Presentation from BOE ad-hoc meeting

This is the PowerPoint presentation from the BOE ad-hoc meeting on student redesign, which took place on May 12, 2009.

School Assignment Meeting with Rachel Norton

Introductions

Some background from Rachel

• People who have gone through it and landed in the public school system are generally happy (like childbirth – you forget)
  
• A lot of committed families now
  
• The last two years have seen unprecedented demand
  
• Up until the last year you could get a proximate school if you went 0/7 within a mile of your home

Meredith shared information on scope of problem and meeting: focus on proximity for elementary school

Rachel shared ideas on why the district is not pursuing geographic based assignments

• "neighborhood" has racist baggage and means no change in diversity – "I only want to send my child to school with children like mine."
  
• "Proximity" is different than "neighborhood"
  
• While proximity is not officially a priority in the redesign, the BOE will consider how proximity factors into assignments from a common sense standpoint – for example, if the new system requires an extensive network of busing then that will be an issue.

Why the focus on diversity?

• Schools with >60% African America/Latino/Pacific Islander student body have lower achievement and a collection of issues that hinder progress such as high teacher turnover
  
• When you send low scoring kids to higher scoring schools the low scoring kids don't improve
  
• When you send mid-scoring kids to higher scoring schools they improve and when you send them to lower scoring schools they degrade
  
• The bottom line is that school composition matters
  
• Question from parent: shouldn't keeping the high achievers in the system therefore be a priority?

Redesign Plan

• One simulation is geography based and the others are diversity based – there is no proximity-diversity hybrid
  
• The simulations are just helping the district examine the options but are not meant to be the options to choose from
  
• Question from parent: What information will be presented to respond to? RN answer: don't focus on your specific case but think about effects on whole system
• RN noted that the district has not used data well until recently
  
• Carlos Garcia thinks neighborhood schools would be just fine because he feels that the district has the ability to make all schools good, no matter where they are or who attends them
  
• BOE has not adopted this approach
  
• Some families don't want to send their kids to neighborhood schools
  
• To define diversity, the simulations use: home language, public housing, free lunch, and race (maybe others, too)
  
• Rachel (and others) favor a cluster approach where families would have some choice within a set cluster of schools – gives some predictability and some choice
  
• Any system will have to stand up to Prop 209

Rachel thinks there should be some tweaks to the system for 2010-2011

• Rachel would like to scrap the diversity index since it is not working but she has no idea if there is support for this
  
• Rachel supports running the system by 1st choice, 2nd, etc.
  
• Parent suggested creating a geographic hardship – 0/7 families assigned to schools > 2miles from home would get a hardship priority in the waitlist

How do the parents support the concept of proximity-diversity clusters?

Positions of BOE members:

• Rachel and Norman Yee are already in favor
  
• Norman wants geography and is frustrated that we're mired in this mess
  
• Hydra Mendoza probably supports this
  
• Jill Wynns might support it but is die-hard for choice (see below)
  
• Jane Kim, Sandy Fewer, and Kim-shree are into diversity at any cost
  
• They are all very focused on the achievement gap and would even accept a complex network of busing to deal with it
  
• We probably won't change Kim-shree's mind
  
• Jane Kim is pretty reasonable and often agrees with Rachel – we could talk to her
  
• Sandy Fewer?

The BOE/district don't like the BOS telling them what to do. Carmen Chu does not yet have a lot of credibility for this issue but Bevan Dufty does.

Most metropolitan school districts in the US are cluster based

Choice

• Since choice the whole district has seen marked improvements
  
• Choice forced people to consider a wide range of schools
  
• Parent involvement seems to have played a critical role in "lifting up" schools
  
• We may be up against the limit of what choice can do – most of the schools that need help are on far from those with resources who would help lift these schools up

Next steps

• Meeting with Jane Kim (and other BOE members) – call BOE office to schedule
  
• Emails are ok but meetings are better
  
• Don't use the word "neighborhood"
  

Summary of meeting with Board of Supervisors

On April 30 there was a joint meeting between the Board of Supervisors and Board of Ed. to discuss the public school assignment process - both the current system and redesign. There was a small handful of parents there. Supervisor Chu summarized the issues with the assignment process - funding, diversity, community, etc. Orla O'Keeffe gave a presentation on the assignment process, focusing on the redesign. You can find most of the info on the SFUSD website on the student assignment redesign (see powerpoint presentations on lower right). The Supervisors asked for some specific pieces of information, including:

• number of children in each zip code vs. number of children enrolled in public school
  
• are kids from the west going east or is it just the other way?
  
