BOE Meets on Student Assignment (edit this)
The Board of Education meet as a committee of the whole to discuss the District’s student assignment process. The discussion was for informational purposes. Commissioners Wynns and Yee were not present.
Members of the District’s Public Engagement Committee on Student Assignment discussed their 50 meetings with 500 people, beginning on Oct. 1. The San Francisco Education Fund, the District’s Parent Advisory Committee and the District’s Public Engagement Process have been holding structured community meetings to find out the community’s aspirations for schools and their feelings about the District’s s school selection process.
For those who would like to participate in one of their meetings, contact Gentle Blythe at 415-241-6565.
District’s staff also presented some findings about the District’s Student Assignment. Here are the highlights:
1. Under the current school assignment system, both the number of schools with high concentrations of a single racial/ethnic group and the magnitude of such concentrations have increased since 1999 (the first year of the settlement agreement with the Ho versus SFUSD decision that eliminated race from student assignment).
2. The applicant pools are not racially/ethnically diverse. Approximately 44% (43 schools out of 97) of the applicant pools had more than 45% of one racial/ethnic group.
3. The most requested schools by ethnic groups vary. The number #1 most requested elementary school for African American families is Dr. Charles Drew Elementary School, 50 Pomona (Bayview). The number #1 most requested elemenary school for Chinese American families is Lawton Elementary School (Sunset). (Yes, the District specifically mentioned Chinese American rather than Asian throughout this presentation.) The #1 most requested elementary school for Latino families is Buena Vista Elementary School. The #1 most requested elementary #1 school for “Other White” is Claire Lilienthal in Laurel Heights/Inner Richmond. (The District did not provide a definition for “Other White.”)
4. After Round 1, 53% (51 schools) were receiving new student populations that were more than 45% of one ethnic group. 17% (16 schools) received students that represent more than 60% of one racial/ethnic group. In other words, resegregation is happening with the current school selection process.
5. The schools with the most amount of buzz (i.e. the highest number of requests) usually are filled at Round 1 (deadline-January 16, 2007). At the kindergarten level, 50% (250) of the African American students that are attending school the next school year do not submit application on time for Round 1, compared to 5% (59) of Chinese American students and 15% (69) of Other White students. So African American families are less likely to get into the most popular schools-because they are not participating in the enrollment round where they would have the best chance of getting to a highly requested school.
6. Approximately 21% of the schools had more first choice requests than seats available. Approximately 19% of the schools have fewer total requests than seats available.
7. The most requested schools have API scores than the least requested schools. In other words, parents are more likely to choose a school that has a higher API score.
8. As our readers know, schools with a low API score are concentrated in the southeast section (Bayview, Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley) of the City.
9. 17% of students who apply in Round 1 do not become SFUSD students Almost half of these students who do not enroll do not get their first choice. The attrition varies by grade and race/ethnicity. Almost half (44%) of those who apply in Round 1 but don’t become SFUSD students are incoming kindergarteners. “Other White” applicants (36%) were more likely to apply but not enroll into a SFUSD school and 9% of all Chinese American applicants in Round 1 choose not to become SFUSD students.
6. Less than 30% of the applicants are requesting their attendance area school as their first choice. In other words, families are not choosing their neighborhood school.
7. 29 SFUSD schools do not have attendance areas. Due to a number of attendance schools closing, an increasing number of applicants do not have an attendance area school.
So with these facts, District staff made the following recommendations on school attendance policies:
1. Create a working group to review the admission process for Lowell and SOTA.
2. Review and revise the attendance area boundaries
3. Continue the survey that the Education Placement Center is conducting to better understand family demand patterns.
4. Improve outreach to African American and Latino parents.
5. Project demand patterns for each school and establish recruitment targets for the various racial/ethnic groups.
6. Design and launch an aggressive recruitment campaign.
7. Place high demand programs in low demand schools.
8. Create a strong portfolio of rigious academic program options throughout every neighborhood in the City.
9. Target underperforming schools in the southeast section of the City.
10. Recreate a definition for alternative schools and identify alternative schools.
11. Create a working group to explore the possibility of creating a stronger partnership between kindergarten and SFUSD’s Child Development Program.
