SFUSD Parents,

Starting in the 3rd grade, kids in the SF public schools can spend up to 7 weeks of class time preparing for and taking standardized tests!  These tests are no longer "high stakes" but they do replace valuable instruction time and are not the tests used by the teacher to evaluate or teach your child.

Most teachers do not find the majority of these standardized tests to be helpful in educating your kids, because the scores don't give teachers details on what questions were missed or what skills might need more practice.  Except for the reading assessments given throughout the year (which teachers use to assign books appropriate for the child's reading level),  these tests are an expensive waste of time that only serve the interests of the testing companies.

Fortunately, CA state law allows parents to opt out of any standardized tests, and your school is not penalized in any way!  Opt-out forms must be turned in to your school's administrators every year.  Here are the forms:

• ENGLISH
• SPANISH
• CHINESE

Please print them out for yourself and for other parents in your classroom who are interested!

In particular, parents should consider opting ot of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and the Interim District Assessments (IDA) tests, which are given in the spring.  Teachers don't even get the scores on these tests until the end of the year, so taking these tests is of no benefit at all to the students.

You can ask your school to provide an appropriate curriculum for your kids while the others are taking tests.  If enough kids in a single grade opt out, we will have more sway to get a classroom at each grade level to continue with regular instruction!
 

How Green is Your Supervisor?

This is our report card for the SF Board of Supervisors in 2016. It shows the most important votes in 2016, from a Green Party perspective, and whether each supervisor supported or opposed our position. Some of the votes are on amendments to legislation. Compare to our 2015, 2014, 2013, and 2012 report cards.

Key:

These are the SF Green Party's endorsements for November 2016.

We are handing out the bookmark shown to the right (propositions are on the back).  If you can help distribute bookmarks, please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..  We will also mail our endorsements to all our members.  If you can donate to help cover our printing and mailing costs, please use the "donate" link to the left!

A complete Green Voter Guide is now posted.  Click "read more" to see full explanations of the reasons behind our endorsements.

Federal Candidates:

• President and VP - Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka (Green Party)  (website)

Local Candidates:

• Supervisor, D1 - Sandra Fewer
• Supervisor, D3 - no endorsement
• Supervisor, D5 - Dean Preston
• Supervisor, D7 - no consensus
• Supervisor, D9 - Hillary Ronen
• Supervisor, D11 - Francisco Herrera (Green Party) (website)
• School Board - Mark Sanchez and Matt Haney
• College Board - Rafael Mandelman, Tom Temprano, Shanell Williams
• Superior Court Judge - Victor Hwang
• BART Board, D9 - no endorsement

State Propositions:

• NO on 51 - limits on developer fees, masquerading as a school bond
• no endorsement on 52 - the CA legislature could extend the hospital fee in order to obtain federal Medi-Cal matching funds, without going to the voters
• NO on 53 - require voter approval for revenue bond-funded projects (although we still vehemently oppose Jerry Brown's Delta tunnels plan)
• YES on 54 - recording legislative sessions, allow time to read bills before voting
• YES on 55 - extend income taxes on rich people
• YES on 56 - increased tobacco taxes
• YES on 57 - increase parole opportunties (we don't think ANY kids should be tried as adults)
• YES on 58 - reform (and eventually repeal) Prop 227, California's English-only education law
• YES on 59 - advisory measure to repeal Citizens United (unlimited corporate political donations)
• NO on 60 - condoms in porn (we support better health care and testing regulations, and oppose criminalizing the sex industry)
• YES on 61 - make state agencies pay the same price as the US Dept of Veterans Affairs for drugs
• YES on 62 - ending the Death Penalty in California
• NO on 63 - restrictions on ammunition that don't apply to retired police
• YES on 64 - legalize recreational use of marijuana
• NO on 65 - attempt to undermine plastic bag ban
• NO on 66 - speeding up Death Penalty cases
• YES on 67 - upholding the statewide single-use plastic bag ban

Local Propositions:

• YES on A - school bond (although we have our usual reservations about bonds)
• YES on B - parcel tax to fund City College
•  NO on C - $260 million bond to fund displacement of SF residents by private landlords
• YES on D - allow people to vote in special elections to fill vacant Supervisorial seats, rather than having them filled by the Mayor
• YES on E - City will maintain street trees, rather than property owners
• YES on F - allowing 16-17 yr olds to vote in local elections
• YES on G - an almost meaningless renaming of the Office of Citizens Complaints, that will at least make their budget independent of the SFPD's budget
• YES on H - decentralizing some of the Mayor's power into a new citywide elected Public Advocate position
• NO on I - set-aside of some of the SF City Budget to a Mayor-controlled agency that would provide services to seniors and adults with disabilities (although we support more funding for this purpose, the Supervisors can fund such programs without creating a new agency that's ripe for corruption and unaccountable to the voters)
• NO on J - set-aside of some of the SF City Budget to fund homeless services, housing, and transportation improvements (like Prop I, this would give more power to the Mayor, encourage corruption, and have less oversight by our elected Supervisors)
• NO on K - increase the regressive sales tax to 9.25%
• YES on L - gives the Board of Supervisors some appointments to the SFMTA, and allows them to reject the budget with 6 votes instead of 7
• YES on M - creates a Housing and Development Commission, which would decentralize Mayoral power and give the Board of Supervisors more input into development
• YES on N - allowing noncitizen parents/guardians of SFUSD kids to vote in school board elections
• NO on O - further gentrification of Bayview
• NO on P - a measure that encourage corruption by allowing the Mayor more opportunities to pick politically connected developers to build projects, with a lack of public transparency
• NO on Q - symbolic "open sidewalks" measure to encourage police to ignore serious crimes and instead push homeless people from one block to the next
• NO on R - misleading "safe neighborhoods" measure to create a full-time police unit specifically to push homeless people from one block to the next (it will create much more UNSAFE neighborhoods by taking police away from investigating serious crimes)
• NO on S - set aside hotel tax income to be used for arts and programs to help homeless families.  As is the case with Props I and J, these programs are something the Supervisors could fund now if they wanted to, without going to the ballot
• YES on T - restricting gifts and contributions from lobbyists
•  NO on U - changes the definition of "affordable housing" to "unaffordable to most residents who live here"
• no consensus on V - 1 cent per ounce soda tax, that would go into the SF General fund.  We did not reach consensus on endorsing either yes or no on this proposition.
• YES on W - real estate transfer tax on $5 million+ properties
• YES on X - preserve space for arts, small business, and community services in Mission, SOMA
• YES on RR - $3.5 million bond to fund BART maintenance, with extreme reservations due to the BART board's near-perfect track record of mismanagement and boondoggles

Click below to read our complete Green Voter Guide: