Upload
theschoolboards
View
94
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Annual Report for the 2012-2013 School Year
Citation preview
STUDENT ASSIGNMENT
4/17/2013 Annual Report: 2012-13 School Year
Student Assignment 2012-13
i | P a g e
Preface
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
ii | P a g e
Student Assignment 2012-13
iii | P a g e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
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.
Amendments to Date
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.
Questions Explored
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
Student Assignment 2012-13
iv | 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
Student Assignment 2012-13
v | 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.
Attendance Areas
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
Student Assignment 2012-13
vi | P a g e
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.
Next Steps
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 2012-13 school year.
Student Assignment 2012-13
1 | P a g e
Table of Contents
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. Historical Context .......................................................................................................... 69 2. Student Assignment Tie-Breakers: 2012-13 School Year .............................................. 73 3. Census Tract Integration Preference (CTIP) .................................................................. 77 4. Middle School Feeders .................................................................................................. 79 5. General Education Transportation Policy ....................................................................... 83 6. Glossary of Terms ......................................................................................................... 85
Student Assignment 2012-13
2 | P a g e
Student Assignment 2012-13
3 | P a g e
INTRODUCTION
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.
Student Assignment Policy
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
4 | P a g e
Student Assignment System
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.
Monitoring Student Assignment
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
5 | P a g e
AMENDMENTS TO DATE
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.
Policy Amendments
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
6 | P a g e
Administrative Changes
• 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 tie-
breaker 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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
7 | P a g e
QUESTIONS EXPLORED
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. To what degree is SFUSD reversing the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school?
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?
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?
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?
5. 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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
8 | P a g e
Student Assignment 2012-13
9 | P a g e
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.
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.
African American
9%
Latino25%
Chinese32%
Other Asian8%
Other13%
White13%
Chart 1: K-12 enrollment, October 2012
Student Assignment 2012-13
10 | P a g e
• 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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
11 | P a g e
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)
School Name October API
# Enrolled
% African American
% Chinese
% Latino
% Other Asian
% Other
% White
Elementary Schools
Bryant ES 2009 1 241 3% 0% 90% 2% 5% 0%
2010 1 240 2% 0% 89% 2% 6% 0%
2011 1 248 4% 0% 87% 2% 6% 1%
2012 1 249 2% 1% 90% 2% 4% 0%
Carver ES 2009 1 283 70% 0% 6% 1% 23% 1%
2010 1 282 72% 0% 6% 1% 20% 1%
2011 1 249 70% 0% 9% 1% 20% 1%
2012 1 242 66% 0% 12% 2% 19% 1%
Chavez ES 2009 1 495 2% 1% 87% 2% 8% 0%
2010 1 471 3% 1% 86% 3% 7% 0%
2011 1 480 4% 2% 83% 4% 7% 1%
2012
465 3% 2% 85% 2% 8% 1%
Chin ES 2009 9 263 4% 78% 2% 2% 10% 5%
2010 9 257 2% 80% 2% 3% 8% 5%
2011 9 251 0% 85% 1% 3% 6% 4%
2012 10 264 1% 83% 1% 3% 8% 5%
Cleveland ES 2009 1 307 7% 7% 71% 7% 8% 0%
2010 1 335 5% 6% 73% 8% 7% 2%
2011 1 338 4% 5% 77% 6% 7% 1%
2012 1 346 3% 3% 80% 6% 7% 1%
Drew ES 2009 1* 256 77% 0% 8% 1% 13% 1%
2010 1* 270 78% 0% 10% 2% 10% 1%
2011 1 276 76% 0% 11% 1% 12% 0%
2012 1 286 74% 0% 12% 2% 12% 0%
Fairmount ES 2009 3 364 8% 1% 64% 3% 10% 14%
2010 1 368 5% 1% 67% 2% 9% 17%
2011 4 386 5% 1% 67% 2% 8% 17%
2012 3 391 4% 2% 67% 2% 6% 19%
Flynn ES 2009 1 478 16% 0% 53% 3% 9% 18%
2010 1 482 16% 0% 53% 3% 9% 19%
2011 1 478 15% 0% 57% 3% 6% 19%
2012 1 471 13% 0% 63% 2% 6% 16%
Student Assignment 2012-13
12 | P a g e
School Name October API
# Enrolled
% African American
% Chinese
% Latino
% Other Asian
% Other
% White
Garfield ES 2009 8 228 7% 60% 4% 4% 14% 11%
2010 6 231 7% 58% 4% 3% 16% 12%
2011 7 249 7% 55% 7% 6% 12% 12%
2012 6 255 9% 50% 12% 5% 13% 12%
Lau ES 2009 8 670 0% 82% 11% 1% 6% 0%
2010 7 666 0% 84% 11% 1% 4% 1%
2011 7 668 0% 83% 12% 1% 4% 0%
2012 6 647 0% 87% 8% 1% 5% 0%
Malcolm X ES 2009 1* 104 64% 0% 6% 1% 28% 2%
2010 1* 87 56% 0% 13% 3% 28% 0%
2011 5* 106 67% 1% 7% 5% 20% 1%
2012 4* 112 72% 0% 10% 1% 17% 0%
Marshall ES 2009 2 240 3% 0% 79% 2% 8% 9%
2010 3 239 3% 0% 81% 2% 6% 8%
2011 3 244 3% 0% 83% 2% 5% 7%
2012 4 249 3% 0% 82% 2% 4% 8%
Moscone ES 2009 9 340 2% 30% 58% 2% 7% 2%
2010 8 331 2% 28% 60% 2% 7% 2%
2011 7 336 2% 25% 63% 2% 7% 2%
2012 7 351 1% 27% 63% 1% 6% 1%
Parker ES 2009 8 263 3% 83% 5% 1% 6% 2%
2010 7 272 4% 82% 4% 2% 6% 3%
2011 8 292 3% 81% 5% 1% 7% 2%
2012 7 273 4% 81% 7% 2% 5% 2%
Sanchez ES 2009 1 268 4% 1% 83% 2% 9% 2%
2010 1 260 5% 1% 82% 1% 9% 2%
2011 1 280 6% 1% 81% 1% 7% 4%
2012 1 258 5% 0% 81% 1% 9% 4%
Serra ES 2009 5 267 7% 6% 65% 6% 13% 4%
2010
278 5% 6% 63% 6% 13% 7%
2011 1 282 6% 5% 69% 4% 11% 5%
2012 2 282 7% 5% 71% 3% 10% 5%
Stevenson ES 2009 10 462 2% 68% 1% 5% 17% 6%
2010 10 473 3% 71% 2% 5% 15% 5%
2011 10 469 2% 73% 2% 5% 14% 5%
2012 10 493 1% 75% 2% 3% 15% 4%
Sutro ES 2009 8 238 2% 66% 6% 3% 12% 11%
2010 8 247 2% 66% 3% 5% 12% 11%
2011 9 240 1% 67% 3% 5% 14% 10%
2012 8 242 0% 66% 4% 6% 15% 9%
Ulloa ES 2009 10 508 3% 67% 3% 5% 16% 7%
2010 10 500 3% 69% 3% 5% 15% 6%
2011 10 508 2% 71% 2% 5% 14% 6%
2012 10 507 1% 73% 3% 4% 14% 5%
Student Assignment 2012-13
13 | P a g e
School Name October API
# Enrolled
% African American
% Chinese
% Latino
% Other Asian
% Other
% White
K8 Schools
Lawton K8 2009 10 609 4% 57% 4% 7% 22% 7%
2010 10 613 4% 57% 4% 6% 21% 7%
2011 10 611 3% 61% 4% 6% 20% 6%
2012 10 607 3% 60% 5% 6% 20% 7%
Buena Vista ES 2009 1 375 6% 0% 66% 1% 8% 18%
2010 3 393 5% 0% 70% 1% 7% 17%
Mann MS 2009 1 238 16% 1% 68% 3% 10% 3%
2010 1 198 14% 1% 72% 3% 10% 1%
BV/Mann K8 2011 1 615 7% 0% 72% 1% 6% 14%
(merged in 2011) 2012 2 590 4% 0% 74% 1% 6% 15%
Middle Schools
Brown MS 2009 1 181 73% 0% 4% 1% 22% 1%
(closed in 2011) 2010 1 166 69% 0% 5% 1% 24% 1%
Francisco MS 2009 3 640 11% 59% 13% 3% 11% 3%
2010 2 570 13% 58% 13% 3% 9% 4%
2011 3 587 13% 62% 11% 2% 10% 3%
2012 3 547 10% 64% 10% 2% 11% 3%
Lick MS 2009 4 593 8% 1% 66% 2% 11% 12%
2010 4 571 7% 1% 66% 2% 11% 13%
2011 4 554 7% 2% 64% 2% 11% 14%
2012 4 561 7% 2% 67% 1% 10% 14%
Marina MS 2009 8 904 8% 62% 12% 2% 12% 4%
2010 6 881 9% 54% 14% 4% 14% 6%
2011 7 832 10% 53% 14% 3% 13% 6%
2012 6 818 10% 48% 16% 6% 13% 7%
High Schools
Galileo HS 2009 7 2092 5% 61% 10% 5% 15% 3%
2010 7 2149 5% 61% 10% 6% 16% 3%
2011 7 2133 5% 61% 12% 5% 15% 3%
2012 7 2100 5% 61% 14% 4% 13% 3%
O'Connell HS 2009 1 623 11% 3% 70% 6% 8% 2%
2010 1 604 16% 5% 61% 8% 9% 2%
2011 1 475 16% 7% 58% 8% 9% 3%
2012 1 453 16% 6% 59% 8% 8% 4%
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).