12. Change the name of the Diversity Index Lottery to Student Assignment Lottery.
13. Define in a systematic way the enrollment capacities (# of seats available) for all schools.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:14 pm e
this was another area the student rep on the boe mentioned at the jrotc meeting. she said the students of sfusd polled did not want race to be a factor in school assignment. guess we’ll ignore that too.
November 29th, 2006 at 4:00 pm e
Just some observations:
It appears that families tend to request schools that already have high concentrations of their ethnicity — and tend not to request schools that “need” their ethnicity to increase diversity.
That is a definite obstacle to increasing diversity — but what solutions should the district consider? That’s especially a quandary when it addresses low-income African-American and Latino families. Saying “No, you can’t have the school you want!” sounds like the pre Brown v. Board of Ed days.
It’s a real challenge.
Increasing the number of low-income AA and L families who participate in the First Round process is the obvious place to start, but doesn’t address the problem above.
Many, many families who fully intend to go private (from openly elitist Town School socialites to misguided progressives who don’t get that Synergy and Lick-Wilmerding are every bit as elitist, exclusive and anti-populist) participate nominally in the process anyway, filing an application just listing one high-status school. Then they don’t get it and just carry on with their original plan to head for privateland. Some of those families even do get offered their chosen SFUSD school in a later round, but they were on the road to private anyway, and just stay on it. I know a Synergy family and a St. Brendan family who both had that happen with kindergarten applications to Clarendon. The question is — how to deal with that? The St. Brendan family are just deeply Catholic; the Synergy family think they’re making a progressive choice. How do we deal with that?
Naturally I will point out again that SOTA is diverse by every possible gauge, with five ethnic groups significantly represented. The one that is significantly UNDERrepresented is Asian students. I am just not sure how to deal with that while respecting Asian cultural traditions.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:47 pm e
Most parents who send their children to private schools live in that film noir world in which poor people and immigrants are considered evil. The elite private schools are like gated communities. They keep out the poor and disadvantaged (after cherry-picking a few bright kids so they can claim that their schools are “embracing diversity”).
Although I can understand why deeply religious people would send their children to religious schools, I have to scoff at all the blow-hard San Francisco parents, all seemingly progressive, who are bending over backward and kissing the arse of headmasters to get their kids into elitist schools like the San Francisco Day School and Hamlin.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:33 pm e
SOTA is not diverse.
Again, here is the California Dept. of Education’s breakdown of SFUSD’s population.
SFUSD Student Breakdown in 2005-06
Asian-44%
Filipino-6.0%
Latino-22%
African American-13.2%
White (Not Hispanic)-9.3%
Multiple or No Response-3.8%
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged-55% (This translates into both parents did not graduate from high school and/or the student is getting free or reduced lunch.)
California Dept. of Education Datquest Numbers for SOTA in 05-06
Asian 27% (So almost half the number of Asian American students in an average SFUSD school)
Latino 15.4% (40% less than the average SFUSD school)
African American 12.1% (-1.2%-So close to the District’s average)
White 35.1% (Almost 3 times more white students than SFUSD’s average school)
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged-20% (So almost three times LESS than SFUSD’s average number for socioeconomically disadvantaged students. In fact, according to the California Dept. of Education’s numbers, SOTA’s students are more affluent than any other SFUSD school-except for Clarendon.)
The Board agreed that all students should have equal access to quality programs and popular programs. SOTA’s current student population’s numbers reflect that it isn’t the case with the present enrollment process at SOTA.
Luckily, the majority of the old and new Board agree-and are working to change the enrollment process for SOTA and Lowell.
So that every student has an equal chance of getting into the only arts magnet public high school in San Francisco.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:39 pm e
I will keep pointing this out — there are many schools in SFUSD that are considered resegregated (more than 60% of one ethnicity). By all possible gauges, SOTA is one of SFUSD’s MOST diverse schools. I do not understand why you would be so hostile to a tolerant, diverse arts school, Kim. It makes no sense, and it’s also antithetical to Green Party values and principles. As SOTA is widely identified as extremely gay-friendly, is there some unconscious anti-gay bias going on?
