Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/137764834/Student-Assignment-2nd-Annual-Report
Timestamp: 2017-05-27 11:22:46
Document Index: 49694897

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 9', 'art 9', 'art 10', 'art 10']

Student Assignment 2nd Annual Report | Race And Ethnicity In The United States Census | Achievement Gap In The United States
ScribdExploreEXPLORE BY INTERESTSCareer & MoneyBusiness Biography & HistoryEntrepreneurshipLeadership & MentoringMoney ManagementTime ManagementPersonal GrowthHappinessPsychologyRelationships & ParentingReligion & SpiritualitySelf-ImprovementPolitics & Current AffairsPoliticsSocietyScience & TechScienceTechHealth & FitnessFitnessNutritionSportsWellnessLifestyleArts & LanguagesFashion & BeautyFood & WineHome & GardenTravelEntertainmentCelebrity Biography & MemoirPop CultureBiographies & HistoryBiography & MemoirHistoryFictionChildren’s & YAClassic LiteratureContemporary FictionHistorical FictionLGBTQ FictionMystery, Thriller & CrimeRomanceScience Fiction & FantasyBROWSE BY CONTENT TYPEBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicUploadSign inJoinOptionsJoinSign InUploadStudent Assignment 2nd Annual ReportUploaded by theschoolboardsRace And Ethnicity In The United States CensusAchievement Gap In The United StatesEthnicity, Race & GenderRace (Human Categorization)Students0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Annual Report for the 2012-2013 School YearView MoreAnnual Report for the 2012-2013 School YearCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentSTUDENT ASSIGNMENT4/17/2013
Annual Report: 2012-13 School Year
Student Assignment 2012-13
The purpose of this report is to help the Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified School District (the Board) monitor its student assignment policy. On March 9, 2010, the Board unanimously approved a new student assignment policy (Policy P5101), and this policy calls on the Superintendent to present the Board with an annual report on the student assignment system. This is the second annual report since P5101 was approved by the Board; the first annual report was shared with the Board and public on March 5, 2012. The following SFUSD staff worked together to develop this report: • Tomas Beccar Varela, Education Integration Specialist, Educational Placement Center • Arcadio Fokin, Director, Educational Placement Center • Chris Frazier, Senior Programmer, ITD • Hans Gong, Education Integration Specialist, Educational Placement Center • Jack Huang, Senior Business Analyst, ITD • Darlene Lim, Executive Director, Educational Placement Center • Orla O’Keeffe, Executive Director, Policy and Operations • Alana Ramirez, Operations Manager, Educational Placement Center A group of advisors voluntarily help staff monitor the Board’s student assignment policy. • Prudence L. Carter, Associate Professor of Education & (by courtesy) Sociology at Stanford University • Michal Kurlaender, Associate Professor of Education at UC Davis • Sean F. Reardon, Professor of Education at Stanford University The advisors will review this annual report and they will share their thoughts about key findings in this report with the Superintendent and his staff.
The majority of school enrollments are managed centrally by SFUSD’s Educational Placement Center (EPC), and are administered by EPC according to the Board’s student assignment policy (P5101) which was unanimously approved by the Board in March 2010. The student assignment system provides significant opportunities for family choice in enrollment. For the 2012-13 school year, 80% of K-12 applicants (11,139) received one of their choices compared with 78% in 2011-12, and 60% received their first choice compared with 58% in 2011-12. The student assignment system is designed to be flexible so it can be monitored and adjusted if it is not working in alignment with other SFUSD initiatives designed to: • reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school; and • provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students. The student assignment policy requires the Superintendent to conduct an annual assessment of the student assignment system and to present an annual report to the Board. This is the second annual report since P5101 was approved by the Board; the first annual report was shared with the Board and public on March 5, 2012.
The Board approved amendments to P5101 on September 28, 2010 and June 14, 2011. They revised P5101 to approve the design for new elementary school attendance areas, to approve middle school feeder patterns, to improve the assignment process for language pathways, and to eliminate the density tie-breaker. The Superintendent implemented a series of administrative changes since the policy was approved, including establishing a TK tie-breaker and adjusting the attendance areas for Miraloma and Sunnyside.
Staff explored five questions to help monitor the impact of the current student assignment system. Findings from the exploration of the five questions will help the Superintendent and the Board to determine if future adjustments need to be made to the current student assignment system. 1. To what degree is SFUSD reversing the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school? • Our current student assignment system has been in place for two years, which means it has been used to assign students to six out of 13 grades (kindergarten, 1st grade, 6th iii | P a g e
grade, 7th grade, 9th grade, and 10th grade). Over these two years, there has not been a shift in the number of schools with an enrollment of more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity. Despite SFUSD’s diverse student population, in October 2009, 24 schools (about a fifth of our schools) had an enrollment of more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity compared with 23 schools in October 2012. • Of the 23 schools in 2012 with more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity, 11 had an API of 1, 2, or 3, which means, according to the definitions in Board policy P5101, 11 schools were racially isolated with high concentrations of historically underserved students. Two schools with an enrollment of more than 60% African American and an API of less than 4 experienced a decrease in the percent African American between 2009 and 2012. Eight schools with more than 60% Latino offer Spanish language pathways that reserve up to three quarters of the seats for Spanish speakers, and the same is true for the school that was more than 60% Chinese and had an API of less than 4. With any choice based student assignment system, diverse applicant pools are critical to achieving diverse enrollment. The applicant pools for the 11 racially isolated schools with high concentrations of underserved students were not diverse – they reflect the lack of diversity of enrollment. Applicant pools for most elementary schools are not diverse, and there are geographically distinct patterns for the racial/ethnic composition of students applying to and enrolled in elementary schools. Kindergarteners enrolled in and applying to schools in the north east are primarily Chinese; in the south east they are primarily African American; in the Mission they are primarily Latino; on the west side they are primarily Chinese and White; and in the center of the city they are primarily White. Middle school and high school applicant pools are more diverse than elementary applicant pools, and as a result enrollments at the middle and high school levels are more diverse. Student assignment has a role to play in reversing the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in schools; however student assignment alone cannot overcome the complex elements that contribute to the current state. For example, the demographics of the city, parent request patterns, and language pathways all have an impact on the demographics of our schools.
2. Does the CTIP1 tie-breaker help reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school, and does it help provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students? • In October 2012, the two largest cohorts of students living in CTIP1 were Latino (503 kindergartners) and African American (266 kindergartners), and they tend to be enrolled in schools near CTIP1 that are predominantly Latino and African American. The two smallest cohorts were White (88 kindergartners) and Chinese (66 kindergartners), and they tend to be enrolled in schools with a high percent of White and Chinese students. It takes a while for new policies to show results; therefore it is too soon to identify trends. It is not yet clear from the data that the CTIP1 tie-breaker is helping reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same iv | P a g e
school. We plan to continue to monitor demand and enrollments, and expect it may take several more years before trends are revealed. 3. Do middle school feeders help reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school, and do they help provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students? • The middle school feeders had a bigger impact on the choice making process than expected during the first year of implementation. Most middle schools experienced a significant increase in the percent of 5th graders from elementary feeder schools requesting their school, and the number of elementary schools feeding into each middle school decreased. 6th grade enrollment experienced both increases and decreases in the percent of students from a single race/ethnicity. Staff will continue to monitor the impact of the feeder patterns in 2013-14 to see if the shifts noted in year one continue in year two.
4. What percent of applicants submitted their enrollment application on time for the first round of assignments, and how does this vary by race/ethnicity? • • With the exception of Other Asian, the percent of late applicants in 2012 increased for every racial/ethnic group compared with 2011. Participation rates appear to be impacted by the timeframe for families to submit applications and the resources available to support outreach and recruitment. In 2011, the enrollment deadline was February 18, and in 2012 the enrollment deadline was a few weeks earlier - January 27. At the same time, EPC experienced a reduction in staff due to budget cuts. With less time and fewer staff, the number of outreach events went from 150 in 2011 to 100 in 2012, and on-time participation rates declined.
5. What is important to families when choosing schools? • To get a better understanding of what is important to families when choosing schools, a family survey was included on the 2012-13 application form. The survey asked families to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 (1=not important, and 5=very important) how important 15 factors are when requesting schools. Over 10,000 families of incoming kindergartners, 6th graders, and 9th graders responded to the family survey. Neighborhood safety and school quality surfaced as paramount in the minds of families when choosing schools for their children. Over 75% of families rated neighborhood safety, teachers and principals, and schools academic reputation as very important. These findings are consistent with findings from various community engagement activities that have taken place over the years.
There is a mismatch between where students live and where schools are located; 35 of 58 attendance areas had more kindergarten residents than seats. At the same time, more than v|Page
half of kindergarten applicants did not request their attendance area school anywhere among their choices, and only 26% requested it as a first choice. Requests for schools relieve the mismatch between where students live and where schools are located. Staff is not recommending any changes to the attendance areas for the 2014-15 enrollment cycle.
General Education Transportation Services
The Board approved a new policy for general education transportation services in December 2010 (see Appendix 5), and in February 2011, the Superintendent presented the Board with a proposal to change general education transportation routes over a three year period. The proposal was designed to bring general education transportation services in alignment with the Board’s general education transportation policy, and with the district’s budget reduction goals. The first series of changes were implemented in the 2011-12 school year, and the final changes will be implemented on time for the 2013-14 school year. The bus fleet has been reduced from 44 buses in 2010 to 25 buses in 2013.
Discuss Annual Report with the Board of Education SFUSD staff plan to discuss this report with the Board of Education at a public meeting in the spring of 2013. This public forum will provide an opportunity for the Board to give feedback to staff, and for the Board and staff to gather feedback from all stakeholders. Review and Possibly Revise the CTIP Classifications SFUSD staff are working with demographers to review the CTIP classifications. Our tentative timeline is to share findings with the Superintendent and Board at a public meeting by August 2013, and to confirm the CTIP1 areas for the 2014-15 enrollment cycle by September 2013. Recommend Elementary Feeders for Willie Brown, Jr. Middle School Willie Brown Jr. middle school is scheduled to open on time-for the 2015-16 school year. This means we must identify elementary feeder schools for Brown middle school by the time the enrollment cycle kicks-off in the fall of 2014. Staff plans to share recommendations with the Board of Education by the spring of 2014. Explore Additional Research Questions Through our partnership with Stanford, and under the supervision of Sean Reardon, Professor of Education, Stanford is exploring research questions related to SFUSD’s student assignment system. This research involves the analysis of all K-12 assignments made through the Educational Placement Center (EPC) beginning with the 2004-05 school year through the 201213 school year.
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 3 AMENDMENTS TO DATE .......................................................................................................... 5 QUESTIONS EXPLORED .......................................................................................................... 7 1. To what degree is SFUSD reversing the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school?............................................ 9 2. Does the CTIP1 tie-breaker help reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school, and does it help provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students? .......... 23 3. Do middle school feeders help reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school, and do they help provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students? .................. 37 4. What percent of applicants submitted their enrollment application on time for the first round of assignments, and how does this vary by race/ethnicity? ..................... 45 5. What is important to families when choosing schools? .................................................. 47 ATTENDANCE AREA BOUNDARIES...................................................................................... 53 GENERAL EDUCATION TRANSPORTATION SERVICES...................................................... 61 NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................................................... 65 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................... 67 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Historical Context .......................................................................................................... 69 Student Assignment Tie-Breakers: 2012-13 School Year .............................................. 73 Census Tract Integration Preference (CTIP) .................................................................. 77 Middle School Feeders .................................................................................................. 79 General Education Transportation Policy....................................................................... 83 Glossary of Terms ......................................................................................................... 85
Founded in 1851, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) was the first public school district established in California. Today, SFUSD is the eighth largest school district in California educating over 56,000 PreK-12 students in 112 schools within the 49 square mile area of the City and County of San Francisco. SFUSD is governed by a Board of Education (Board) comprised of seven elected members, and is subject to local, state, and federal laws. SFUSD’s mission is to provide each student with an equal opportunity to succeed by promoting intellectual growth, creativity, self-discipline, cultural and linguistic sensitivity, democratic responsibility, economic competence, and physical and mental health so that each student can achieve his or her maximum potential. In May 2008, the Board approved a strategic plan, Beyond the Talk: Taking Action to Educate Every Child Now, which named the achievement gap as the greatest civil rights issue facing SFUSD and determined that SFUSD’s three goals are: 1. Access and equity – making social justice a reality by ensuring every student has access to high quality teaching and learning; 2. Student achievement – creating learning environments in all our schools that foster highly engaged and joyful learners and that support every student reach her/his potential; and 3. Accountability – keeping our promises to students and families and enlisting everyone in the community to join us in doing so.
The majority of school enrollments are managed centrally by SFUSD’s Educational Placement Center (EPC). SFUSD’s Student, Family, and Community Support Department manages enrollment in continuation schools, and each charter school has its own enrollment process. All other school enrollments are processed centrally by the EPC. • Admissions to Lowell High School and Ruth Asawa School of the Arts are administered according to an October 16, 2001 proposal developed by a Taskforce on Admissions to Lowell High School and School of the Arts and approved by the Board on October 23, 2001. All other school enrollments processed centrally by the EPC are administered according to Board Policy P5101, which was unanimously approved by the Board on March 9, 2010.
2012-13 is the second school year students were enrolled in schools according to the policy guidelines set forth in P5101; it was first used for the 2011-12 school year. Between 2002 and 2010, SFUSD’s assignment system gave families choice and used a ‘diversity index’ to ensure equitable access to all schools and to promote diversity without using race/ethnicity. P5101 maintained choice as a tactic for achieving the Board’s goals, but it simplified the choice system and differentiated it for elementary, middle, and high school. To enroll in schools, families submit enrollment applications and they are offered their highest ranked requests as long as there is space. If there are more requests for a school than openings, the student assignment system sorts all requests using a series of preferences, called tie-breakers, to assign applicants to schools. A high-level overview of the technical aspects of tie-breakers used for the 2012-13 school year is provided in Appendix 2, and additional information is available on the web at www.sfusd.edu. The current choice assignment system continues to provide significant opportunities for family choice in enrollment. For the 2012-13 school year, 80% of K-12 applicants (11,139) received one of their choices compared with 78% in 2011-12, and 60% received their first choice compared with 58% in 2011-12. While choice is a tactic for achieving the Board’s goals, it is not the focus of the Board’s student assignment policy. The policy’s focus is working in alignment with other SFUSD initiatives designed to: • • reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school; and provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students.
Board Policy P5101 calls on the Superintendent to conduct an annual assessment of the student assignment system governed by P5101, and to develop an annual report and present it to the Board of Education each year. This is the second annual report since P5101 was approved by the Board; the first annual report was shared with the Board and public on March 5, 2012.
This section of the report describes any amendments to policy P5101, as well as changes to the procedures for administering the policy, since it was approved by the Board on March 9, 2010.