Student Assignment 2012-13
14 | P a g e
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.
• 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%.
Chart 2: # schools with more than 60% of a single race/ethnicity 2009-2012
African American
Chinese
LatinoTotal
20092010
20112012
43
33
97
9 9
11 11 10 11
2421 22 23
African American
Chinese
Latino
Total
Student Assignment 2012-13
15 | 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
1. Francisco Francisco’s enrollment decreased from 640 students to 547 students the percent Chinese increased from 59% to 64%. Francisco has a Chinese language pathway that reserves seats for Chinese speaking students.
Student Assignment 2012-13
16 | P a g e
Student Assignment 2012-13
17 | P a g e
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
18 | P a g e
Kindergarten
Map 1: Racial/ethnic diversity of K enrollment, K applicants, and K attendance area residents
Student Assignment 2012-13
19 | P a g e
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).
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
20 | P a g e
6th Grade
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.
Map 2: Racial/ethnic diversity of 6th grade enrollment and 6th grade applicants
Student Assignment 2012-13
21 | P a g e
9th Grade
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.
Map 3: Racial/ethnic diversity of 9th grade enrollment and 9th grade applicants
Student Assignment 2012-13
22 | P a g e
Conclusion
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
23 | P a g e
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
24 | P a g e
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
25 | P a g e
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).
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 African American students living in CTIP1 decreased from 761 in 2009 to 631 in 2012.
o Chinese students increased from 215 in 2009 to 260 in 2011, but decreased to 229 in
2012.
o 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.
o 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.
2009 2010 2011 2012
White 102 110 148 134
Other Asian 169 146 173 165
Other 300 272 244 304
Latino 1124 1131 1114 1166
Chinese 215 241 260 229
African American 761 667 654 631
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000Before the CTIP1 Priority With the CTIP1 Priority
Chart 3: Racial/ethnic diversity of K/6/9 students that live in CTIP1 (2009-2012)
Student Assignment 2012-13
26 | 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) 2012
(second year of CTIP1 tie-breaker)
Number of kindergartners
265 266
Number of schools
51 52
Number of schools with fewer than three kindergartners
32 schools had three or fewer kindergartners
• 15 schools had one kindergartner
• Nine schools had two kindergartners
• Eight schools had three kindergartners
27 schools had three or fewer kindergartners
• 17 schools had one kindergartner
• Four schools had two kindergartners
• Six schools had three kindergartners
Number of schools with four to nine kindergartners
12 18
Number of schools with more than 10 kindergartners
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
27 | 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.
o 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 African American Chinese Latino Other White API
Carmichael K8 11% 3% 26% 57% 3% 2
Carver ES 66% 0% 12% 20% 1% 1
Cobb ES 57% 2% 18% 17% 7% 3
Drew ES 74% 0% 12% 14% 0% 1
Harte ES 39% 0% 37% 23% 1% 1
King ES 20% 21% 19% 16% 24% 4
Malcolm X ES 72% 0% 10% 18% 0% 4
Muir ES 37% 0% 50% 12% 2% 1
Parks ES 34% 2% 15% 36% 13% 2
o All of the schools are located in/near CTIP1 areas.
o Seven of the schools (70%) have concentrations of historically underserved
students (i.e., an API of 3 or lower)
o At four of the schools (40%), more than 50% of the students enrolled are African
American.