BTW, I was looking at his SOTA classmates’ comments on one of my son’s chemistry assignments and noted one from the daughter of Krissy Keefer, Green Party candidate for Congress in the last election.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:23 am e
Um, your math is off again, Kim. If SOTA’s population is 15.4% Latino, and the district’s average is 22%, then SOTA’s L population would be 30% lower than the district’s, not 40% as you state.
However, I would question your use of districtwide figures for compaison to SOTA’s population, because those figures include students from every grade level, whereas SOTA is only grades 9-12. It would be more accurate to use the figures which reflect the ethnic makeup of just the high school age population in the SFUSD, not those which reflect every child ages 5-18.
The high school ethnicity figures can be found here:
http://orb.sfusd.edu/profile/prfl-108.htm
As you can see, at the high school level, Latinos make up only 19.6% of the district’s population, so SOTA’s 15.4% Latino enrollment is much closer than you suggest just 4 percentage points of difference, or about 20% lower than average, not 40% as you state.
I would also question your implication that SOTA is not “diverse” simply because it does not reflect the exact racial makeup of the district - how many schools (with admissions criteria or not) do? It would make a more compelling case if you were able to prove that SOTA is actively discriminating against the groups you feel are underrepresented - do you have any proof that this is the case?
November 30th, 2006 at 8:48 am e
I would ask if you have even the slightest hint of an indication that there’s discrimination going on, Kim — not just whether you have proof.
The most significantly underrepresented ethnicity at SOTA is Chinese kids. Do they lack access? Are they being discriminated against in the audition process? Do they not have access to quality middle school arts programs (the answer to the last would be an obvious no, as the strongest arts middle schools in SFUSD are also heavily Chinese to the point of setting off resegregation alarm bells).
So, what would you do to bring more Chinese applicants to SOTA? If you go by the numbers, SOTA should be focusing the vast majority of its outreach on the Chinese community.
But the other point that you are failing to understand is that the concerns of all involved, from the court-appointed desegregation monitor to the Harvard Civil Rights Project to the NAACP, are about resegregating schools, defined as 60% of more of any one ethnicity. As you have previously reported, half of SFUSD’s schools are in that situation. Those are the schools that clearly need the focus.
You are inventing a standard of your own — that schools should exactly reflect the makeup of SFUSD. But even by that standard, SOTA still does better than the vast majority of SFUSD schools. So would you not agree that the focus should be on the actual problem schools — not one that you seem to have singled out by some inexplicable standard of your own (subconscious hostility to a notably gay-friendly school, perhaps) as the problem?
November 30th, 2006 at 9:41 am e
If it is so important to make sure that every school reflects the “diversity” of the district, then perhaps you should be chatting with BOE member Eric Mar about why he chose a school for his child (McCoppin) which last year had a Chinese enrollment of 49.4%
http://orb.sfusd.edu/profile/prfl-549.htm
when the district average Chinese enrollment at the elementary level is only 29%?
If Commissioner Mar agrees with your view that schools should mirror the racial makeup of the district, then how is enrolling another Chinese student (his child) at a school which already has 70% more Chinese kids than “average”, helping?
And what about Mark Sanchez, who has chosen to work at a charter school (Garfield) in Redwood City which is 93% Latino
http://tinyurl.com/wet8l
when the school district in which is it located is only 63% Latino?
http://tinyurl.com/yyh9xc
Could it be that these BOE members do not share your belief that it is essential that every school reflect the exact racial makeup of the district to which it belongs? In fact, does ANYONE share your belief?
December 1st, 2006 at 6:38 am e
The majority of the current Board agrees with me-ergo why the District has been directed to revise the selection process for Lowell and SOTA and eliminate the attendance areas for high schools.
As was repeated throughout the last Committee of the Whole, the Board directed the District to ensure that all students have equal access to the popular programs. And every school board member (except President Yee who was not present) spoke eloquently in support of that goal.