September 28, 2010 Board Meeting (108-24SpE Superintendent’s Proposal) The Board approved the design for new attendance areas for elementary schools; an extension for implementation of elementary-to-middle school feeder patterns; and middle school attendance areas until the 2012-13 school year, and a temporary student assignment process for middle school students for the 2011-12 school year.
June 14, 2011 Board Meeting (1115-24-Sp1 Superintendent’s Proposal) The Board amended student assignment policy P5101 to include elementary-to-middle school feeder patterns that operate as a tie-breaking factor in the choice process starting in the 2012-13 school year and for four years thereafter. Beginning with enrollment for the 2017-18 school year, fifth graders will receive an initial assignment to the feeder middle school based on the elementary school they attend, and they will have subsequent opportunities to participate in a choice process. Additional information about the middle school feeders is available starting on page 37 and in Appendix 4. The Board also amended P5101 to improve the assignment process for language pathways, and to eliminate the density tie-breaker since it was not working as originally intended.
• Tie-breakers for Transitional Kindergarten (TK) At the August 27, 2012 Ad Hoc Committee on Student Assignment, staff shared that, beginning with the enrollment process for the 2013-14 school year, students enrolled in an SFUSD TK and applying to kindergarten will receive a TK tie-breaker that mirrors the Pre-K tie-breaker policy guidelines set forth in P5101. o For attendance area schools, students who live in the attendance area of the school, and are enrolled in an SFUSD TK in the same attendance area, will get a TK tiebreaker if they apply to kindergarten at that attendance area school. o For city-wide schools (i.e., elementary schools that do not have an attendance area), students enrolled in an SFUSD TK at a city-wide school will get a TK tie-breaker if they apply to kindergarten at that city-wide school. Adjustments to the elementary attendance areas: Miraloma and Sunnyside At the August 28, 2012 Board meeting (Agenda U - Other Informational Items), the Superintendent shared that staff planned to adjust the elementary attendance areas prior to launching the enrollment process for the 2013-14 school year. The adjustment reduces the size of Miraloma’s attendance area and increases the size of Sunnyside’s attendance area by moving the Sunnyside boundary north to encompass Sunnyside Playground and Sunnyside Conservatory. These modifications were recommended by the community and reviewed and approved by staff. Additional information is available starting on page 58.
The Board’s student assignment policy (P5101) was designed to be flexible so it can be monitored and adjusted if it does not work in alignment with other SFUSD initiatives designed to: • • reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school; and provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students.
This section of the report explores five questions intended to help monitor the impact of the current student assignment system. 1. 2. To what degree is SFUSD reversing the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school? Does the CTIP1 tie-breaker help reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school, and does it help provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students? Do middle school feeders help reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school, and do they help provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students? What percent of applicants submitted their enrollment application on time for the first round of assignments, and how does this vary by race/ethnicity? What is important to families when choosing schools?
Findings from the analysis will help the Superintendent and the Board determine if adjustments need to be made to the current student assignment system.
1. To what degree is SFUSD reversing the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school?
For the purpose of this report, all racial/ethnic categories reported by families and subsequently captured in our Student Information System (SIS) are organized into six categories: African American; Latino; Chinese; Other Asian (Filipino, Japanese, Korean, South East Asian); Other (anything not captured in other categories); and White. Chart 1 illustrates the racial/ethnic breakdown of all students (K-12) enrolled in SFUSD in October 2012. This graph indicates that SFUSD’s student population is very diverse, with no majority group. Chart 1: K-12 enrollment, October 2012
Latino 25%
Other Asian 8%
As the Board was developing student assignment policy P5101 during the 2009-10 school year, they spent time reviewing enrollment and achievement data, and they expressed concern that the assignment system at the time (i.e., the diversity index lottery) was not meeting the District’s longtime goals of reducing racial isolation and improving educational opportunities and outcomes for all students. • • A quarter of schools had more than 60% of a single racial/ethnic group, even though the District was racially/ethnically diverse and did not have a majority group. The number of schools with high concentrations of a single racial/ethnic group had increased since the implementation of the diversity index lottery. 9|Page
Although SFUSD’s standardized test scores had steadily increased over the years, the achievement gap persisted for African American, Latino, and Samoan students. Racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students (students whose educational needs have not been met) in the same school was correlated with other school factors that define the quality of a school, such as average years of teacher service, teacher turnover, attendance, and suspension rates.
The Board included the following definitions for racial isolation and underserved students in Board policy P5101. • Racial Isolation: Although SFUSD’s enrollment is racially/ethnically diverse and does not have a majority group, many of our schools have more than 60% of a single racial/ethnic group, more than 70% of a single racial/ethnic group, and more than 80% of a single racial/ethnic group. Some schools with more than 60% of a single racial/ethnic group also have an Academic Performance Index (API) of 1, 2, or 3. The Board considers these schools racially isolated. Underserved Students: Students performing Below Basic or Far Below Basic on the California Standards Test or other equivalent assessments administered by SFUSD.
Taking the concerns noted above, and the definitions of racial isolation and underserved students, the analysis in this section of the report focuses on schools where the enrollment is more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity and the Academic Performance Index (API) is 1, 2, or 3.
Table 1 includes the Academic Performance Index (API), number of students enrolled, and racial/ethnic breakdown of enrollment for any school that had an enrollment of more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity between 2009 and 2012. Schools with an API of 1, 2, or 3 in 2012 are highlighted since they represent racially isolated schools with a high concentration of historically underserved students.
Table 1: Schools with an enrollment of > 60% of a single racial/ethnic group (2009-2012)
# Enrolled % African American % Chinese % Latino % Other Asian % Other % White
Bryant ES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 10 1 1 1 1 1* 1* 1 1 3 1 4 3 1 1 1 1 241 240 248 249 283 282 249 242 495 471 480 465 263 257 251 264 307 335 338 346 256 270 276 286 364 368 386 391 478 482 478 471 3% 2% 4% 2% 70% 72% 70% 66% 2% 3% 4% 3% 4% 2% 0% 1% 7% 5% 4% 3% 77% 78% 76% 74% 8% 5% 5% 4% 16% 16% 15% 13% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 78% 80% 85% 83% 7% 6% 5% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 90% 89% 87% 90% 6% 6% 9% 12% 87% 86% 83% 85% 2% 2% 1% 1% 71% 73% 77% 80% 8% 10% 11% 12% 64% 67% 67% 67% 53% 53% 57% 63% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 7% 8% 6% 6% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 5% 6% 6% 4% 23% 20% 20% 19% 8% 7% 7% 8% 10% 8% 6% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 13% 10% 12% 12% 10% 9% 8% 6% 9% 9% 6% 6% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 5% 5% 4% 5% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 14% 17% 17% 19% 18% 19% 19% 16%
Chin ES
Fairmount ES
School Name Garfield ES
October 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012
API 8 6 7 6 8 7 7 6 1* 1* 5* 4* 2 3 3 4 9 8 7 7 8 7 8 7 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 10 10 10 10 8 8 9 8 10 10 10 10
# Enrolled 228 231 249 255 670 666 668 647 104 87 106 112 240 239 244 249 340 331 336 351 263 272 292 273 268 260 280 258 267 278 282 282 462 473 469 493 238 247 240 242 508 500 508 507
% African American 7% 7% 7% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 64% 56% 67% 72% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 5% 6% 5% 7% 5% 6% 7% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 0% 3% 3% 2% 1%
% Chinese 60% 58% 55% 50% 82% 84% 83% 87% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 28% 25% 27% 83% 82% 81% 81% 1% 1% 1% 0% 6% 6% 5% 5% 68% 71% 73% 75% 66% 66% 67% 66% 67% 69% 71% 73%
% Latino 4% 4% 7% 12% 11% 11% 12% 8% 6% 13% 7% 10% 79% 81% 83% 82% 58% 60% 63% 63% 5% 4% 5% 7% 83% 82% 81% 81% 65% 63% 69% 71% 1% 2% 2% 2% 6% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 2% 3%
% Other Asian 4% 3% 6% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 5% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 6% 6% 4% 3% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4%
% Other 14% 16% 12% 13% 6% 4% 4% 5% 28% 28% 20% 17% 8% 6% 5% 4% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 7% 5% 9% 9% 7% 9% 13% 13% 11% 10% 17% 15% 14% 15% 12% 12% 14% 15% 16% 15% 14% 14%
% White 11% 12% 12% 12% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 9% 8% 7% 8% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 7% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 4% 11% 11% 10% 9% 7% 6% 6% 5%
Lau ES
Moscone ES
Sutro ES
Lawton K8 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 10 10 10 10 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 8 6 7 6 7 7 7 7 1 1 1 1 609 613 611 607 375 393 238 198 615 590 181 166 640 570 587 547 593 571 554 561 904 881 832 818 2092 2149 2133 2100 623 604 475 453 4% 4% 3% 3% 6% 5% 16% 14% 7% 4% 73% 69% 11% 13% 13% 10% 8% 7% 7% 7% 8% 9% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 11% 16% 16% 16% 57% 57% 61% 60% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 59% 58% 62% 64% 1% 1% 2% 2% 62% 54% 53% 48% 61% 61% 61% 61% 3% 5% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 5% 66% 70% 68% 72% 72% 74% 4% 5% 13% 13% 11% 10% 66% 66% 64% 67% 12% 14% 14% 16% 10% 10% 12% 14% 70% 61% 58% 59% 7% 6% 6% 6% 1% 1% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 4% 3% 6% 5% 6% 5% 4% 6% 8% 8% 8% 22% 21% 20% 20% 8% 7% 10% 10% 6% 6% 22% 24% 11% 9% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11% 10% 12% 14% 13% 13% 15% 16% 15% 13% 8% 9% 9% 8% 7% 7% 6% 7% 18% 17% 3% 1% 14% 15% 1% 1% 3% 4% 3% 3% 12% 13% 14% 14% 4% 6% 6% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 4%
Buena Vista ES Mann MS BV/Mann K8 (merged in 2011)
Brown MS (closed in 2011) Francisco MS
Lick MS
O'Connell HS
Note: The data above reflects whole school enrollment. However, the current student assignment system has only been in place for two enrollment cycles, which means only the first two grades at each school were impacted by the current enrollment system (6 of the 13 grades).
Observations • There was not a shift in the number of schools with an enrollment of more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity between 2009 and 2012. o In 2009, 24 schools had an enrollment of more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity: 4 African American 9 Chinese, and 11 Latino o In 2012, 23 schools had an enrollment of more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity: 3 African American 9 Chinese, and 11 Latino. Chart 2: # schools with more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity 2009-2012
24 11 9 4 3
23 African American Chinese Total Latino Chinese African American Latino Total
The following is a summary of changes between 2009 and 2012: o Brown, which was more than 60% African American in 2009, closed in 2011. o Buena Vista and Mann, which were both more than 60% Latino, merged in 2011. o Three schools saw a decrease in the percent of a single race/ethnicity. Garfield’s enrollment grew from 228 students to 255 students, and the percent Chinese decreased from 60% to 50%. Marina’s enrollment decreased from 904 students to 818 students, and the percent Chinese decreased from 62% to 48%. O’Connell’s enrollment decreased from 623 students to 453 students, and the percent Latino decreased from 70% to 59%. o Four schools saw an increase in the percent of a single race/ethnicity. Flynn increased from 53% Latino to 63% Latino. Moscone increased from 58% to 63% Latino. Lawton’s increased from 57% to 60% Chinese. Francisco’s enrollment declined from 640 students to 547 students the percent Chinese increased from 59% to 64%. 14 | P a g e
Of the 23 school with an enrollment of more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity in 2012, 11 schools had an API of 1, 2, or 3, which means, according to the definitions in Board policy P5101, 11 schools were racially isolated with high concentrations of historically underserved students. School with more than 60% African American experienced a decrease in the percent African American between 2009 and 2012. o More than 60% African American and an API of 1, 2, or 3 School Observations 1. Carver Carver has had an API of 1 for each of the past four years. Its enrollment decreased from 283 students in 2009 to 242 students in 2012, and the percent of African Americans decreased from 70% in 2009 to 66% in 2012. 2. Drew Drew has had an API of 1 for each of the past four years. Its enrollment increased from 256 students to 286 students in 2012, and the percent of African Americans decreased from 77% to 74%. Schools with more than 60% Latino offer Spanish language pathways that reserve up to three quarters of the seats for Spanish speakers. o More than 60% Latino and an API of 1, 2, or 3 School Observations 1. Bryant All of these schools have Spanish language pathways that reserve seats for Spanish speaking students. 2. Chavez 3. Cleveland 4. Fairmount 5. Flynn 6. Sanchez 7. Serra 8. BV/Mann
Schools with more than 60% Chinese offer Chinese language pathways that reserve up to three quarters of the seats for Chinese speakers. o More than 60% Chinese and an API of 1, 2, or 3 School Observations Francisco’s enrollment decreased from 640 students to 547 1. Francisco students the percent Chinese increased from 59% to 64%. Francisco has a Chinese language pathway that reserves seats for Chinese speaking students.
Diversity of Enrollment Compared with Applicants and Attendance Areas With any choice based student assignment system, diverse applicant pools are critical to achieving diverse enrollment.
Maps 1, 2, and 3 on the next few pages are designed to compare the diversity of enrollment at the entry grades with the diversity of demand, and, at the kindergarten level, with the diversity of kindergartners living in the attendance area. The maps use 100% stacked columns for each school to show the racial/ethnic diversity of the kindergarten/6th grade/9th grade students who applied to each school compared with the kindergarten/6th grade/9th grade students enrolled in each school. For kindergarten, there is a third stacked column showing the racial/ethnic breakdown of all children who live in the attendance area regardless of the choices they made. The stacked columns are intentionally the same size; they are not relative in size to the number of students. Each racial/ethnic group is represented by a different color - the color key is provided in a box on the right side of each map. Having 100% stacked columns makes it possible to compare the diversity of the applicants with the diversity of enrollment, and for kindergarten with the diversity of attendance area residents. Looking at the stacked columns for the 11 racially isolated schools with high concentrations of underserved students, we can determine if applicant pools for these schools are more/less diverse than enrollment (Bryant, Chavez, Cleveland, Fairmount, Flynn, Marshall, Moscone, Sanchez, Serra, Buena Vista/Mann K8, and Lick middle school). If applicant pools are more diverse than enrollment, this may suggest the student assignment system is not maximizing the opportunity to reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in schools.
Map 1: Racial/ethnic diversity of K enrollment, K applicants, and K attendance area residents
Observations • Racially isolated schools with high concentrations of underserved students in 2012 (i.e., schools with more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity and an API of 1, 2, or 3) had racially isolated applicant pools. o The racial/ethnic composition of these kindergarten applicant pools is very similar to the racial/ethnic composition of kindergarten enrollment. Applicant pools and enrollment at schools with more than 60% Latino are predominantly Latino (Bryant, Chavez, Cleveland, Fairmount, Flynn, Sanchez, Serra, and BV/Mann K8), and the same is true for schools that are predominantly African American (Carver and Drew). While the applicant pools and enrollment at Fairmount, Flynn, Serra, and BV/Mann K8 are predominantly Latino, the racial/ethnic composition of the kindergarten applicant pools are slightly more diverse than enrollment at these four schools. This may be attributed to the presence of Spanish language pathways at the schools that reserve up to three-quarters of the seats for Spanish speaking students. The racial/ethnic composition of kindergartners living in the Carver, Cleveland, Drew, and Serra’s attendance areas are more diverse than the kindergartners enrolled in the schools.
There are geographically distinct patterns for the racial/ethnic composition of students enrolled in and applying to schools. Kindergartners enrolled in / applying to schools in the: o north east are primarily Chinese; o south east they are primarily African American; o Mission, near Moscone and Chavez, they are primarily Latino; o west side they are primarily Chinese and White; and o center of the city, near Grattan and McKinley, they are primarily White. In 2012, 10 schools had more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity and an API of 4 or higher: Chin, Lau, Malcolm X, Marshall, Moscone, Parker, Stevenson, Sutro, Ulloa, and Lawton. o The racial/ethnic composition of these kindergarten applicant pools is very similar to the racial/ethnic composition of kindergarten enrollment. While the applicant pools and enrollment at Stevenson, and Sutro are predominantly Chinese, the racial/ethnic composition of the kindergarten applicant pools are slightly more diverse than enrollment at these two schools. For Sutro, this may be attributed to the presence of a Chinese language pathway at the school that reserves up to three-quarters of the seats for Chinese speaking students. It is unclear why Stevenson’s enrollment is less diverse than the applicant pool. The racial/ethnic composition of kindergartners living in the Chin, Stevenson, Sutro, and Ulloa’s attendance areas are more diverse than the kindergartners enrolled in the schools. 19 | P a g e
Map 2: Racial/ethnic diversity of 6th grade enrollment and 6th grade applicants
Observations • Middle school applicant pools are more diverse than elementary applicant pools. With the exception of K8 schools, the diversity of each school’s 6th grade applicant pool is similar to the diversity of the 6th graders enrolled in the schools. o The variance at K8 schools is because there are very few openings for new students. For example, only one student was assigned to Rooftop, and that one student is represented by the column on the left. Alice Fong Yu has one column (applicant pool) because there were no students assigned to 6th grade in 2012; all the 5th graders promoted to 6th grade leaving no room for new assignments.
Aptos, Denman, Visitacion Valley, and King have diverse applicant pools and enrollment. Everett and Lick’s applicant pools and enrollment are predominantly Latino. Both schools have Spanish language pathways that reserve seats for Spanish speaking students. Francisco, Marina, Roosevelt, Presidio, Giannini, and Hoover’s applicant pools and enrollment are predominantly Chinese. 20 | P a g e
Map 3: Racial/ethnic diversity of 9th grade enrollment and 9th grade applicants
Observations • • • • • High school applicant pools are more diverse than elementary applicant pools. The diversity of each school’s 9th grade applicant pool is similar to the diversity of the 9th graders enrolled in the schools Galileo, Washington, Lincoln, and Lowell applicant pools and enrollment are predominantly Chinese. Academy of Arts and Sciences, O’Connell, SF International, and June Jordan applicant pools and enrollment are predominantly Latino. International Studies Academy is the only high school with an applicant pool and enrollment predominantly African American.
Our current student assignment system has been in place for two years, which means it has been used to assign students to six out of 13 grades (kindergarten, 1st grade, 6th grade, 7th grade, 9th grade, and 10th grade). Over these two years, there has not been a shift in the number of schools with an enrollment of more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity. Despite SFUSD’s diverse student population, in October 2009, 24 schools (about a fifth of our schools) had an enrollment of more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity compared with 23 schools in October 2012. Of the 23 schools in 2012 with more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity, 11 had an API of 1, 2, or 3, which means, according to the definitions in Board policy P5101, 11 schools were racially isolated with high concentrations of historically underserved students. Two schools with an enrollment of more than 60% African American and an API of less than 4 experienced a decrease in the percent African American between 2009 and 2012. Eight schools with more than 60% Latino offer Spanish language pathways that reserve up to three quarters of the seats for Spanish speakers, and the same is true for the school that was more than 60% Chinese and had an API of less than 4. With any choice based student assignment system, diverse applicant pools are critical to achieving diverse enrollment. Applicant pools for the 11 racially isolated schools with high concentrations of underserved students were not diverse – they reflect the lack of diversity of enrollment. Applicant pools for most elementary schools are not diverse, and there are geographically distinct patterns for the racial/ethnic composition of students applying to and enrolled in schools. Middle school and high school applicant pools are more diverse than elementary applicant pools, and as a result enrollments at the middle and high school levels are more diverse. Student assignment has a role to play in reversing the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in schools; however student assignment alone cannot overcome the complex elements that contribute to the current state. For example, the demographics of the city, parent request patterns, and language pathways all have an impact on the demographics of our schools.
2. Does the CTIP1 tie-breaker help reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school, and does it help provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students?
The Census Tract Integration Preference (CTIP) operates as a preference/tie-breaking factor in the choice student assignment process for children who live in areas of the city with the lowest average test score. Areas of the city with the lowest average test scores are called CTIP1. A detailed description of the method used to identify CTIP1 is provided in Appendix 3. This section of the report includes an exploration of whether the CTIP1 tie-breaker is achieving its intended goals, which are to help: • reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school, and • provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students.
Review CTIP Classifications
When the Board approved the method of assigning a preference/tie-breaker based on the characteristics of where a student lives, it was understood that CTIP classifications would be reviewed as additional test score data became available. Currently, CTIP regions are based on the average score of SFUSD’s K-12 students in each Census Tract on the 2006-2009 California Standards Test (CST) English Language Arts (ELA) exams. That was the most current test score data available when the policy was approved. Now that we have three additional years of CST data, we are preparing to analyze whether CTIP1 classifications need to be revised. Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. will construct CTIP1 regions based on the latest student data, and they will re-evaluate the method used in 2010 to assign Census tracts. If changes seem to be desirable, they will share their rationale and will explain the changes in detail with the Superintendent and the Board. Here’s our tentative timeline for reviewing and possibly revising the CTIP classifications. • • • March - July 2013: Using the latest CST ELA scores and student addresses, review CTIP classifications and re-evaluate the method used in 2010 to assign Census tracts. August 2013: Share findings with the Superintendent and Board at a public meeting. September 2013: Confirm the CTIP1 areas to be used beginning with the 2014-15 school year.
20% Guidelines for High School Choice Process
The high choice process outlined in P5101 gives preference to applicants in transitional years (i.e., students transitioning from eighth to ninth grade) in the following order, except that students applying for programs that have eligibility requirements must meet the applicable requirements for those programs: 1. younger siblings of students who are enrolled in and will be attending the school during the year for which the younger sibling requests attendance; 2. CTIP1, with a minimum of 20% of seats reserved at each high school for students who live in CTIP1 census tracts; 3. all other students If there are fewer requests than reserved seats for CTIP1 students, the Superintendent has the discretion to determine whether and when to release reserved seats to other students. For each of the past two years, the 20% reserve has been released in the March assignment runs because holding 20% of the seats for CTIP1 residents would have left requested seats unfilled. This is because the demand for seats from CTIP1 residents was less than the number of seats available. By releasing the 20% reserve, we were able to offer more students a school they requested without impacting students living in CTIP1.
Note: CTIP Analysis over Multiple Years
It is too soon to determine whether the CTIP tie-breaker is: (a) helping reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school; and/or (b) helping provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students. We plan to monitor the data over several years. The analysis on the next few pages is designed to shed some light on the potential impact based on an initial review of enrollment and demand data for the 2012-13 school year. In future years we hope to: (a) separate out students with older siblings when completing the analysis; (b) look at shares of students (percentages) instead of just looking at the number of students; and (c) explore how many families living in CTIP1 are choosing and enrolling in schools they would not have otherwise enrolled in but for the CTIP1 tie-breaker.
Race/Ethnicity and Number of K/6/9 Students Living in CTIP1
Chart 3 illustrates the number of students enrolled in our schools who live in CTIP1, and the racial/ethnic breakdown of those students for each of the past four years - 2009 through 2012. The CTIP1 tie-breaker/preference did not exist prior to 2011, so we thought it would be interesting to compare the two years prior to the CTIP1 tie-breaker/preference (2009 and 2010) with the two years the CTIP1 tie-breaker/priority has existed (2011 and 2012). Chart 3: Racial/ethnic diversity of K/6/9 students that live in CTIP1 (2009-2012)
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 White Other Asian Other Latino Chinese African American
Before the CTIP1 Priority
With the CTIP1 Priority
2009 102 169 300 1124 215 761
2010 110 146 272 1131 241 667
2011 148 173 244 1114 260 654
2012 134 165 304 1166 229 631
Observations • In general, the number of K/6/9 applicants living in CTIP1 and the racial/ethnic diversity of those applicants has not changed much since the tie-breaker was first used in 2011. o o o o African American students living in CTIP1 decreased from 761 in 2009 to 631 in 2012. Chinese students increased from 215 in 2009 to 260 in 2011, but decreased to 229 in 2012. Latino students decreased and increased slightly over the years. They are the largest cohort of students living in CTIP1 - in 2012 1,166 Latino students lived in CTIP1. White students increased from 102 in 2009 to 148 in 2011, and while they decreased to 134 in 2012 the number is still higher than prior to the CTIP1 tie-breaker.
In future analysis we might want to focus on shares (percentages) of students, rather than numbers because numbers change over time. Also, the racial/ethnic mix of newborn populations is changing over time and can affect the diversity of students over time. 25 | P a g e
Kindergarten Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity
To get a better understanding of the impact of the CTIP1 tie-breaker, this section of the report analyzes enrollment patterns by race/ethnicity for kindergartners living in CTIP1 areas of the city. The analysis focuses on the four largest racial/ethnic groups (African American, Chinese, Latino, and White) and it compares enrollment in 2010, the year before the CTIP1 tie-breaker was introduced, with enrollment in 2012, the second year the CTIP1 tie-breaker was used. AFRICAN AMERICAN Kindergartners Living in CTIP1 and Enrolled in School 2010 (before CTIP1 tie-breaker)
Number of kindergartners Number of schools Number of schools with fewer than three kindergartners Number of schools with four to nine kindergartners Number of schools with more than 10 kindergartners 265 51 32 schools had three or fewer kindergartners • 15 schools had one kindergartner • Nine schools had two kindergartners • Eight schools had three kindergartners 12
2012 (second year of CTIP1 tie-breaker)
266 52 27 schools had three or fewer kindergartners • 17 schools had one kindergartner • Four schools had two kindergartners • Six schools had three kindergartners 18
Seven schools had more than 10 kindergartners. 52% of the kindergarteners were enrolled in these seven schools (138 of 265 students): • Drew – 46 kindergartners • Carver – 35 kindergartners • Muir – 14 kindergartners • King – 11 kindergartners • Cobb – 11 kindergartners • Carmichael – 11 kindergartners • Vis Valley – 10 kindergartners
Seven schools had more than 10 kindergartners. 45% of the kindergarteners were enrolled in these seven schools (119 of 266 students): • Drew – 30 kindergartners (16 fewer) • Carver – 25 kindergartners (10 fewer) • Parks – 22 kindergartners (14 more) • Malcolm X – 11 kindergartners (five more) • Muir – 11 kindergartners (three less) • Harte – 10 kindergartners (one more) • King – 10 kindergartners (one less)
Observations It is not yet clear from the data that African American kindergartners living in areas with the lowest average test scores (CTIP1) are more likely to be enrolled in demographically different schools because of the CTIP 1 tie-breaker. • • The number of African American kindergartners living in CTIP1 did not change: there were 265 in 2010 and 266 in 2012. African American kindergartners living in CTIP1 are enrolled in over 50 schools: in 2010 they were enrolled in 51 schools, and in 2012 they were enrolled in 52 schools. 26 | P a g e
The majority of schools have fewer than three kindergartners: 32 of the 51 schools in 2010 (63%), and 27 of the 52 schools in 2012 (52%) had 3 or fewer kindergartners. While the number of schools with more than 10 kindergartners did not change (7 in 2010 and 2012), the list of schools did change. o Cobb, Carmichael, and Visitaction Valley had more than 10 kindergartners in 2010, but fewer than 10 kindergartners in 2012. Parks, Malcolm X, and Harte had fewer than 10 kindergartners in 2010, but more than 10 kindergarteners in 2012.
While Drew and Carver continue to have the largest number of African American kindergartners living in CITP1, they both saw a significant decrease in the number between 2010 and 2012 – 16 and 10 fewer kindergartners respectively. Table 2 shows the Academic Performance Index (API) and enrollment demographics in October 2012 for schools that in 2010 and/or 2012 had more than 10 African American kindergartners living in an area of the city with the lowest average test scores (CTIP1). Table 2: October 2012 enrollment demographics and API for schools with more than 10 African American kindergartners living in CTIP1 (2010 and/or 2012)
School Carmichael K8 Carver ES Cobb ES Drew ES Harte ES King ES Malcolm X ES Muir ES Parks ES African American 11% 66% 57% 74% 39% 20% 72% 37% 34% Chinese 3% 0% 2% 0% 0% 21% 0% 0% 2% Latino 26% 12% 18% 12% 37% 19% 10% 50% 15% Other 57% 20% 17% 14% 23% 16% 18% 12% 36% White 3% 1% 7% 0% 1% 24% 0% 2% 13% API 2 1 3 1 1 4 4 1 2
All of the schools are located in/near CTIP1 areas. Seven of the schools (70%) have concentrations of historically underserved students (i.e., an API of 3 or lower) At four of the schools (40%), more than 50% of the students enrolled are African American.
CHINESE Kindergartners Living in CTIP1 and Enrolled in School 2010 (before CTIP1 tie-breaker)
Number of kindergartners Number of schools Number of schools with fewer than three kindergartners Number of schools with four to nine kindergartners Number of schools with more than 10 kindergartners 69 29 24 schools had three or fewer kindergartners • 17 schools had one kindergartner • Six schools had two kindergartners • One schools had three kindergartners 4
86 28 22 schools had three or fewer kindergartners • 13 schools had one kindergartner • Five schools had two kindergartners • Four schools had three kindergartners 5
One school, Visitaction Valley, had more than 10 kindergartners. 11 of the 26 kindergartners (16%) were enrolled in Visitaction Valley.
One school, ER Taylor, had more than 10 kindergartners. 19 of the 86 kindergartners (22%) were enrolled in ER Taylor.
Observations It is not yet clear from the data that Chinese kindergartners living in areas with the lowest average test scores (CTIP1) are more likely to be enrolled in demographically different schools because of the CTIP 1 tie-breaker. • • • The number of Chinese kindergartners living in CTIP1 grew: there were 69 in 2010 and 86 in 2012. In both years, there were less than 100 kindergartners. Chinese kindergartners living in CTIP1 are enrolled in about a quarter of our schools: in in 2010 they were enrolled in 29 schools, and in 2012 they were enrolled in 28 schools. Only one school had more than 10 kindergartners; in 2010 it was Visitaction Valley and in 2012 it was ER Taylor. o ER Taylor saw the greatest increase in the number of Chinese kindergartners living in CTIP1 – it grew from five in 2010 to 19 in 2012. The number decreased by two, from 11 to nine, at Visitaction Valley
Table 3 shows the Academic Performance Index (API) and enrollment demographics in October 2012 for schools that in 2010 and/or 2012 had more than four Chinese kindergartners living in an area of the city with the lowest average test scores (CTIP1).
Table 3: October 2012 enrollment demographics and API for schools with more than four Chinese kindergartners living in CTIP1 (2010 and/or 2012)
School Chin ES Hillcrest ES Lau ES Moscone ES Spring Valley ES Visitacion Valley ES Yu Alt K8 African American 1% 9% 0% 1% 4% 15% 4% Chinese 83% 25% 87% 27% 44% 47% 59% Latino 1% 43% 8% 63% 36% 15% 4% Other 10% 20% 5% 7% 11% 24% 25% White 5% 3% 0% 1% 5% 0% 8% API 10 1 6 7 7 5 10
With the exception of Alice Fong Yu K8 and Hillcrest, the schools are in/near CTIP1 (Moscone and Visitaction Valley) or in Chinatown (Chin, Lau, Spring Valley) With the exception of Hillcrest, all the schools have an API of 5 or higher. At 3 of the schools (42%), more than 50% of the students enrolled are Chinese.
LATINO Kindergartners Living in CTIP1 and Enrolled in School 2010 (before CTIP1 tie-breaker)
Number of kindergartners Number of schools Number of schools with fewer than three kindergartners Number of schools with four to 14 kindergartners Number of schools with more than 15 kindergartners 481 49 17 schools had three or fewer kindergartners • Eight schools had one kindergartner • Three schools had two kindergartners • Six schools had three kindergartners 23
503 62 30 schools had three or fewer kindergartners • 14 schools had one kindergartner • 10 schools had two kindergartners • Six schools had three kindergartners 20
Nine schools had more than 15 kindergartners. 51% of the kindergarteners were enrolled in these schools (244 of the 481 students): • Chavez – 61 kindergartners • Bryant – 29 kindergartners • BV/Mann – 28 kindergartners • Moscone – 28 kindergartners • Flynn – 25 kindergartners • Marshall – 24 kindergartners • Harte – 17 kindergartners • Tenderloin – 17 kindergartners • Fairmount – 15 kindergartners
12 schools had more than 15 kindergartners. 58% of the kindergarteners were enrolled in these schools (293 of the 503 students): • Chavez – 46 kindergartners (15 fewer) • Moscone – 34 kindergartners (six more) • BV/Mann – 31 kindergartners (three more) • Flynn – 26 kindergartners (one more) • Marshall – 25 kindergartners (one more) • Sanchez – 23 kindergartners (10 more) • Bryant – 20 kindergartners (nine fewer) • Fairmount – 19 kindergartners (four more) • Alvarado – 19 kindergartners (six more) • Muir – 17 kindergartners (14 more) • Hillcrest – 17 kindergartners (four more) • Tenderloin – 17 kindergartners (same)
Observations It is not yet clear from the data that Latino kindergartners living in areas with the lowest average test scores (CTIP1) are more likely to be enrolled in demographically different schools because of the CTIP 1 tie-breaker. • • • The number of Latino kindergartners living in CTIP1 grew: there were 481 in 2010 and 503 in 2012. The number of schools with Latino kindergartners living in CTIP1 grew: in 2010 they were enrolled in 49 schools, and in 2012 they were enrolled in 62 schools. The number of Latino kindergartners living in CTIP1 increased at some schools and decreased at other schools.
The number of kindergartners at Alvarado, Hillcrest, Muir and Sanchez increased between 2010 and 2012 Muir and Sanchez experienced the greatest increase: Muir grew from three to 17, and Sanchez grew from 13 to 23. Chavez, Carmichael, and Bryant experienced the greatest decrease: Chavez went from 61 to 46, Carmichael went from 14 to five, and Bryant went from 29 to 20. The number of kindergartners at Harte decreased from 17 in 2010 to 11 in 2012.
Table 4 shows the Academic Performance Index (API) and enrollment demographics in October 2012 for schools that in 2010 and/or 2012 had more than 15 Latino kindergartners living in an area of the city with the lowest average test scores (CTIP1). Table 4: October 2012 enrollment demographics and API for schools with more than 15 Latino kindergartners living in CTIP1 (2010 and/or 2012)
School Alvarado ES Bryant ES Buena Vista/ Mann K8 Chavez ES Fairmount ES Flynn ES Harte ES Hillcrest ES Marshall ES Moscone ES Muir ES Sanchez ES Tenderloin ES African American 5% 2% 4% 3% 4% 13% 39% 9% 3% 1% 37% 5% 16% Chinese 1% 1% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 25% 0% 27% 0% 0% 5% Latino 42% 90% 74% 85% 67% 63% 37% 43% 82% 63% 50% 81% 33% Other 13% 6% 7% 9% 8% 7% 23% 20% 7% 7% 12% 10% 44% White 40% 0% 15% 1% 19% 16% 1% 3% 8% 1% 2% 4% 3% API 7 1 2 3 1 1 1 4 7 1 1 2
10 of the 13 schools (77%) are located in/near CTIP1 areas. The remaining three schools (Alvarado, Hillcrest, and Fairmount) are located relatively close to CTIP1. 10 of the schools (77%) have concentrations of historically underserved students (i.e., an API of 3 or lower) At nine of the schools (69%), more than 50% of the students enrolled are Latino.
WHITE Kindergartners Living in CTIP1 and Enrolled in School 2010 (before CTIP1 tie-breaker)
Number of kindergartners Number of schools Number of schools with fewer than three kindergartners Number of schools with four to 14 kindergartners Number of schools with more than 10 kindergartners 66 28 22 schools had three or fewer kindergartners • 16 schools had one kindergartner • Four schools had two kindergartners • Two schools had three kindergartners 6
88 30 22 schools had 3 or fewer kindergartners • 16 schools had one kindergartner • Five schools had two kindergartners • One school had three kindergartners 5
No school had more than 10 kindergartners
Three schools had more than 10 kindergartners. 36% of the kindergarteners were enrolled in these schools (32 of the 88 students): • Clarendon – 12 kindergartners (10 more) • McKinley – 10 kindergartners (two more) • Lilienthal – 10 kindergartners (seven more)
Observations It is not yet clear from the data that White kindergartners living in areas with the lowest average test scores (CTIP1) are more likely to be enrolled in demographically different schools because of the CTIP 1 tie-breaker. • • • The number of White kindergartners living in CTIP1 grew: there were 66 in 2010 and 88 in 2012. In both years, there were less than 100 kindergartners. The number of schools with White kindergartners living in CTIP1 grew: in 2010 they were enrolled in 28 schools, and in 2012 they were enrolled in 30 schools. The number of White kindergartners living in CTIP1incrased at some schools and decreased at other schools. o The number of kindergartners at Clarendon, Lilienthal, Rooftop, BV/Mann and Miraloma increased between 2010 and 2012. Clarendon experienced the greatest increase – it grew from two to 12 kindergartners. With the exception of BV/Mann, all of these schools have an enrollment that ranges from 28% to 58% White, compared with a district-wide enrollment that is 13% White. Parks and Flynn experienced the greatest decrease: Parks went from six to one, and Flynn went from eight to two. Both schools have an API of 1 or 2, and an
enrollment that is less than 16% White and more than 50% African American and Latino. • Table 5 shows the Academic Performance Index (API) and enrollment demographics in October 2012 for schools that in 2010 and/or 2012 had more than 10 White kindergartners living in an area of the city with the lowest average test scores (CTIP1). Table 5: October 2012 enrollment demographics and API for schools with more than 10 White kindergartners living in CTIP1 (2010 and/or 2012)
School Clarendon ES Lilienthal K8 McKinley ES African American 5% 9% 14% Chinese 13% 8% 3% Latino 12% 11% 14% Other 37% 37% 14% White 34% 35% 55% API 10 9 6
All of the schools are located far from CTIP1 and in areas of the city where the residential demographics are predominantly White. All of the schools have an API of 6 or higher. The percent of White students enrolled in the schools ranges from 34% to 55%, compared with a district-wide enrollment that is 13% White.
Schools with Greatest Change in Number of Kindergartners Living in CTIP1
To get a better understanding of the impact of the CTIP1 tie-breaker, this section of the report analyzes enrollment patterns by race/ethnicity at schools that experienced the greatest increase and the greatest decrease in the number of kindergartners living in CTIP1. Schools were identified by comparing enrollment in 2010, the year before the CTIP1 tie-breaker was introduced, with enrollment in 2012, the second year the CTIP1 tie-breaker was used. Table 6: API and enrollment demographics for schools that experienced an increase of 10 or more kindergartners living in CTIP1 between 2010 and 2012
School Name Clarendon ES Rooftop K8 Sherman ES Taylor ES Year 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 API 10 10 9 8 8 10 8 9 African American 6% 5% 16% 15% 5% 8% 4% 3% Chinese 15% 13% 14% 12% 35% 26% 53% 53% Latino 9% 12% 23% 23% 11% 14% 26% 29% Other Asian 19% 19% 7% 6% 4% 5% 4% 3% Other 19% 18% 19% 16% 15% 14% 13% 12% White 33% 34% 22% 28% 31% 32% 1% 1%
Observations • None of these schools were racially isolated with high concentrations of underserved students in 2010 before the CTIP1 tie-breaker existed. o o All schools have an API of 8 or higher. Taylor is the only school where more than 50% of the enrollment is a single race/ethnicity.
The demographics of the schools did not change much between 2010 and 2012 (the second year the tie-breaker was used). o o The percent African American decreased at all schools except Sherman. The percent Chinese decreased at all schools, except Taylor where it remained the same. The percent Latino increased at all schools, except Rooftop where it remained the same. The percent White increased at all schools, except Taylor where it remained the same.
Table 7: API and enrollment demographics for schools that experienced a decrease of 10 or more kindergartners living in CTIP1 between 2010 and 2012
School Carver ES Chavez ES Drew ES Vis Valley ES Year 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 2010 2012 API 1 1 1 1 1 7 5 African American 72% 66% 3% 3% 78% 74% 16% 15% Chinese 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 42% 47% Latino 6% 12% 86% 85% 10% 12% 15% 15% Other Asian 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 9% 6% Other 20% 19% 7% 8% 10% 12% 18% 18% White 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0%
Observations • Three of the four schools were racially isolated with high concentrations of underserved students in 2010 before the CTIP1 tie-breaker existed. o Carver and Drew had APIs of 1 and enrollments that were more than 70% African American. o • Chavez had an API of 1 and an enrollment that was more than 80% Latino.
The demographics of the schools did not change much between 2010 and 2012 – Carver, Drew, and Chavez continue to be racially isolated with high concentrations of underserved students. o The percent African American decreased from 72% to 66% at Carver, and from 78% to 74% at Drew. o The percent Latino decreased from 86% to 85% Latino at Chavez.
In October 2012, the two largest cohorts of students living in CTIP1 were Latino (503 kindergartners) and African American (266 kindergartners), and they tend to be enrolled in schools near CTIP1 that are predominantly Latino and African American. The two smallest cohorts were White (88 kindergartners) and Chinese (66 kindergartners), and they tend to be enrolled in schools with a high percent of White and Chinese students. It takes a while for new policies to show results; therefore it is too soon identify trends. It is not yet clear from the data that the CTIP1 tie-breaker is helping reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school. We plan to continue to monitor demand and enrollments, and expect it may take several more years before trends are revealed.
3. Do middle school feeders help reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school, and do they help provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students?
On June 14, 2011, the Board of Education approved staff’s recommendation to develop elementary to middle school feeder patterns. Starting with the 2012-13 school year, and for four years thereafter, the elementary-to-middle school feeders will operate as a preference/tiebreaking factor in the choice process. A detailed description of the middle-school feeders is provided in Appendix 4. This section of the report explores the impact of the middle-school tiebreaker on middle school demand and enrollment patterns.
Requests for Middle School Feeders
Table 8 indicates the percent of students who requested their middle school feeder in the first round of the assignment process for the 2012-13 school year (the first year the tie-breaker was used as a factor in the choice process) with choice patterns from the same elementary schools the year before (when the tie-breaker did not exist). For each year, it lists the percent who requested the middle school anywhere among their choices and the percent who listed it as a first choice. It also notes the differences between the two years. Table 8: Percent of 5th grade families requesting the middle school feeder
2011-2012 (without tie-breaker) % Any % First Choice Choice 89% 65% 59% 28% 23% 10% 25% 14% 56% 25% 70% 29% 22% 14% 44% 22% 53% 22% 48% 33% 86% 67% 67% 27% 36% 22% 2012-2013 (with tie-breaker) % Any % First Choice Choice 96% 86% 86% 51% 57% 19% 43% 24% 66% 35% 80% 44% 13% 9% 48% 26% 68% 34% 62% 43% 96% 84% 88% 49% 36% 27% Difference % Any % First Choice Choice 7% 21% 27% 24% 33% 9% 18% 11% 11% 10% 10% 15% -8% -5% 4% 4% 14% 12% 13% 10% 9% 17% 21% 21% 0% 5%
Ref: q4_3_1mid
School A P GIANNINI APTOS DENMAN EVERETT FRANCISCO HOOVER ISA LICK MARINA ML KING PRESIDIO ROOSEVELT VIS VALLEY MS
Chart 4 illustrates the percent 5th graders promoting to 6th grade who requested their middle school feeder as a first choice in round one of the assignment process for the 2012-13 school year compared with first choice patterns for 5th graders to promoting to 6th grade in 2011-12, the year before the choice tie-breaker was implemented. Chart 4: Percent of first choice request for middle school feeders
100% 86% 84% 80% 65% 67% 51% 49% 60% 44% 43% 35% 34% 33% 28% 40% 27% 22% 27% 26% 22% 25% 29% 22% 19% 24% 14% 14% 10% 9% 20% 0%
Observations • • The middle school feeders appear to have created a significant shift in the demand patterns for students promoting from 5th to 6th grade. Denman, Aptos, and Roosevelt experienced the greatest change in the percent of 5th graders who requested their middle school feeder among their choices. o Denman experienced a 33% increase, Aptos experienced a 27% increase, and Roosevelt experienced at 21% increase in the percent of families requesting their middle school feeder.
With the exception of ISA, every middle school experienced an increase in the number of families who listed their middle school feeder as a first choice. o Giannini and Presidio received the greatest percent of first choice requests – 86% and 84% respectively. More than 44% of families that feed into Aptos, Roosevelt, or Hoover listed their middle school feeder as a first choice.