Student Assignment 2012-13
28 | P a g e
CHINESE Kindergartners Living in CTIP1 and Enrolled in School
2010
(before CTIP1 tie-breaker) 2012
(second year of CTIP1 tie-breaker)
Number of kindergartners
69 86
Number of schools
29 28
Number of schools with fewer than three kindergartners
24 schools had three or fewer kindergartners
• 17 schools had one kindergartner
• Six schools had two kindergartners
• One schools had three kindergartners
22 schools had three or fewer kindergartners
• 13 schools had one kindergartner
• Five schools had two kindergartners
• Four schools had three kindergartners
Number of schools with four to nine kindergartners
4 5
Number of schools with more than 10 kindergartners
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.
o 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).
Student Assignment 2012-13
29 | P a g e
Table 3: October 2012 enrollment demographics and API for schools with more than four Chinese kindergartners living in CTIP1 (2010 and/or 2012)
School African American Chinese Latino Other White API
Chin ES 1% 83% 1% 10% 5% 10
Hillcrest ES 9% 25% 43% 20% 3% 1
Lau ES 0% 87% 8% 5% 0% 6
Moscone ES 1% 27% 63% 7% 1% 7
Spring Valley ES 4% 44% 36% 11% 5% 7
Visitacion Valley ES 15% 47% 15% 24% 0% 5
Yu Alt K8 4% 59% 4% 25% 8% 10
o 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)
o With the exception of Hillcrest, all the schools have an API of 5 or higher.
o At 3 of the schools (42%), more than 50% of the students enrolled are Chinese.
Student Assignment 2012-13
30 | P a g e
LATINO Kindergartners Living in CTIP1 and Enrolled in School
2010
(before CTIP1 tie-breaker) 2012
(second year of CTIP1 tie-breaker)
Number of kindergartners
481 503
Number of schools
49 62
Number of schools with fewer than three kindergartners
17 schools had three or fewer kindergartners
• Eight schools had one kindergartner
• Three schools had two kindergartners
• Six schools had three kindergartners
30 schools had three or fewer kindergartners
• 14 schools had one kindergartner
• 10 schools had two kindergartners
• Six schools had three kindergartners
Number of schools with four to 14 kindergartners
23 20
Number of schools with more than 15 kindergartners
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
31 | P a g e
o The number of kindergartners at Alvarado, Hillcrest, Muir and Sanchez increased
between 2010 and 2012
o Muir and Sanchez experienced the greatest increase: Muir grew from three to 17,
and Sanchez grew from 13 to 23.
o 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.
o 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 African American Chinese Latino Other White API
Alvarado ES 5% 1% 42% 13% 40% 7
Bryant ES 2% 1% 90% 6% 0% 1
Buena Vista/ Mann K8 4% 0% 74% 7% 15% 2
Chavez ES 3% 2% 85% 9% 1%
Fairmount ES 4% 2% 67% 8% 19% 3
Flynn ES 13% 0% 63% 7% 16% 1
Harte ES 39% 0% 37% 23% 1% 1
Hillcrest ES 9% 25% 43% 20% 3% 1
Marshall ES 3% 0% 82% 7% 8% 4
Moscone ES 1% 27% 63% 7% 1% 7
Muir ES 37% 0% 50% 12% 2% 1
Sanchez ES 5% 0% 81% 10% 4% 1
Tenderloin ES 16% 5% 33% 44% 3% 2
o 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.
o 10 of the schools (77%) have concentrations of historically underserved students
(i.e., an API of 3 or lower)
o At nine of the schools (69%), more than 50% of the students enrolled are Latino.
Student Assignment 2012-13
32 | P a g e
WHITE Kindergartners Living in CTIP1 and Enrolled in School
2010
(before CTIP1 tie-breaker) 2012
(second year of CTIP1 tie-breaker)
Number of kindergartners
66 88
Number of schools
28 30
Number of schools with fewer than three kindergartners
22 schools had three or fewer kindergartners
• 16 schools had one kindergartner
• Four schools had two kindergartners
• Two schools had three kindergartners
22 schools had 3 or fewer kindergartners
• 16 schools had one kindergartner
• Five schools had two kindergartners
• One school had three kindergartners
Number of schools with four to 14 kindergartners
6 5
Number of schools with more than 10 kindergartners
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.
o 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
Student Assignment 2012-13
33 | P a g e
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 African American Chinese Latino Other White API
Clarendon ES 5% 13% 12% 37% 34% 10
Lilienthal K8 9% 8% 11% 37% 35% 9
McKinley ES 14% 3% 14% 14% 55% 6
o All of the schools are located far from CTIP1 and in areas of the city where the
residential demographics are predominantly White.
o All of the schools have an API of 6 or higher.
o The percent of White students enrolled in the schools ranges from 34% to 55%,
compared with a district-wide enrollment that is 13% White.
