The document summarizes a meeting to discuss plans for a public engagement initiative called Public Engagement for Public Schools (PEPS). PEPS conducted over 90 interviews with stakeholders to understand perspectives on civic dialogue. Interview findings showed support for collaboration around a shared vision for world-class public schools in San Francisco. Small group discussions were seen as an effective format. Next steps include piloting small group dialogues to develop statements to guide a larger public engagement campaign.

1. For a graphic recording of the
meeting conversation, refer to
Kathy Evans’ Panels 1-3 at
engagementforschools.org
Interview Report-Back
March 21, 2012

2. Agenda
Welcome
Who is in the Room?
Public Engagement for Public Schools (PEPS) –
What, Why, How
Interview Findings
Timeline
Discussion
Next Steps
Q&A

3. Agenda
Welcome
Who is in the Room?
Public Engagement for Public Schools (PEPS) –
What, Why, How
Interview Findings
Timeline
Discussion
Next Steps
Q&A

4. Agenda
An overview of PEPS is
available at
Welcome engagementforschools.org
Who is in the Room?
Public Engagement for Public Schools (PEPS) –
What, Why, How
Interview Findings
Timeline
Discussion
Next Steps
Q&A

5. The Interview Questions
PEPS interviewed over
90 stakeholders, with
the same set of
• Why do you do this work? questions.
• What is the value/benefit of a civic dialogue?
• What are the risks/dangers of a civic dialogue?
• How do you envision this dialogue happening?
• Where do you see it being held?
• Who should be there?
• Do you know of any models?
• Who else should we talk to?

6. Agenda
Welcome
Who is in the Room?
Public Engagement for Public Schools (PEPS) –
What, Why, How
Interview Findings
Timeline
Discussion
Next Steps
Q&A

7. Key Themes In the 90+ interviews,
we heard common
themes.
• SF is a world-class city, it should have world-class
public schools.
• We need greater collaboration/alignment across
education stakeholders.
• We need a neutral facilitator that everyone trusts to
engage us.
• We risk building false hope for change and support
(e.g., report on a shelf).
• We still have hope. We are committed to public
schools. We are willing to try.

8. Why do you do this work?
A representation of
interview responses to
the first question.

9. What We Heard

10. Benefits Summary of common
responses to
“What is the
value/benefit of a civic
dialogue?”
• Raise awareness about public education
• Improve public perception of our public schools
• Increase funding and support for our public schools
• Improve collaboration, role clarification and
alignment across education stakeholders
• Increase civic engagement in our public schools
• Build consensus and unity of purpose around a
common vision
• Attract/Retain families for our public schools
• Increase support for families and children in SF

11. Risks Summary of common
responses to
“What is the
risk/danger of a civic
dialogue?”
• Building false hopes for change and support
• Another report on the shelf
• No risk
• The blame game
• More polarization
• Grandstanding
• More conflicts among existing organizations
• More negative feelings about SFUSD
• No action/no impact
• Uneven, limited participation

12. Barriers Although not
specifically asked, many
interviewees called out
barriers to effective
dialogue.
• Ego/Conflicting political interests
• Turf issues
• Race and social class
• Dialogue is complicated, emotional
• Participation is not inclusive, too narrow
• Some populations have time constraints
• Lack of translation to reach non-English-speaking
groups
• Lack of confidence in process
• Lack of interest
• Lack of knowledge/Misinformation about public
schools
• Mistrust of the school system

13. Who should be included?
• Teachers • Business community
• Principals • CBO‟s
• Parents • City government
• Students • Neighborhood groups
• Not the usual suspects/The „real deal‟
• The usual suspects
• Traditionally under-represented populations
• Adults without children
It is clear a dialogue • School-based organizations
must include a diverse • Faith-based community
set of stakeholders from
• Independent school community
across San Francisco.
• Foundations

14. Where should it take place?
Meet people where they are
(in communities/neutral spaces)
• Libraries
• Churches
• Schools
• Neighborhoods
• Workplaces
• House parties
“creative in both location and timing”
Dialogue must meet
people in their comfort
zones, where they can
have authentic
conversation.

15. Envisioning the Process
While many formats
were suggested, small
groups were by far the
Formats: most recommended.
Small groups leading up to a large conversation
Small conversations only
Big conversation only
Big conversation that branches into small groups
Technology-enabled
Ongoing dialogue groups; institutionalized

16. Envisioning the Process
Characteristics:
Many formats were
suggested; small groups
Set clear goals were by far the most
Based on building relationships recommended format.
Focus on the positive
Provide strong, neutral facilitation
Inform with good data

17. Reflection Participants reflected
on and shared their
response to the
interview findings.
What did you hear that surprised you?
What did you hear that confirms or
matches your own assessment?
What did you hear that was encouraging?
Would you like to consider the findings in
more depth?

18. Agenda
Welcome
Who is in the Room?
Public Engagement for Public Schools (PEPS) –
What, Why, How
Interview Findings
Timeline
Discussion
Next Steps
Q&A

19. Draft Timeline
Develop
Plan Plan & Engage
3-5 Statements
April - June August – October November -
PEPS proposes to spend the next 3 months planning and piloting:
• the format of small group dialogues, which will each generate 3-5
statements that capture the imagination and vision of the city.
• the composition of small groups representing diverse stakeholders
The small group statements will inform a larger stakeholder group that will
define statements to frame a city-wide public engagement campaign.

20. Agenda
Welcome
Who is in the Room?
Public Engagement for Public Schools (PEPS) –
What, Why, How
Interview Findings
Timeline
Discussion
Next Steps
Q&A

21. Moving to public engagement
What has been your experience of why
conversations lead to inaction?
Participants shared
their responses in pairs.

22. Moving to public engagement
How can we together ensure this process
leads to action?
Participants shared
their responses as a
group.

23. Agenda
Welcome
Who is in the Room?
Public Engagement for Public Schools (PEPS) –
What, Why, How
Interview Findings
Timeline
Discussion
Next Steps
Q&A

24. Next Steps
PEPS invited attendees
to join the process
through participation in
Commit to: planning, pilot groups
or small groups
• Participate in planning (April – June)
• Sponsor/host pilot group
• Participate in small dialogue groups
www.engagementforschools.org

25. Agenda
Welcome
Who is in the Room?
Public Engagement for Public Schools (PEPS) –
What, Why, How
Interview Findings
Timeline
Discussion
Next Steps
Q&A