• data on who applies versus who enrolls by ethnic group
  
• Orla O'Keeffe said they are working on all of this and they should have answers to these questions by May 11 (when the baseline simulation is supposed to be unveiled).
  

Public comment was next and all of the comments requested either neighborhood schools or some strong consideration of proximity.

At the end Supervisor Dufty said he was very concerned about families who go 0/7 and then wait a year and then go 0/7 again! He pressed for some guarantee that these families would get one of their choices.

Summary of meeting with Orla O'Keefe

I recently met with Orla O'Keeffe, Special Assistant to the Superintendent on Student Assignment, and I gained quite a bit of insight into why proximity is not a priority in the current or future assignment system. I hope to shed some light on this for the rest of you who are interested. This is long but please stick with me.

The student assignment process is driven by SFUSD's strategic plan, as it should be. The 3 major goals are: (1) access and equity – to ensure that every student has access to quality teaching and learning regardless of background, neighborhood and income level; (2) achievement – to ensure that every student graduates from high school ready for college and/or career with the tools necessary to succeed; and (3) accountability – to keep our promises to students and families. The strategic plan attempts to deal with the "achievement gap" – this refers to the issue that within the school district some ethnic groups (mostly White/Asian) are performing better than other groups (mostly African American/Latino/Samoan). The district has identified a correlation between schools that are predominantly African American/Latino/Samoan and a collection of factors that hinder quality education such as high teacher turnover.

Based on the above information, the BOE/district have adopted the following priorities for student assignment:

1. Provide equitable access to the range of opportunities available to students.
   
2. Reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school.
   
3. Be more equitable to all students, regardless of family background.

The first and third priorities come straight from the first goal of the strategic plan (access and equity). The goals of the strategic plan say nothing about diversity or racial isolation so the second student assignment priority comes from the assumption that lack of diversity (or racial isolation) is causing the achievement gap and so is driven by the second goal of the strategic plan (achievement). The idea here is to mix some White and Asian kids into the schools with underserved students to help solve the achievement gap. [Personal editorial: while I want my children to go to diverse schools I have to question this approach as a mechanism to solve the achievement gap since it has already been shown that the group of African American/Latino/Samoan kids who are bused across town to non-racially isolated schools have not closed the achievement gap.]

The current assignment plan will draw boundaries for assignment areas based on: diversity (academic/economic/linguistic/racial), geographic barriers, enrollment projections, student density, and school capacity. It is important to note that each assignment area could be comprised of multiple non-contiguous areas and the school(s) for each assignment area could be anywhere in the city. So for example, one assignment area could be sections of the Richmond, Hunter's Point, and the Mission, with an assigned school of Sheridan in Ingleside Heights.

So where does proximity (i.e., neighborhoods, geography, etc.) factor into all of this? The district's current position on proximity for student assignment is, "Proximity is not a priority but should be considered when it does not compromise academic/economic/linguistic/racial diversity." Given the demographics of our city I cannot think of any scenario where proximity won't affect diversity – so I think it is safe to simply summarize the role of proximity in student assignment as: proximity is not a priority. Given the fact that all recent reports on student assignment call for neighborhood schools this may seem baffling (see Civil Grand Jury Report, the Community Advisory Committee on Student Assignment, PAC: SF Board of Education Parent Advisory Council's Summary of Findings, and SERR: Student Enrollment, Recruitment and Retention: Community Conversations about SF Public Schools). You might simply assume that the district is ignoring the obvious message that SF families want some form of neighborhood schools but I think this misses the mark. The reason proximity is not a priority is because according to the district it does not promote the strategic plan. Essentially, the district does not believe that neighborhood schools will provide equitable access or close the achievement gap. Finally, the district also claims that under our choice system the majority of families are not choosing their closest school and this provides evidence that families actually don't want neighborhood assignments.