The majority of the new Board agrees with me-which is also why the District is continuing to look at the possibility of introducing race as a factor in the school assignment process.
And the majority of voters must also agree with me-since they elected three women of color this year to the School Board and elected three men of color to the School Board two years ago.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:22 pm e
There is a huge, huge difference between “ensuring that all students have equal access to the popular programs”, and trying to make every school reflect the exactly racial makeup of the district as a whole, as you seem to want to do. I have not heard anyone except you, Kim, call for such an assignment system.
According to your standards, BOE member Eric Mar has put his child into a “segregated” school (McCoppin), because it has 49% Chinese students, while the district average for elementary is 29% Chinese. It also has just 8.4% African American students, (while the district average for elementary is 12.6% - 50% more!!!) and just 6.4% Latino students (while the district average for elementary is 24.5% - nearly 4 times more!!!!)
And if you think the majority of voters agree with you, then why didn’t they elect you?
December 1st, 2006 at 9:25 pm e
Let’s start with the differences between Frank McCoppin Elementary School and SOTA.
SOTA has a waiting list of students. McCoppin has had to consolidate at least one position for the last two years.
SOTA is the district’s only magnet school for arts. McCoppin is a small elementary school in a neighborhood blessed with lots of good, small schools.
The diversity index comes into effect when there is a WAITING LIST. SOTA has one. McCoppin does not-in fact, McCoppin has had to consolidated teachers and classes over the last two years.
The only current school board member with a child in public schools (Eric Mar) chose the school for one key reason-his wife teaches there.
Donn Harris’ daughter attends SOTA-and she became a student after Donn Harris had been the principal for at least two years. How many applied for that same spot that Principal Donn Harris’ child now occupies?
A kindergarten teacher was consolidated in the first year that Eric Mar’s child went to kindergarten-so they could use more kindergarten students that year.
Now let’s look at the demographics of McCoppin versus SOTA:
According to the California Dept. of Education,
this is the demographics for McCoppin Elementary School (that is suffering from a declining enrollment), School of the Arts (again readers, the district’s only magnet high school for arts which selects students with face to face interviews and performance auditions) and SFUSD in 2005-06 (the latest figures):
Asian SFUSD-44%/McCoppin with a Chinese bilingual program-66% (22%)/SOTA-27% (-17%) SOTA has a slight edge.
African American SFUSD-13.2%/McCoppin-7% (-6.2%)/SOTA (-1.2%) SOTA wins this category
Latino-SFUSD-22%/McCoppin-6%/SOTA-15.4% (SOTA wins this category)
White-SFUSD-9.2%/McCoppin-9%/SOTA-35.1% (McCoppin wins in a big way.)
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged-SFUSD-55%/McCoppin-75%/SOTA-20% (McCoppin wins again with a large margin)
So the McCoppin student population tend to be more students of color and less affluent than even SFUSD’s average school-and by far, less than SOTA-the second most affluent school with one of the largest population of white students.
Again, the diversity index comes into effect if there is a waiting list. SOTA has always a waiting list-and indeed, is the District’s only magnet arts high school. McCoppin is one of many neighborhood schools-and it has to consolidated teachers for the last two years. But even without that waiting list, McCoppin students better reflect the socio-economic and diversity of SFUSD than SOTA.
SOTA’s population is more affluent and white than McCoppin’s population. (Speaking of which, how is Principal Donn Harris’ daughter doing in her third year at SOTA?)
And for the record, I lost for the same reason that Jane Kim lost in 2004 and Harvey Milk lost three out of the four times that he ran for office-because I didn’t yet have name recognition that they did when they eventually won. (Thanks for asking!)
December 1st, 2006 at 10:00 pm e
Kim, I strongly object to that attack on SOTA’s principal and on his daughter. It is low, low, low to attack a high school student — thoroughly vicious. That is absolutely unacceptable, and I hope that your co-bloggers are conferring now about reining you in lest they too be tainted by your inappropriate behavior. This reminds me of Rush Limbaugh’s attacks on Chelsea Clinton during the early part of the Clinton administration, when she was still a child.
