.

--snip--

The proposed charter amendment would require new board members to go through training and complete at least 10 hours of professional development every year. The board members would also be required to adopt policies suggested by the city controller regarding the reimbursement of board expenses.

School board member Jill Wynns, who is serving her fifth four-year term, fully supports the idea of a full-time paycheck.

"I think the real question is, do we think it's a (full-time) job?" she said. "I do."

Wynns said board members are expected to attend several hours of meetings nearly every week, answer dozens of e-mails daily, attend midday school events and make public appearances. That limits the ability to hold another job.

--snip--

"I knew people who left the board because they couldn't (afford) it anymore," Wynns said. "Frankly, I've struggled for years with that."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/24/BAKH1GH51N.DTL

[bluestateguy]

1. A full time board gives them more of an interest in meddling and making busybody policies

Like more rules, more policies, more regulations, more hearings and more stupid documents that teachers will have to waste their time filling out, at the expense of teaching.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. What Bluestateguy said

A ridiculous idea in a tough economic time.

[Recursion]

3. Meddling with governance models rarely makes things better

SFUSD is doing really well, and maintains high performance with full public school choice and a strong charter system. I don't get why changing how they're running things is so high on their priority list.