ISA experienced an 8% decrease in the percent of families from elementary feeders who listed it as a choice, and a 5% decrease in the percent who listed it as a first choice.
Enrollment in Middle School Feeders
Table 9 and Chart 5 show the percent of students enrolled in 6th grade in 2012-13 who attended 5th grade at one of the elementary feeder schools compared with 6th grade enrollment in 2011-12 (i.e., before the tie-breaker for middle school feeders). Table 9: Percent of students enrolled in 6th grade who attended an elementary feeder % enrolled in 6th grade from % enrolled in 6th grade from elementary feeder – 2011 elementary feeder - 2012(without tie-breaker) (with tie-breaker) Difference
42% 15% 14% 13% 25% 28% 12% 18% 31% 34% 45% 26% 14% 85% 46% 29% 22% 39% 55% 6% 23% 43% 44% 81% 66% 27% 43% 31% 15% 9% 14% 27% -6% 5% 12% 10% 36% 40% 13%
A P GIANNINI APTOS DENMAN EVERETT FRANCISCO HOOVER ISA LICK MARINA ML KING PRESIDIO ROOSEVELT VIS VALLEY MS
Chart 5: Percent of students enrolled in 6th grade who attended an elementary feeder
81% 66% 55%
46% 39% 29% 15% 14% 22% 13% 25% 28% 12% 6% 23% 18%
44% 45% 34% 26%
Observations • The middle school feeders appear to have created a significant shift in the enrollment patterns for students promoting from 5th to 6th grade. ISA is the only school with lower enrollment from the elementary schools that feed into ISA since the middle-school tie-breaker was implemented. o 12% of students enrolled in ISA in 2011 came from the elementary schools feeding into ISA. 6% of students enrolled in ISA in 2012 (the first year the tie-breaker was used) came from the elementary schools feeding into ISA.
Giannini, Roosevelt, Presidio, and Aptos experienced the greatest increase in the percent of enrollment from the elementary schools feeding into them. o 42% of students enrolled Giannini in 2011 came from the elementary schools feeding into Giannini, compared with 85% in 2012 (43% change). 26% of students enrolled Roosevelt in 2011 came from the elementary schools feeding into Roosevelt, compared with 66% in 2012 (40% change). 45% of students enrolled Presidio in 2011 came from the elementary schools feeding into Presidio, compared with 81% in 2012 (36% change). 15% of students enrolled Aptos in 2011 came from the elementary schools feeding into Aptos, compared with 46% in 2012 (31% change).
Number of Elementary Schools Feeding into each Middle School
In creating middle school feeders, it was assumed the feeders would reduce the number of elementary schools each middle school received students from, and this would provide an opportunity to build connections between families and students and to create seamless academic pathways for students transitioning from elementary to middle school. Table 10 and Chart 6 show the number of sending elementary schools for each middle school in 2011-12, compared with 2012-13. Table 10: Number of elementary schools feeding into each middle school
# ES Feeders A P GIANNINI APTOS EVERETT FRANCISCO HOOVER ISA DENMAN LICK MARINA ML KING PRESIDIO ROOSEVELT VIS VALLEY AVERAGE 6 5 6 5 5 2 5 6 5 3 5 6 4 5 2011-2012 SY Enrollment
(without tie-breaker)
2012-2013 SY Enrollment
(with tie-breaker)
Difference -7 -4 -14 -13 -7 -2 -11 +2 -2 -9 -10 -5 -19
50 49 44 36 49 24 42 25 52 38 48 42 44 42
43 45 30 23 42 22 31 27 50 29 38 37 25 34
Chart 6: Number of elementary schools feeding into each middle school
# ES Feeders
Observations • The middle school feeder appears to have decreased the number of elementary schools represented in the incoming class at each middle school. The average number of elementary schools feeding into middle schools decreased from 42 in 2011 to 34 in 2012. o In 2011, the number of elementary schools feeding into middle schools ranged from 24 to 52. In 2012, the numbers ranged from 20 to 50.
With the exception of Lick, all schools saw a decrease in the number of elementary schools feeding into them. o Visitaction Valley experienced the largest decrease – going from 44 elementary schools in 2011 to 25 in 2012. Everett, Francisco, Presidio, and Denman all experienced a decrease of at least 10 schools between 2011 and 2012.
Lick, which had one of the lowest number of elementary schools feeding into it in 2011, (25 schools compared with a district average of 42 schools), increased by 2, growing to 27 schools in 2012.
Racial/Ethnic Diversity and Middle School Feeders
This section of the report explores whether the middle school tie-breaker impacts the racial/ethnic composition of schools by comparing the racial/ethnic composition of incoming 6th graders at each middle school in 2011-12 (before the tie-breaker) with the racial/ethnic composition of incoming 6th graders in 2012-13. Table 11: Race/ethnicity of 6th grade students in 2011 and 2012
Middle School A P GIANNINI Year 2011-2012 2012-2013 A P GIANNINI difference APTOS APTOS difference DENMAN 2011-2012 2012-2013 DENMAN difference 2011-2012 2012-2013 African American 7% 7% 0% 11% 11% 0% 7% 7% 1% Chinese 51% 49% -2% 21% 26% 4% 21% 15% -6% Latino 10% 9% -1% 32% 32% 0% 37% 40% 3% Other 13% 10% -4% 12% 9% -3% 11% 7% -4% Other Asian 7% 11% 4% 9% 10% 1% 20% 25% 5% White 12% 14% 2% 16% 13% -3% 5% 5% 0%
Middle School EVERETT
Year 2011-2012 2012-2013
African American 16% 10% -6% 10% 11% 0% 6% 4% -2% 41% 18% -23% 10% 4% -6% 11% 9% -1% 18% 17% -1% 7% 7% 0% 7% 5% -2% 21% 31% 10%
Chinese 8% 3% -5% 53% 59% 6% 48% 48% -1% 2% 2% 0% 1% 1% 0% 51% 41% -11% 33% 26% -7% 41% 34% -6% 33% 42% 9% 17% 17% 0%
Latino 42% 52% 10% 11% 10% -1% 23% 23% -1% 31% 43% 12% 69% 70% 2% 15% 18% 3% 20% 31% 11% 10% 9% -2% 14% 12% -2% 30% 28% -2%
Other 9% 11% 2% 14% 9% -5% 8% 10% 2% 16% 20% 4% 9% 9% 0% 8% 12% 3% 8% 10% 2% 12% 14% 2% 12% 14% 2% 10% 11% 0%
Other Asian 10% 5% -5% 7% 8% 0% 9% 10% 1% 0% 11% 11% 1% 4% 3% 6% 11% 6% 18% 15% -3% 12% 14% 3% 15% 12% -3% 12% 9% -3%
White 15% 18% 3% 5% 5% 0% 6% 6% 0% 10% 7% -3% 11% 12% 1% 9% 10% 1% 3% 2% -2% 18% 22% 4% 20% 15% -5% 10% 4% -6%
EVERETT difference FRANCISCO 2011-2012 2012-2013 FRANCISCO difference HOOVER 2011-2012 2012-2013 HOOVER difference ISA ISA difference LICK LICK difference MARINA 2011-2012 2012-2013 MARINA difference ML KING 2011-2012 2012-2013 ML KING difference PRESIDIO 2011-2012 2012-2013 PRESIDIO difference ROOSEVELT 2011-2012 2012-2013 ROOSEVELT difference VIS VALLEY MS 2011-2012 2012-2013 VIS VALLEY difference 2011-2012 2012-2013 2011-2012 2012-2013
OBSERVATIONS • It is too soon to reach tentative conclusions about whether the middle school tiebreaker is: (a) helping reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school; and/or (b) helping provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students. 43 | P a g e
6th grade enrollment experienced both increases and decreases in the percent of students from a single race/ethnicity. o There was a decrease in the percent of African Americans enrolled in Everett, ISA, and Lick. ISA experienced the most significant decrease, going from 41% African American to 23% African American. There was an increase in the percent of African Americans enrolled in Visitaction Valley, going from 21% to 31%. There was a decrease in the percent of Chinese enrolled in Denman, Everett, Marina, King, and Presidio. Marina experienced the most significant decrease, going from 51% Chinese to 41% Chinese. There was an increase in the percent of Chinese enrolled in Francisco and Roosevelt, going from 53% to 59% at Francisco, and 33% to 42% at Roosevelt. Francisco is a racially isolated school (64% of all students enrolled in the school are Chinese) with concentrations of underserved students (it has an API of 3). There was an increase in the percent of Latinos enrolled in Everett, ISA, and ML King, going from 42% to 52% at Everett, 31% to 43% at ISA, and 20% to 31% at ML King.
The middle school feeders had a bigger impact on the choice making process than expected during the first year of implementation. Most middle schools experienced a significant increase in the percent of 5th graders from elementary feeder schools requesting their school, and the number of elementary schools feeding into each middle school decreased. 6th grade enrollment experienced both increases and decreases in the percent of students from a single race/ethnicity. Staff will continue to monitor the impact of the feeder patterns in 2013-14 to see if the shifts noted in year one continue in year two.
4. What percent of applicants submitted their enrollment application on time for the first round of assignments, and how does this vary by race/ethnicity?
The Educational Placement Center (EPC) employ various outreach strategies to encourage all families to participate in the choice process, with a specific focus on reaching underserved communities and groups who do not historically participate in the first round of assignments. From November 2011 through the January 2012 deadline, EPC staff conducted close to 100 family education and enrollment workshops and outreach events at Head Starts, subsidized preschools, Early Education Schools, elementary schools and numerous community-based organizations. Below is a summary of additional outreach strategies employed by EPC for the 2012-13 school year. • Established a Satellite Collection site at Carver elementary school in the Bayview for families to turn in enrollment applications and documents. • Established a Mobile Enrollment Center. A yellow school bus went to various areas of the city to conduct outreach, provide counseling and collect applications. The Mobile Enrollment Center targeted the Mission, Bayview/Hunter’s Point, Tenderloin, Western Addition, Treasure Island, and Sunnydale/Visitacion Valley areas. Conducted “Walk-the-Beat” outreach events. EPC staff walked in high-traffic neighborhoods (Mission, Chinatown, Visitacion Valley, Bayview) to pass out postcards with key dates and reminders. Sent targeted mailings to the Samoan community through various churches and community organizations. Partnered with the Housing Authority to send mailings to families in public housing. Trained community partners, including the Family Support Network and Parents for Public Schools. Provided language assessment and counseling in neighborhoods and schools with high populations of English language learners. Participated in community events, such as the backpack give away in the Bayview, and Project Homeless Connect.
In addition to EPC’s outreach and recruitment efforts, school communities invest significant time and energy promoting their schools. For example, all schools offer tours to families, and every school participates in an annual school fair (that attracts over 10,000 people) to kick off the enrollment cycle. 45 | P a g e
On Time Participation by Race/Ethnicity
Applications received by the first enrollment deadline in January are considered on-time, and applications received after the first enrollment deadline through the first day of school are considered late. Chart 7: Percent of late applicants by race/ethnicity in 2010, 2011, and 2012
30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% African American Chinese Latino Other Other Asian White
4% 3% 4% 24% 23% 20% 13% 11% 10% 11% 9% 9%
9% 9% 9% 5% 4% 6%
Observations • With the exception of Other Asian, the percent of late applicants in 2012 compared with 2011 increased for every racial/ethnic group. A couple of factors played a role in the decreased participation rates between 2011 and 2012. • The application deadline for 2011 was February 18, and for 2012 it was January 27. This change resulted in three fewer weeks in 2012 for outreach activities, and it also meant families moving to the city in early February could not participate on-time. Due to ongoing budget cuts, EPC experienced a reduction in staff, including the elimination of the outreach manager position, and this, in addition to having three fewer weeks, impacted EPC’s capacity to host outreach events. In 2011 EPC hosted approximately 150 events, and in 2012 it hosted approximately 100 events.
Participation rates appear to be impacted by the timeframe for families to submit applications and the resources available to support outreach and recruitment. In 2011, the enrollment deadline was February 18, and in 2012 the enrollment deadline was a few weeks earlier - January 27. At the same time, EPC experienced a reduction in staff due to budget cuts. With less time and fewer staff, the number of outreach events went from 150 in 2011 to 100 in 2012, and on-time participation rates declined.
5. What is important to families when choosing schools?
To get a better understanding of what is important to families when choosing schools, we included a family survey on the 2012-13 application form. The survey asked families to rate, on a scale of 1 to 5, how important each of the following 15 factors are when requesting schools (1=not important and 5= very important): • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Attend school with sibling Attend after school program Language pathway Special education services School bus transportation Near home Near childcare Near work School hours Diversity of students Neighborhood safety School’s academic reputation Teachers and principal Parent community Recommended by family/friends
Families were asked to rate, not rank, which means they could have rated all factors with an equal degree of importance. For example, a family could have rated all factors as (1) not important or (5) very important.
4,307 families who applied to kindergarten between January 27 and August 20, 2012 responded to the survey. Table 12 and Chart 8 show the rating for each factor on the scale of 1 to 5 (1=not important, and 5= very important). Table 12: % kindergarten families who rated factors 1(not important) to 5 (very important)
How important are the following factors when requesting schools? Attend school with sibling Attend after school program at school Language pathway Special education services School bus transportation Near home Near childcare Near work School hours Diversity of students Neighborhood safety School’s academic reputation Teachers and principal Parent community Recommended by family/friends 1 20% 7% 13% 39% 35% 7% 27% 25% 5% 6% 1% 1% 1% 1% 4% 2 1% 4% 6% 9% 11% 4% 9% 10% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 3 5% 15% 18% 18% 19% 16% 20% 26% 19% 23% 4% 5% 3% 9% 17% 4 5% 16% 16% 9% 9% 16% 14% 14% 22% 25% 11% 15% 13% 23% 25% 5 69% 58% 47% 24% 26% 57% 30% 25% 49% 42% 84% 79% 83% 66% 51%
Chart 8: % kindergarten families rated factors 1(not important) to 5 (very important)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 24% 26% 47% 58% 69% 84% 79% 83% 57% 25% 49% 42% 51% 66%
2,579 families who applied to 6th grade between January 27 and August 20, 2012 responded to the survey. Table 13 and Chart 9 show the rating for each factor on the scale of 1 to 5 (1=not important, and 5= very important). Table 13: % 6th grade families who rated factors 1(not important) to 5 (very important)
How important are the following factors when requesting schools? Attend school with sibling Attend after school program at school Language pathway Special education services School bus transportation Near home Near childcare Near work School hours Diversity of students Neighborhood safety School’s academic reputation Teachers and principal Parent community Recommended by family/friends 1 20% 8% 17% 29% 24% 10% 32% 26% 7% 6% 1% 1% 1% 1% 4% 2 2% 3% 5% 7% 7% 5% 9% 9% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 3 8% 14% 19% 18% 18% 15% 21% 23% 17% 23% 3% 5% 3% 12% 17% 4 8% 15% 16% 14% 13% 16% 12% 15% 20% 23% 8% 13% 11% 24% 23% 5 62% 60% 42% 32% 37% 54% 27% 27% 53% 45% 87% 80% 85% 61% 54%
Chart 9: % 6th grade families who rated factors 1(not important) to 5 (very important)
32% 42% 62% 60%
27% 27% 37% 54% 53% 45% 61% 87% 80% 85% 54%
3,519 families who applied to 9th grade between January 27 and August 20, 2012 responded to the survey. Table 14 and Chart 10 show the rating for each factor on the scale of 1 to 5 (1=not important, and 5= very important). Table 14: % 9th grade families who rated factors 1(not important) to 5 (very important)
How important are the following factors when requesting schools? Attend school with sibling Attend after school program at school Language pathway Special education services School bus transportation Near home Near childcare Near work School hours Diversity of students Neighborhood safety School’s academic reputation Teachers and principal Parent community Recommended by family/friends 1 34% 20% 28% 43% 37% 15% 53% 41% 13% 10% 2% 1% 1% 4% 6% 2 4% 8% 6% 8% 8% 7% 11% 10% 6% 6% 1% 1% 1% 4% 5% 3 13% 20% 22% 17% 19% 21% 17% 23% 23% 28% 5% 7% 6% 17% 21% 4 9% 17% 17% 10% 12% 14% 7% 10% 21% 22% 13% 16% 15% 25% 25% 5 40% 36% 28% 21% 24% 42% 12% 15% 37% 34% 79% 75% 76% 49% 44%
Chart 10: % 9th grade families who rated factors 1(not important) to 5 (very important)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 21% 24% 28% 42% 12% 15% 37% 34% 49% 79% 75% 76% 44%
Observations • The three factors rated as very important by the largest percent of families were: neighborhood safety, teachers and principals, and school’s academic reputation. o Neighborhood safety was rated very important by more families than any other factor. 84% of kindergarten families, 87% of 6th grade families, and 79% of 9th grade families rated neighborhood safety as very important. Teachers and principals was rated very important by 83% of kindergarten families, 85% of 6th grade families, and 76% of 9th grade families. Schools academic reputation was rated very important by 79% of kindergarten families, 80% of 6th grade families, and 75% of 9th grade families.