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:25 am e
Caroline and Nestwife, your attacks on Eric Mar and a first grader are also extremely low. Especially about a school without a waiting list-which is when the diversity index kicks in-and a school with a population is less affluent than the average SFUSD school and FAR less affluent than SOTA.
So my advice to you, Caroline and Nestwife-those in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks.
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:48 am e
What nonsense - there are plenty of schools with declining enrollment which Eric Mar could have chosen for his child if he truly believed that “diversity” was the most important factor in student assignment, and that making sure that every school reflects the “diversity” of the district is paramount, as you seem to believe. At Grattan, McKinley, Miraloma, or New Traditions (to name just a few of the schools which have been trying hard to attract more students), his Chinese daughter would have contributed to the “diversity” of the school, whereas at McCoppin, she is contributing to the increasing “segregation” (in your view.)
Or does your belief that students must be distributed in a manner which reflects the racial makeup of the district only apply to white students? Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but there aren’t enough white students in the district to create the kind of critical mass at ANY school which might lead to students of other ethnicities feeling like the “odd man out.” The most heavily “segregated” schools in terms of white students have perhaps 30-35% white, and there are just a few of those, whereas the most heavily “segregated” schools in terms of other ethnicities have over 70% of their students of one ethnicity, like 77% Chinese (Lau or Chin or Parker), 83% Latino (Bryant)or 78.5% Latino (Sanchez), 76% AA (Drew) or 70.5%AA (Willie Broiwn), etc.
Either “segregation” (as you have defined it - schools which have more students of any ethnicity than the district as a whole) is a problem for students and for schools, or it isn’t. You can’t excuse some schools which violate your “segregation” rule just because they are not overly in demand, or because your friends choose them for their children. If the current student assignment system isn’t working (and I tend to believe that it isn’t, given the number of people who complain about it, for varying reasons), then we need to be looking for a new system which will address the “segregation” at ALL schools, not just those which have more requests than slots available. If having too mnay students of one ethnicity in a school is a problem, then it is a problem regradless of how the students got there - whether they are there by request (in the case of underrequested schools), or there by diversity index assignment (in the case of over requested schools.) It makes no sense at all to claim that “segregation” is only a problem when you see more white students than you care for enrolled at a handful of schools.
And speaking of segregation, I am surprised that you have failed to address the fact that some of the most heavily “segregated” schools (by your definition) are the charters. KIPP Bayview is 79% AA, and from what we are hearing, they require their students to “test into” the school, and claim to have a waiting list. So how exactly is this different from SOTA, except that KIPP has vastly more AA students (by any measure) than SOTA has white students?
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:36 am e
I didn’t say anything about Eric’s school choice. But Nestwife wasn’t criticizing it either — her point was that by YOUR irrational, biased, impossible and unsupportable criteria, Kim, it was not an acceptable choice. She made it clear that she doesn’t agree with your criteria. By my standard, and I am confident by Nestwife’s, Eric’s choice is fine.
However, if anyone were to criticize Eric’s choice in schools, that would not in any way amount to criticism of his child. In contrast, your despicable comment was a direct attack on a kid.
Questioning a public official’s choice of school (for example, I also publicly questioned a school board candidate whose kids all attend private high school) is an entirely different matter from singling out a kid to attack publicly with the implication that she got preferential treatment in a merit-based school application. That is a direct, personal attack on a specific kid, implying that she didn’t deserve her merit-based admission. That’s an entirely different matter from criticizing a parent’s choice of school (when the parent is a public official). It’s beyond the pale to deliberately make a kid into collateral damage in a political/philosophical discussion.
And by the way, it’s extremely common for kids to attend schools where their parents are principals or teachers — including both public schools and selective-admission private schools. One could just as easily accuse every kid who made the honor roll in that situation of getting preferential treatment, and ditto every kid who got into a private school where his/her parent worked. Civilized people just don’t do that.
Also, even if there HAD been another unjust attack on an innocent child — which there most definitely was not — attacking a second innocent kid unjustly in retaliation would be outrageously wrong. To paraphrase a famous comment, have you no decency?