The Case for Proximity

By not considering proximity the district is actually opposing the strategic goals for equitable access and achievement. In referring to proximity, I am referring to assignments within some reasonable distance (say, 1-2 miles of a family's home). While many would like a straight neighborhood system the district appears to have no intention of taking this path. In this case we at least need a guarantee that families will not be assigned to schools across town that they did not choose. So how does proximity relate to the strategic plan? Assigning families to schools they cannot get to across town violates the goal of equitable access. Under the current system those who receive none of their choices by ethnic group are (information from Civil Grand Jury Report):

• White: 27%
  
• Chinese: 9%
  
• Hispanic: 7%
  
• African American: 3%

What happens to those families who receive none of their choices? They get assigned to their closest school with openings. A spatial clustering analysis by the district shows that most African American and Hispanic families are clustered in areas near schools that are not over-subscribed. Chinese families are clustered in the Richmond and Sunset (over-subscribed schools), southern San Francisco (under-subscribed schools), and Chinatown (over-subscribed schools). White families are spread throughout the city but are least clustered in areas with under-subscribed schools (south and east parts of the city). The effect of this is that most white and many Chinese families get assigned to schools that are significant distances from their homes since these groups are clustered in areas with over-subscribed schools. For example, this year numerous families in the Sunset were assigned to Jose Ortega and Sheridan while families in the Richmond were assigned to Rosa Parks. It is unrealistic to expect families to travel 4-5 miles (20-30 min. each way) just to get their children to school and these families are often forced to leave the system. All the families I know who were assigned to Jose Ortega or Sheridan are not planning to attend those schools – not because they dislike the schools but because it is not logistically feasible to get to/from school. 

District data supports this: Whites make up 15% of the applicant pool but only 10% of the enrolled pool, while Chinese enrollment drops by 2% from the applicant pool. By not making proximity a priority certain ethnic groups are therefore not only not given equitable access to the range of opportunities but are in fact not given equitable access to any opportunity for public school.

Ignoring proximity also impacts achievement. The district believes that sending White and Asian kids to under-performing schools will help raise these schools up. However, by not considering proximity the result is that White and Asian kids are assigned to schools they will not attend, leaving the school  under-enrolled or filled with families coming into the system late, who are often among the most underserved. Moreover, even if families don't leave the system due to a far-away assignment, they are not likely candidates to be agents of positive change. When parents are involved in schools everyone benefits, and lack of parent involvement is associated with under-performing schools. Parents who unwillingly have to spend two hours in the car every day getting children to/from school are very unlikely to make another trip to volunteer or go to a PTA meeting. Therefore, ignoring proximity and assigning families across town defeats the goal of improving achievement for all.

As a final note, I would like to address the issue of choice versus proximity. Just because families are not choosing their closest or attendance area school does not mean that it is not a priority. Commissioner Mendoza accurately stated the position of many parents at a recent ad hoc meeting on student assignment when she shared her own experience that her family didn't choose their closest school but rather a nearby school with a program they were interested in. To most families proximity being a priority does not mean they have to attend their closest school, but rather a nearby school (within a distance of say 2 miles). It is not surprising that the two most requested schools are in the center of San Francisco, making them proximal for a very large number of families. Also, considering ethnic clusters and the highest-demand schools gives some hints to the importance of proximity. The two largest white clusters are the area north of Golden Gate Park, and the area between Mt. Davidson and Mt. Sutro down into Noe Valley. Not surprisingly, Claire Lillienthal, Clarendon, and Rooftop all have a concentration of White students higher than the general enrollment. Similarly, Lawton and West Portal, which are in/near a Chinese cluster are heavily enrolled by Chinese students. Clearly, families are choosing their favorite school that is near them. So yes, families like choice, but within a certain distance.

If you've made it this far, thanks for sticking with me. I hope this information is helpful for those of you who are concerned about the student assignment process. It seems that to push the district and BOE we need to do so in light of the strategic plan. I hope to see some of you at the Parents for Public School meeting on student assignment tomorrow and the meeting with Commissioner Norton on May 3rd. Email me if you need more information.

Presentation from BOE ad-hoc meeting

This is the PowerPoint presentation from the BOE ad-hoc meeting on student redesign, which took place on Apr 13, 2009.

Presentation from BOE ad-hoc meeting

This is the PowerPoint presentation from the BOE ad-hoc meeting on student redesign, which took place on Dec 08, 2008.

Presentation from BOE ad-hoc meeting

This is the PowerPoint presentation from the BOE ad-hoc meeting on student redesign, which took place on Jan 29, 2009.

Presentation from BOE ad-hoc meeting

This is the PowerPoint presentation from the BOE ad-hoc meeting on student redesign, which took place on Jan 12, 2009.

Presentation from BOE ad-hoc meeting

This is the PowerPoint presentation from the BOE ad-hoc meeting on student redesign, which took place on Dec 08, 2008.