A higher percent of families rated parent community as more important than near home. o o Parent community was rated very important by 66% of kindergarten families, 61% of 6th grade families, and 49% of 9th grade families. Near home was rated very important by 57% of kindergarten families, 54% of 6th grade families, and 42% of 9th grade families.
A higher percent of kindergarten families rated attend school with sibling (69%) than near home (57%) as very important.
Over 10,000 families of incoming kindergartners, 6th graders, and 9th graders responded to the family survey. Neighborhood safety and school quality surfaced as paramount in the minds of families when choosing schools for their children. Over 75% of families rated neighborhood safety, teachers and principals, and schools academic reputation as very important. These findings resonate with findings from various community engagement activities that have taken place over the years.
In September 2010, the Board of Education approved the district’s elementary attendance areas after more than a year of demographic analysis and a public engagement process that included an evaluation of suggestions from the community. Throughout this development process, the following factors were taken into account: neighborhood demographics, where students live now and where enrollment changes are expected in the future; availability of school facilities; traffic patterns; location of programs; and coherence of preK-to-K and elementary-to-middle school pathways. This section of the report explores four questions: 1. Do attendance areas have the capacity to accommodate kindergarten residents? 2. Do kindergarten applicants request their attendance area school? 3. What modifications were made to the attendance areas for the 2013-14 school year? 4. Does staff recommend any changes to the attendance areas for 2014-15?
Do Attendance Areas have the Capacity to accommodate Kindergarten Residents?
Map 4 (on the next page) shows how many kindergarten applicants for the 2012-13 school year live in each attendance area (on-time and late applicants, including those who did not request their attendance area school), and how that compares to all kindergarten seats available in the attendance area – including kindergarten seats for citywide schools and programs in the attendance area. 13 attendance areas have citywide schools, and the kindergarten seats for each citywide school are added to the total number of seats for that attendance area.
Each attendance area has a circle relatively sized according to the ratio of kindergarten applicants living in each attendance area to kindergarten seats in the attendance area. Red circles indicate there are more kindergarten residents than seats. Yellow circles indicate there are fewer kindergarten residents than seat. The larger the circle the greater the ratio of residents to seats.
Map 4: Kindergarten applicants living in each attendance area relative to kindergarten capacity at all schools in the attendance area
Observations • Overall, the number of students who applied for kindergarten in 2012-13 exceeded the number of kindergarten seats available in the district. 5,558 students applied and there were 5,525 seats, which mean the demand for kindergarten was 106% of seats. Because 100% of applicants don’t end up enrolling in our schools, we were able to accommodate all kindergartners who wanted to enroll in our schools. During the development of the boundaries approved by the Board in September 2010, we identified a mismatch between where students live and where schools are located, and discovered that given the size and distribution of schools throughout the city it’s not possible to create attendance areas that can accommodate all students living in them. The residential patterns of kindergarten applicants for the 2012-13 school year is consistent with those findings. o Technically, 23 out of 58 of attendance areas (40%) had the capacity to accommodate all kindergarten applicants living in the attendance area (yellow circles), and 35 attendance areas (60%) had more residents than seats (red circles). Many attendance areas in the west, northeast, and central areas of the city with more kindergarten residents than kindergarten seats (red circles) are located near attendance areas that have more seats than residents (yellow circles). For example, on the west side, Key and Jefferson have more residents than seats but they are located near Stevenson and Sunset which have fewer residents than seats. The southeast has significantly more kindergarten residents than kindergarten seats. Kindergarten applicants living in Carver’s attendance area (regardless of their requests) are about four times the number of seats in Carver’s attendance area. The schools near Carver (Harte, Malcolm X, and Drew) also have more residents than kindergarten seats.
Do Kindergarten Applicants Request their Attendance Area School?
Map 5 has a color coded pie in each attendance area to illustrate request patterns for all kindergarten applicants for the 2012-13 school year (both on-time and late) living in the attendance area – regardless of the school they enrolled in. The larger the pie the greater the number of kindergarten applicants living in the attendance area. Red indicates the percent of kindergarten applicants living in the attendance area who requested their attendance area school as a first choice; green indicates second or third choice; blue indicates fourth or lower choice; and orange indicates the percent who did not request their attendance area school. Map 5: % Kindergartners who requested their attendance area school
Observations 51% of residents did not request their own attendance area school anywhere among their choices. o Over 50% of residents in 32 of the 58 attendance areas did not request their attendance area school anywhere among their choices. Less than a quarter of residents in Drew, Muir, Cobb, Webster, and Carver’s attendance areas requested their attendance area school as one of their choices. Drew (14%) and Muir (21%) had the lowest percent of requests from students living in the attendance area.
Only 26% of applicants requested their attendance area school as their first choice. o Lau had the greatest percent of residents requesting their attendance area school as a first choice; 60% of all kindergarten residents of Lau’s attendance area listed Lau as a first choice. More than half of the residents in Lau, Sherman, Grattan, Clarendon, and Sunset requested their attendance area school as a first choice.
More than 75% of residents in 12 of the 58 attendance areas listed their attendance area school somewhere among their choices: McKinley, Sunset, Grattan, Garfield, Sherman, Alvarado, Clarendon, Lau, Alamo, Argonne, West Portal, and Parker. o McKinley had the greatest percent of residents requesting their attendance area school; 86% of all applicants living in McKinley’s attendance area listed McKinley among their requests.
What Modifications were made to the Attendance Areas for the 2013-14 School Year?
Following the March 2011 assignment offers, community members recommended the following changes to the elementary attendance area boundaries: 1. Alvarado (Glen Park) - move boundary south from 29th to 30th street; 2. Alvarado (Milk) - move boundary north nearer crest of hill; 3. Grattan (McKinley) - move boundary east to include Upper Haight; 4. Sloat (Miraloma) - move boundary north to include St. Francis Wood; 5. Sunnyside (Miraloma) – move boundary north to include Sunnyside Playground and Sunnyside Conservatory; and 6. Parks (Sherman) – move boundary north of Geary Boulevard. When reviewing the six recommendations received from the community in 2011, SFUSD staff considered the same factors taken into account when developing the attendance area boundaries approved by the Board in September 2010 (i.e., neighborhood demographics, where students live now, where enrollment changes are expected in the future, etc.). Staff reached the following conclusions. • Alvarado’s attendance area should not be enlarged because the number of kindergarten applicants in 2011-12 exceeded the number of kindergarten seats in the attendance area. In addition, 50% of the seats at Alvarado are for the Spanish Immersion pathway and therefore the attendance area tie-breaker only applies to 50% of Alvarado’s seats. • Grattan’s attendance area should not be enlarged to encompass some of McKinley’s attendance area because Grattan’s attendance area has more residents than seats; and McKinley’s attendance area should not be made smaller because it has fewer residents than seats. • Both Sloat and Miraloma have more kindergarten residents than seats; therefore neither attendance area should be enlarged. • Sherman’s attendance area should not be reduced to increase Parks’ attendance area because both attendance areas have fewer residents than seats. In addition, there are concerns about moving the Parks attendance area north of Geary since the high traffic patterns are considered a topographical barrier. • Sunnyside has fewer residents than seats, and Miraloma has more residents than seats. Therefore we should adjust the boundary to reduce the size of Miraloma’s attendance area and increase the size of Sunnyside’s attendance area by moving Sunnyside’s boundary north to encompass Sunnyside Playground and Sunnyside Conservatory.
Adjusting the Miraloma/Sunnyside Attendance Area Boundary for 2013-14
The specific changes to the boundary between Miraloma and Sunnyside were shared and discussed in different ways during the 2011-12 school year. • The March 2012 Annual Report on Student Assignment included an analysis of our elementary attendance area boundaries, responses to recommendations from the community to adjust certain attendance area boundaries, and the proposed adjustments to Miraloma and Sunnyside’s attendance areas. This adjustment was discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee Meeting on Student Assignment on March 12, 2012. Information was posted on the SFUSD web page. Map 6: Modifications to Sunnyside and Miraloma
At the August 28, 2012 Board meeting, the Superintendent shared that the elementary attendance area between Miraloma and Sunnyside would be adjusted prior to launching the enrollment process for the 2013-14 school year. This change is reflected in the maps developed by EPC for the 2013-14 enrollment cycle.
Does Staff Recommend any Changes to the Attendance Areas for 2014-15?
In the fall of 2012, the Japanese Bilingual Bicultural Program (JBBP) community at Rosa Parks restated its request that staff consider moving the Rosa Parks boundary north of Geary Boulevard. The JBBP community at Rosa Parks feels a strong connection to the Japantown community north of Geary, and they are concerned that the attendance area for Rosa Parks will divorce the Japantown community from the JBBP program. Staff continues to be concerned about moving the Rosa Parks attendance area north of Geary since the high traffic patterns are considered a topographical barrier. 1. The Board’s guidelines for drawing attendance area boundaries require staff to take traffic patterns into consideration, and this adjustment would go against those guidelines. 2. The Board’s general education transportation policy guidelines indicate that we will provide limited transportation to support reasonable access for attendance area residents to attend their attendance area school. Geary Boulevard is a major traffic thoroughfare that would create a topographical obstacle in the attendance area, and as a result the District may have to consider providing school bus transportation to Rosa Parks students living on the other side of Geary Boulevard. Staff recognizes and appreciates the connection between the JBBP community at Rosa Parks and the Japantown community north of Geary Boulevard. The JBBP program at Rosa Parks is a city-wide program, which means for the purposes of enrollment it does not have an attendance area. Students living in the Rosa Parks attendance area do not get an attendance area tie-breaker for student assignment; all students in the city, regardless of where they live, have the same opportunity to get assigned to the JBBP program at Rosa Parks. Taking the Board’s policy guidelines for attendance area boundaries and general education transportation into account, along with the recognition that the JBBP program at Rosa Parks is a city-wide program that does not give any preference to students living in Rosa Park’s attendance area, staff is not recommending any changes to the Rosa Parks attendance area at this time.
There is a mismatch between where students live and where schools are located; 35 of 58 attendance areas had more kindergarten residents than seats. At the same time, more than half of kindergarten applicants did not request their attendance area school anywhere among their choices, and only 26% requested it as a first choice. Requests for schools relieve the mismatch between where students live and where schools are located. Staff is not recommending any changes to the attendance areas for the 2014-15 enrollment cycle.
The Board approved a new policy for general education transportation services in December 2010 (see Appendix 5), and in February 2011, the Superintendent presented the Board with a proposal to change general education transportation routes over a three year period to bring services in alignment with the Board’s general education transportation policy, and the district’s budget reduction goals. Due to ongoing state budget cuts, the district reduced the fleet of buses offering general education transportation from 44 buses in 2010 to 25 buses by August 2013. The table below summarizes the changes over the past three years; it describes the size of the fleet, the number of schools served, and the number of students receiving general education transportation services.
School Year 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 # Buses 44 38 30 25 # Schools 59 elementary / five middle 48 elementary/ five middle 42 elementary/ six middle 39 elementary/ six middle # Elementary riders 3,300 2,400 1,618 unknown # Middle riders 358 379 309 unknown
The reductions in service between 2010 and 2013 reduce the general fund contribution to transportation by about $1.9 million a year; it costs about $100,000 per bus and we will have reduced the fleet by 19 buses by August 2013. A fleet of 25 buses by 2013 means the cost of providing general education transportation services in 2013 should be aligned with the funds the district will receive for home to school transportation.
General Education Transportation Services and Middle School Feeders
Over the past couple of years staff worked to align middle school services with the middle school feeders. In 2012-13, services were added: • from Carver and Starr King elementary schools to Aptos middle school, and • from Moscone and Serra elementary schools to Hoover middle school. Beginning in August 2013, SFUSD will no longer provide services from: • the Bayview to Hoover middle school (services will be maintained from the Bayview to Aptos, Giannini, and Lick middle schools); or • the Mission area to Aptos middle school (services will be maintained from the Mission area to Hoover middle school).
Changes Implemented for the 2011-12 School Year (6 fewer buses)
11 schools lost general education transportation services in August 2011. • Chavez • Parker • Garfield • Peabody • Grattan • Sunset Key • • Sutro • Marshall • Yick Wo • Miraloma Four schools experienced a reduction in general education transportation services, but kept transportation from areas of the city with the lowest average test score and stops to after school providers. • Alice Fong Yu • Clarendon • Lilienthal • Rooftop
Changes Implemented for the 2012-13 School Year (8 fewer buses)
• 6 elementary schools lost general education transportation services in 2012-13: o • Bryant, Cleveland, SF Community, Cobb, McKinley, and Sheridan.
42 elementary schools received modified services in 2012-13. o o Stops with low ridership and stops within ½ mile of each other were deleted. One bus instead of two buses per school was available to provide services to Hillcrest, Ortega, Parks, Taylor, and Ulloa. Two buses instead of three buses per school was available to provide services to Sherman and Rooftop. One bus instead of three buses was available to maintain services for Carver and Malcolm X. One bus instead of two was available to provide services from Mission to Aptos.
Services from Carver and Starr King to Aptos and services from Treasure Island to Marina were added, providing new services to students who are going to attend their middle school feeder.
Changes for the 2013-14 School Year (5 fewer buses)
All decisions regarding changes for the 2013-14 school year were guided by the Board’s transportation policy guidelines and budget reduction goals. Within this context, every effort was made to: • avoid changes to bell schedules; • minimize the number of schools impacted; • minimize the number of riders impacted; • align middle school services with the middle school feeders; and • align with the enrollment cycle. Summary • • • • • There will be five fewer buses (going from 30 buses in 2012-13 to 25 buses in 2013-14). We will no longer provide general education transportation services to ER Taylor, Gordon J Lau, or New Traditions. We will no longer provide general education transportation from the Bayview to Hoover Middle School (we will maintain services from the Bayview to Aptos, Giannini, and Lick). We will no longer provide general education transportation from the Mission to Aptos Middle School (we will maintain services from the Mission area to Hoover Middle School). The reduction of five buses in August 2013 will reduce the use of general fund budget contributions to transportation by approximately $500,000 ($100,000 per bus).
General Education Transportation Services for the 2013-14 School Year
Note: Per State and Federal law, transportation will be provided to Special Education students who have this service written into their Individualized Educational Program (IEP). Families who want to receive general education transportation services in 2013-14 will have to submit a Request for General Education Transportation Services. The request process for the 2013-14 school year will begin in April 2013. • • There is no guarantee that general education services will be available to all students who request the services next year. To ensure equitable access to our limited transportation services, the following factors will be considered if there are more requests than our limited services can accommodate: Program Improvement status, public housing, areas of the city with the lowest average test scores, grade, enrollment in an Early Education School, and 6th graders attending their middle school feeder.
The following general education transportation services will be available for the 2013-14 school year. • 39 elementary schools will receive limited transportation: 1. ALAMO 14. HILLCREST 2. ALVARADO 15. LAFAYETTE 3. ARGONNE 16. LAKESHORE 4. BV/MANN K-8 17. LAWTON K-8 5. CARMICHAEL K8 18. LILIENTHAL K-8 6. CARVER 19. MALCOLM X 7. CHIN 20. MEC 8. CLARENDON 21. MILK 9. DREW 22. MUIR 10. EL DORADO 23. ORTEGA 11. FAIRMOUNT 24. PARKS 12. FLYNN 25. REVERE K-8 13. GLEN PARK 26. ROOFTOP K-8 6 middle schools will receive limited transportation: 1. APTOS 3. GIANNINI 2. FRANCISCO 4. HOOVER
27. S KING 28. SANCHEZ 29. SHERMAN 30. SPRING VALLEY 31. SPRING VALLEY 32. STEVENSON 33. TENDERLOIN 34. TENDERLOIN 35. ULLOA 36. VIS VALLEY 37. WEBSTER 38. WEST PORTAL 39. YU K-8
5. LICK 6. MARINA
Bus schedules for 2013-14 have been established and posted at www.sfusd.edu/transportation. They were also distributed to each school with transportation services, and they have been shared with the Placement Counselors in EPC. Information about alternatives to yellow bus transportation has been consistently shared with families over the past three years. For example, multilingual materials sent to families and information posted on the web has directed families to the following organizations. o o o o o Safe Routes to School: www.sfsaferoutes.org Walking School Bus: www.walksf.org Family Biking: www.sfbike.org SchoolPool: www.WePool2School.org MUNI: www.sfmta.com
Discuss Annual Report with the Board of Education
SFUSD staff plan to discuss this report with the Board of Education at a public meeting in the spring of 2013. This public forum will provide an opportunity for the Board to give feedback to staff, and for the Board and staff to gather feedback from all stakeholders.
Review and Possibly Revise the CTIP Classifications
SFUSD staff are working with demographers to review the CTIP classifications. Here’s our tentative timeline for reviewing and possibly revising the CTIP classifications. • • • March - July 2013: Using the latest CST ELA scores and student addresses, review CTIP classifications and re-evaluate the method used in 2010 to assign Census tracts. August 2013: Share findings with the Superintendent and Board at a public meeting. September 2013: Confirm the CTIP1 areas to be used beginning with the 2014-15 school year.
Recommend Elementary Feeders for Willie Brown, Jr. Middle School
Willie Brown Jr. middle school is scheduled to open on time-for the 2015-16 school year. This means we must identify elementary feeder schools for Brown middle school by the time the enrollment cycle kicks-off in the fall of 2014. SFUSD staff plan to develop recommendations to share with the Board during the 2013-14 school year. The goal is to finalize the elementary feeders for Brown by the spring of 2014 so the information can be incorporated into the 2015-16 enrollment materials (i.e., on time for the fall 2014 enrollment fair).
Explore Additional Research Questions
Through our partnership with Stanford, and under the supervision of Sean Reardon, Professor of Education, Stanford is exploring research questions related to SFUSD’s student assignment system. This research involves the analysis of all K-12 assignments made through the Educational Placement Center (EPC) beginning with the 2004-05 school year through the 201213 school year. Stanford Research Organization is investigating how district policies shape the distribution of students among K12 schools in SFUSD, which a specific focus on the following. 1. How school preferences/rankings are affected by the location of programs, characteristics of programs, information available, and the student assignment system. This involves looking at what schools/programs families list on their forms, how it has changed over time as the location of programs have changed, program characteristics have changed, information has changed, and the assignment system has changed.
2. How choice patterns affect the size and diversity of school enrollment. This involves looking at how the size and diversity of the student population in schools changed over time, and how the diversity of students assigned to schools and ultimately attending those schools compares to the diversity of students who requested schools. 3. How the student assignment system affects the distribution of students among schools and programs, and how this distribution of students among schools and programs affects academic outcomes. This involves looking at how school and program assignments affect families’ decisions about enrolling their students in SFUSD, how well the student assignment system produces equitable distributions of students among schools and programs, and how changes in policy might affect both the distributions of students among schools and programs and achievement patterns/gaps.
In 1978, the San Francisco NAACP brought a case against SFUSD and the State of California. The NAACP argued that the SFUSD and the State engaged in discriminatory practices and maintained a segregated school system in violation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statues, and the State of California Constitution. In 1983, the U.S. District Court approved a type of agreement between the parties called a “Consent Decree” which had two primary goals for the SFUSD: • continued and accelerated efforts to achieve academic excellence for all students with a particular focus on African American and Latino students; and • elimination of racial/ethnic segregation or identifiability in any school, program, or classroom to the extent practicable. In implementing the 1983 Consent Decree, SFUSD created a student assignment plan and a transportation system designed to support SFUSD’s efforts to desegregate its schools. The student assignment plan used a combination of schools with both contiguous and noncontiguous attendance areas, alternative schools (without attendance areas), and optional enrollment requests which allowed students to transfer to schools outside of their attendance area school. In addition, no school could have fewer than four racial/ethnic groups, and no racial/ethnic group could constitute more than 45% of the students at attendance area schools or 40% at alternative schools. In 1994, a group of San Francisco parents sued the SFUSD for using race as a factor in school assignment, and as part of a 1999 settlement, SFUSD was prohibited from using race or ethnicity as a consideration in student assignment. In attempting to comply with that agreement, SFUSD initially proposed an assignment plan that used a lottery process in which race/ethnicity was one factor, but the Court rejected that plan. In 2001, the Court approved a settlement agreement that included a new student assignment method called the Diversity Index, which was implemented for the 2002-03 school year and was used through the 2010-11 school year. The Diversity Index was designed to: • give families choice; • ensure equitable access; and • promote diversity without using race/ethnicity. On December 31, 2005, the Consent Decree expired, and for the first time in 22 years the SFUSD student assignment process was not regulated by the courts.
The Board had many concerns about the diversity index, not least of which was that it was not meeting the Board’s longtime goal of reducing racial isolation and improving educational opportunities and outcomes for all students. The number of schools with high concentrations of a single racial/ethnic group increased over the years under the diversity index. In 2008, a quarter of SFUSD’s schools had more than 60% of a single racial/ethnic group, even though SFUSD’s overall enrollment was racially/ethnically diverse and did not have a majority group. In addition, although SFUSD had opened, closed, merged, and redesigned schools, the attendance area boundaries had not been revised since the 1980s. The Board was also concerned that some schools were over enrolled while others were under enrolled, and that the participation rates in the choice process varied greatly by race/ethnicity. Finally, many families reported finding the system time consuming, unpredictable, and difficult to understand.
SFUSD partnered with different community members and organizations over the years to gather feedback on the student assignment system. SFUSD has heard from thousands of families and other community members regarding their experience, concerns, and suggestions for student assignment. Families consistently report wanting quality schools and a fair and equitable system that is easy to understand. While families consistently report wanting quality schools, there are many divergent perspectives on what student assignment should prioritize and support. For example, some families want a school close to home, while others feel that choosing a school with particular programmatic features is more important than having a school close to home. Here is a high-level summary of key findings from the community reports. For the purposes of the summary, we have pulled out findings that relate only to the student assignment system. • Most families want their school communities to reflect San Francisco’s socioeconomic and cultural diversity. But for families across the city, diversity is often trumped by a school’s location, academic quality, and their own feeling of belonging. Even families who are happy with their children’s schools want more predictability in the enrollment process and are uncomfortable with a process that feels excessively complicated or random. Families want SFUSD to provide clear and accessible information that will help them choose a school that is a good fit for their child. Families want to participate fully in the enrollment process, but many encounter significant language, time, and information barriers.
In December 2008, the Board convened an Ad Hoc Committee on Student Assignment to provide a regular and public way for the Board to conduct public policy discussions with staff about the redesign of student assignment. Between December 2008 and January 2010, the Board held monthly Ad Hoc Committee meetings, and staff, with assistance from local and national partners and guidance from the Board, analyzed current conditions, explored different student assignment options, and gathered additional feedback from the community. Key findings from the research and analysis captured the complexity of designing a student assignment system that could meet the Board’s goal of reversing the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school. • Neighborhood schools are limited in their ability to reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school, although under a neighborhood system some schools might be less racially concentrated than they are today, and many schools might have a more robust enrollment. Different choice systems are limited in their ability to reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school because the applicant pools for individual schools are racially isolated, and all families do not have the same opportunity to understand which schools they like and to submit their choices on-time for the assignment process. To reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school through student assignment alone, the Board would need to assign students to schools they have not historically requested and to schools far from where they live. For example, some students living on the west side of the city and in the north of the city would need to be assigned to schools on the east side of the city and the southeast side of the city, and vice-versa.
SFUSD staff concluded that a new student assignment system is one part of creating educational environments in which all students can flourish. School quality is the paramount concern, and a student assignment system alone cannot ensure school quality, although it does have a role to play in creating diverse learning environments and robust enrollments in all SFUSD schools. In March 2010, the Board unanimously approved a student assignment policy (P5101) that maintained choice as a tactic for achieving its goals, but that simplified the system and differentiated it for elementary, middle, and high school. The student assignment system places students in their highest ranked requests as long as there is space. If there are more requests for a school than openings, the student assignment system sorts all requests using a series of preferences, called tie-breakers, to assign applicants to schools. An overview of the student assignment tie-breakers used for 2012-13 school year enrollments is provided in Appendix 2, and Board policy P5101 is available on the web at www.sfusd.edu. 71 | P a g e
2. Student Assignment Tie-Breakers: 2012-13 School Year
SFUSD’s student assignment system is a school choice system designed to place students in schools within SFUSD in adherence to Board of Education Policy 5101. This summary provides a high-level overview of the tie-breakers used to make school assignments in March 2012 for the 2012-13 school year.
Students are placed in their highest ranked choice as long as there are openings. If there are more requests for a school than openings, the student assignment system sorts requests using a series of preferences, known as tie-breakers, to place applicants in schools. The following tie-breakers are request level tie-breakers, which means they are applied to specific requests from students. • • • • AA & PreK. Requests from students who live in the attendance area of the school and are also enrolled in an SFUSD preK in the same attendance area. AA. Requests from students who live in the attendance area of the school requested. CL. Requests from students who are enrolled in and wish to continue in a language program. CLS. Request from students who are enrolled in and wish to continue in a language program AND who are the younger sibling of a students who is enrolled in and will be enrolled in the language program at the school at issue. MSF. Requests from students who attend an elementary K-5 which is identified as a school that feeds into a specific middle school. PreK. Requests from students who attend an SFUSD preK program at the city-wide school they are applying to. Sibling. Requests from a younger sibling of a student who is enrolled in and will be attending the school.
The following tie-breakers are student level tie-breakers, which means they are applied to all requests submitted by a student who meets the parameters for the tie-breaker in question. • • CTIP1. Students who lived in areas of the city with the lowest quintile of average test scores. NCLB. Students who attended a Program Improvement school or an Open Enrollment School.
Cohorts Sets
To determine the order in which requests are sorted, each request is assigned to one or more “cohort”. A cohort is a group of students or requests that shared a tie-breaker. For example, requests submitted to a school by students who have older siblings attending the school are part of the “sibling” cohort. For each type (citywide or attendance area) and level (elementary, middle, high) of school and program, a different list of cohort orders is used – these were are “Cohort Sets.” The following is a list of the 10 different Cohort Sets used in the March 2012 student assignment run. 1. Kindergarten, non-citywide a. Sibling b. AA & PreK c. CTIP 1 d. AA 2. Kindergarten, citywide a. Sibling b. PreK c. CTIP 1 3. Kindergarten, citywide language pathway a. CLS b. CL c. Sibling d. PreK e. CTIP 1 4. Non-transitional elementary grades, non-citywide a. Sibling b. NCLB c. CTIP 1 d. AA 5. Non-transitional elementary grades, citywide a. Sibling b. NCLB c. CTIP 1
6. Non-transitional elementary grades, citywide language pathway a. CLS b. CL c. Sibling d. NCLB e. CTIP 1 7. Middle transitional grade a. Sibling b. MSF c. CTIP 1 8. Non-transitional middle a. Sibling b. NCLB c. CTIP 1 9. High transitional grade a. Sibling b. CTIP 1 10. Non-transitional High a. Sibling b. NCLB c. CTIP 1 For more information about other aspects of SFUSD’s student assignment system, please visit our website at www.sfusd.edu.
3. Census Tract Integration Preference (CTIP)
The Census Tract Integration Preference (CTIP) operates as a preference/tie-breaking factor in the choice student assignment process for children who live in areas of the city with the lowest average test score. Areas of the city with the lowest average test scores are called CTIP1. Students who live in CTIP1areas of the city receive a preference, known as the CTIP1 tiebreaker, in the choice assignment process. The CTIP1 preference is intended to help: • reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school, and • provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offer d to students.
Method Used to Identify Areas of the City with the Lowest Average Test Scores
In December 2010, Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research Inc. (LGDR) identified areas of the city with the lowest average test scores. • They computed the average 2006-2009 CST English Language Arts score for each combined Census Tract, using records for 144,830 K-12 students. They adjusted the quintiles slightly to spread numbers of K-12 students across the quintiles fairly evenly (approximately 20 percent of students per quintile). They then gave students in the lowest quintile a Census Tract Integration Preference (CTIP) score of 1. Residents of the highest quintile received a CTIP score of 5. The average test scores for each of the CTIP regions ranged from 297 to 407. Table A shows the average score of residents of each type of CTIP region as well as the ranges of scores in each. CTIP 1 regions had average scores between 297 and 331; CTIP 2 regions had average scores between 332 and 345, etc. Table A: Description of CTIP Regions (shown in Map A)
Lowest Highest Number of average CST- average CST2006-2009 ELA score of ELA score of K-12 student tracts in CTIP tracts in CTIP residents with region region CST scores 296.7 331.5 345.2 358.1 376.4 331.4 345.0 357.4 376.4 407.0 29,783 29,105 28,700 28,770 28,472 Percent of K-12 testtaking students who were in CTIP region 20.6% 20.1% 19.8% 19.9% 19.7%
CTIP region CTIP 1 CTIP 2 CTIP 3 CTIP 4 CTIP 5
Description lowest quintile
Shading on map
Percent of all K-12 students who were in CTIP region 21.3% 19.8% 19.7% 19.3% 19.9%
darkest green next-to-lowest medium quintile green middle quintile lighest green next-to-highest lighter purple quintile highest quintile dark purple
Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc., computations. % may seem not to total 100 percent because of rounding.
Map A: All CTIP Regions (1-5)
Map A (left) shows the geographic patterns of these CTIP regions. Observation: Most CTIP 1 regions are located in the city’s southeastern and east central areas as well as Yerba Buena/Treasure Island. Most CTIP 5 regions are found in the western and central portions of the city.
Map B: CTIP1 Regions
Map B (left) shows the geographic pattern for CTIP1 (i.e., areas of the city with the lowest average test scores)
4. Middle School Feeders
On June 14, 2011, the Board of Education approved staff’s recommendation to develop elementary to middle school feeder patterns. o For enrollment of students starting in the 2012-13 school year and for four years thereafter, the elementary-to-middle school feeders operate as a tie-breaking factor in the choice process. Beginning with the enrollment of students for the 2017-18 school year, fifth graders will receive an initial assignment to their feeder middle school based on the elementary school they attend, and they will have subsequent opportunities to participate in a choice process.
The 2017-18 school year was chosen for full implementation to allow time to bring the vision behind staff’s proposal to fruition. Below is a summary of the rationale and assumptions behind the staff proposal. o Reducing the number of sending elementary schools and knowing who incoming students will be provides each middle school with an opportunity to: • build a professional community and accountability between elementary teachers and administrators and middle school teachers and administrators to benefit students; and create a community among smaller groups of students and families for better articulation among the grade levels; and place an emphasis on early identification and proactive intervention to actively address each student’s academic needs; and develop a middle school mission that will prepare incoming students academically for the future; and coherently implement cohesive policies and strategies to support incoming students; and use assessment data for incoming students with student outcomes as the focus when developing the Balanced Score Card and allocating limited resources during the budget development process.
There is a link between robust enrollment and a school’s ability to provide equitable access to an enriched learning environment. • Under-enrolled middle schools have fewer teachers, fewer parents, smaller budgets, and therefore less opportunity to make sure all the students enrolled in the middle school have equitable access to electives, athletics, and enrichment programs available to children enrolled in large middle schools. The elementary-to-middle school feeders will facilitate improved communication with families, including targeted outreach and recruitment to help build robust 79 | P a g e
enrollment across all middle schools. The feeders provide an opportunity for parents and staff at elementary and middle schools to work closely together and share specific information that will help families understand how the school can support their child’s academic and enrichment needs. o The feeder patterns provide an opportunity to build connections between families and students to facilitate the transition between elementary and middle school. They also offer families a degree of predictability regarding where their children will attend school and minimize the degree of effort families must invest to enroll their children in school. Feeders support the strategic use of limited resources to provide a continuity of curriculum and academic programs from elementary to middle school, and they permit the efficient and cost-effective use of school facilities and transportation. Working in alignment with other District initiatives the feeders can help to decrease racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school. Middle schools are going to change – we do not expect status quo for our middle schools. Middle school principals, staff, and parent groups are waiting to build relationships with elementary communities so they can plan and work together to align services and resources to better meet the needs of all students.
Elementary to Middle School Feeders Sorted in alphabetical order by middle school
Middle School Elementary Carver Feinstein King ES Ortega Aptos MS Sloat Lakeshore Longfellow Miraloma Sheridan Denman MS Sunnyside Chavez Fairmount Marshall ES McKinley Milk Everett MS Sanchez CEC Chin Garfield Parker Tenderloin Francisco MS Yick Wo Drew Grattan Jefferson Key Stevenson Giannini MS Sunset Monroe Moscone Serra Ulloa West Portal Hoover MS Vis Valley MS Roosevelt MS Presidio MS Marina MS Lick MS King MS ISA MS Middle School Elementary Bryant Webster Hillcrest Malcolm X Taylor Alvarado Flynn Glen Park Harte MEC Muir Lau Montessori Redding Sherman Spring Valley Alamo Argonne Clarendon Lafayette Parks CIS @ DeAvila Cobb McCoppin New Traditions Peabody Sutro CEC Cleveland El Dorado Guadalupe Longfellow Vis Valley ES
5. General Education Transportation Policy
(108-24Sp1, Adopted by the Board on 12/14/2010) The Superintendent, or his/her designee, shall have the discretion to construe all terms in this General Education Transportation Policy and to approve specific transportation plans that he or she deems necessary to meet the requirements of the Board’s strategic plan, student assignment policy (P5101), and vision for after school services, and to comply with transfer and transportation obligations under No Child Left Behind or similar state or federal laws. As school bus transportation service is not a mandate under California law, the goals and objectives set forth below will guide the strategic use of resources for limited general education school bus transportation services. • Support choice in school assignment as a tactic for creating diverse learning environments. (a) Maintain school bus transportation services that help create diverse enrollments. (b) Provide school bus transportation to racially isolated schools that have historically been under enrolled. Support equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students. (a) Provide English Learners with reasonable access to language programs. (b) Provide newcomers with reasonable access to newcomer programs. (c) Provide low-income students living in areas of the city with the lowest average test scores (e.g., CTIP1 for the 2011-12 school year) with reasonable access to city-wide schools and programs. (d) Provide students living in densely populated attendance areas with reasonable access to schools in less densely populated areas of the city. Provide limited school bus transportation to support reasonable access for attendance area residents to their attendance areas school. To support the middle school assignment process outlined in P5101, provide limited transportation for middle school students in cases where a middle school attendance area is not reasonably accessible to the middle school, taking into account factors including the availability of reasonable MUNI routes. Transportation is not contemplated for general education high school students, and/or will only be considered when the Superintendent determines it is necessary to provide equitable access and reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school. Support SFUSD’s vision for after school services. (a) Provide limited school bus transportation to after school programs if feasible and necessary to support SFUSD’s vision for after school services. Minimize the use of unrestricted general fund budget contributions for general education school bus transportation.
This transportation policy overrides all terms in Board policies and administrative regulations that are inconsistent with any of its provisions, including but not limited to 5117.1 83 | P a g e
Academic Performance index (API): The API rank of a school is established by deciles, ranking schools from the lowest of 1 to the highest of 10. Two types of API ranks are reported, a statewide rank and a similar schools rank. A school’s base API is used to determine its rank and is used to compare to all other schools in the state of the same type (elementary, middle or high school) to determine statewide ranking. The similar schools rank is determined by comparing the school’s API to 100 other schools of the same type with a mix of similar demographic characteristics. For the purposes of this report, the API ranking refers to the statewide rank. Attendance Areas: Boundaries drawn around individual schools. Census Tract Integration Preference (“CTIP”): A preference in program or school assignment based on a demographic value that is assigned to each combined census tract. This preference is designed to facilitate attendance at the same schools by students who live in demographically different areas of the city. Currently, the CTIP value is based on average K-12 California Standards Test (“CST”) scores of students who reside in the combined census tract. An average K-12 CST score was computed for each combined census tract, and those combined census tracts were divided into quintiles based on average CST scores so that approximately 20% of all SFUSD students live within each quintile. Combined Census Tracts: Geographic areas containing one or more adjacent census tracts from the federal decennial Census. CTIP1: CTIP1 tracts are the combined census tracts with the lowest average CST scores. Designated assignments: Students who do not receive an assignment offer a school listed as one of their choices receive an assignment offer to the school closest to their home that has openings after choice assignments are made. These assignment offers are called designated assignments. Elementary City-Wide Schools: Elementary schools (K-5 and K-8 schools) that do not have an attendance area and therefore do not offer any local preference to students. The purpose of the city-wide school designation is to facilitate equitable access to the range of opportunities offered by SFUSD. Elementary City-Wide Programs: Programs that are (a) clearly defined and listed on the SFUSD application form as a discrete choice, (b) are available at a limited number of elementary attendance area schools, and (c) have a separate enrollment capacity with seats reserved specifically for students enrolled in the program (for example, the Cantonese Immersion program at West Portal), are designated city-wide programs, and they do not offer any local preference to students. The purpose of the city-wide program designation is to facilitate equitable access to the range of opportunities offered by SFUSD. 85 | P a g e
English Learner (“EL”): Students who are in the process of acquiring English as a second language and have not yet reached Fully English Proficient (“FEP”) status. Enrolled: Students are enrolled in a school or program if they have accepted an assignment to and actually begun attending that school or program. Feeder Patterns: Beginning with the assignment of students for the 2017-2018 school year, SFUSD fifth graders will receive an initial assignment to middle school based on the feeder pattern for the elementary school they attend, regardless of their residence. Middle School Feeder Tie-breaker: A preference category used in student assignment until the 2017-2018 school year, based on designated elementary-to-middle school feeder patterns. On Time Applicants: All applicants who submitted an enrollment application during the first placement period (November 15th, 2010 through February 18th, 2011) and received an assignment offer in March 2011. Program Pathway: A program that is listed as a discrete choice on the SFUSD enrollment form and continues from pre-K to kindergarten, elementary to middle school, and/or middle school to high school. Spanish Immersion is an example of a program pathway. General Education is not considered a program pathway. Racial/Ethnic Group: For the purposes of this report, the 20 racial/ethnic groups identified by the California Department of Education have been condensed to these six categories – African American, Chinese, Latino, White, Other Asians, and Other. Racial Isolation: Although SFUSD’s enrollment is racially/ethnically diverse and does not have a majority group, many of our schools have more than 60% of a single racial/ethnic group, more than 70% of a single racial/ethnic group, and more than 80% of a single racial/ethnic group. Some schools with more than 60% of a single racial/ethnic group also have an Academic Performance Index (API) of 1, 2, or 3. The Board considers these schools racially isolated. Tie-breakers: A set of preferences used to assign students when there are more requests than available seats. Tie-breakers work in hierarchical order depending on the school, grade, or program requested. Transitional Grades: The first grade of enrollment at any particular school. For example, in middle school, sixth grade is a transitional grade. Underserved Students: Students performing Below Basic or Far Below Basic on the California Standards Test or other equivalent assessments administered by SFUSD.
Documents Similar To Student Assignment 2nd Annual ReportSkip carouselcourageousconversations-2h5j1fpRJH 2014datareviewschooldistrictcasestudyNational Science FoundationThere Was Once a Man Who Had a Dreampersonalednarrativeitec7460unstructuredfieldlogwinslettModel Releaseblack history monthen parent survey questionsrace excel proj written partAssignment Culture and InclusionTyranny Speech303assignment 1 hsci 301Sionya_20160607_0001Final Race and Your Communityschool profile analaysisstephaniesMUSS 2009-2010 - Recruitment Info Packitec 7400 el draft template carverSample 2 (1)Do Schools Challenge Our Students?Wessmann v. Gittens, 160 F.3d 790, 1st Cir. (1998)antho final paper 1 descriptionschoolevalnordc 2017 summer camp registration applicationChild Maltreatment Fatality Review Report 2013Cat 2009 English Test 120Documents About Race And Ethnicity In The United States CensusSkip carouselDPA Fact Sheet_Drug War Mass Incarceration and Race_(Feb. 2016).pdf17057 NBCWSJ February Poll9amET_NBCWSJ_release17016 NBCWSJ January Poll Final - 5 PM Release2014_2015 Annual Provisional Suicide FiguresThe State of Diversity in Today’s Workforce161300 NBCWSJ December Poll FinalDo Non Citizens Vote in US Elections? Richman Research Study...CBS News Battleground TrackerAffidavitShaun White Legal ComplaintFCC Net Neutrality White HouseGAO Report Bill and Hillary Clinton Trashed the White HouseCBS News 2016 Battleground Tracker"Death Penalty for Female Offenders" by Victor StreibObama Executive Order - 2017 Presidential Transition AssemblyOhio Breitbart Gravis Poll Sept 25Jeff Gasaway Investigation Report from Plano ISD April 2010Romney Readiness Project2009 House of Representatives Compensation StudyCBS News December 2015 Battleground Tracker, New HampshireCBS News Battleground TrackerCBS News 2016 Battleground TrackerCBS News 2016 Battleground TrackerCBS News 2016 Battleground TrackerCBS News 2016 Battleground TrackerCBS News Battleground TrackerCBS News 2016 Battleground TrackerCBS News Battleground TrackerMorris County Data Book - Rev 2010 JanuaryMore From theschoolboardsSkip carouselSF FirstChoice AA Assignment 2014SFUSD 3rd Student Assignment Annual Report CPS Academic Center Cutoff Scores 2014-2015 -- Round OneSEHS Cutoff Scores 2014-20152013APICalifornia API Scores for San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) 20132013 NY State Test Scores2012-2013 API Scores for SFUSD Schools2013 G T Qualifiers Scoring in the 99th Percentilev2G&T Testers by Grade District and EligibilityNYCGiftedandTalentedFAQ_413NYCGiftedandTalentedLetterfromPearsontoFamilies_413Kindergarten Admissions Data 2013Schools With Potential Openings 13-14Summary of 2013 Testers Scoring in the 99th Percentile Compared to 2012Summary of 2013 Testers by District Grade and Eligibility2013- 2014 NYC School Year CalendarNYChighschoolapps_2013Description of the SFUSD Student Assignment ProcessSEHS Cutoff Scores 2013-2014CPS ISAT Score 2012CPS Mean ACT Composite Score 20122011-2012 California API for SFUSDHunter College High School Sample Entrance ExamNYC Social Media GuidelinesPreliminary Summary of 2012 Testers Scoring in the 99th Percentile Compared to 2011 for ReleaseTJHSST Admissions Statistics 2012 vs 2011CitywideG&amp;TOutlineOlsat Erb ChartAcademic Center Cutoff Scores 2012-2013