Student Assignment 2012-13
34 | P a g e
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 Year API African American Chinese Latino Other Asian Other White
Clarendon ES
2010 10 6% 15% 9% 19% 19% 33%
2012 10 5% 13% 12% 19% 18% 34%
Rooftop K8
2010 9 16% 14% 23% 7% 19% 22%
2012 8 15% 12% 23% 6% 16% 28%
Sherman ES
2010 8 5% 35% 11% 4% 15% 31%
2012 10 8% 26% 14% 5% 14% 32%
Taylor ES
2010 8 4% 53% 26% 4% 13% 1%
2012 9 3% 53% 29% 3% 12% 1%
Observations
• None of these schools were racially isolated with high concentrations of underserved
students in 2010 before the CTIP1 tie-breaker existed.
o All schools have an API of 8 or higher.
o 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 The percent African American decreased at all schools except Sherman.
o The percent Chinese decreased at all schools, except Taylor where it remained the
same.
o The percent Latino increased at all schools, except Rooftop where it remained the
same.
o The percent White increased at all schools, except Taylor where it remained the
same.
Student Assignment 2012-13
35 | P a g e
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 Year API African American Chinese Latino Other Asian Other White
Carver ES
2010 1 72% 0% 6% 1% 20% 1%
2012 1 66% 0% 12% 2% 19% 1%
Chavez ES
2010 1 3% 1% 86% 3% 7% 0%
2012
3% 2% 85% 2% 8% 1%
Drew ES
2010 1 78% 0% 10% 2% 10% 1%
2012 1 74% 0% 12% 2% 12% 0%
Vis Valley ES
2010 7 16% 42% 15% 9% 18% 1%
2012 5 15% 47% 15% 6% 18% 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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
36 | P a g e
Conclusion
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
37 | P a g e
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/tie-
breaking 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 tie-
breaker 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) 2012-2013
(with tie-breaker) Difference
School % Any Choice
% First Choice
% Any Choice
% First Choice
% Any Choice
% First Choice
A P GIANNINI 89% 65% 96% 86% 7% 21%
APTOS 59% 28% 86% 51% 27% 24%
DENMAN 23% 10% 57% 19% 33% 9%
EVERETT 25% 14% 43% 24% 18% 11%
FRANCISCO 56% 25% 66% 35% 11% 10%
HOOVER 70% 29% 80% 44% 10% 15%
ISA 22% 14% 13% 9% -8% -5%
LICK 44% 22% 48% 26% 4% 4%
MARINA 53% 22% 68% 34% 14% 12%
ML KING 48% 33% 62% 43% 13% 10%
PRESIDIO 86% 67% 96% 84% 9% 17%
ROOSEVELT 67% 27% 88% 49% 21% 21%
VIS VALLEY MS 36% 22% 36% 27% 0% 5% Ref: q4_3_1mid
Student Assignment 2012-13
38 | P a g e
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
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.
o 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.
65%
28%
10% 14%25% 29%
14%22% 22%
33%
67%
27% 22%
86%
51%
19% 24%35%
44%
9%
26%34%
43%
84%
49%
27%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2011-12
2012-13
Student Assignment 2012-13
39 | P a g e
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
Middle School
% enrolled in 6th grade from elementary feeder – 2011
(without tie-breaker)
% enrolled in 6th grade from elementary feeder - 2012-
(with tie-breaker)
Difference
A P GIANNINI 42% 85% 43%
APTOS 15% 46% 31%
DENMAN 14% 29% 15%
EVERETT 13% 22% 9%
FRANCISCO 25% 39% 14%
HOOVER 28% 55% 27%
ISA 12% 6% -6%
LICK 18% 23% 5%
MARINA 31% 43% 12%
ML KING 34% 44% 10%
PRESIDIO 45% 81% 36%
ROOSEVELT 26% 66% 40%
VIS VALLEY MS 14% 27% 13%
Chart 5: Percent of students enrolled in 6th grade who attended an elementary feeder
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%
2011-2012 2012-2013
Student Assignment 2012-13
40 | P a g e
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.
o 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).
o 26% of students enrolled Roosevelt in 2011 came from the elementary schools
feeding into Roosevelt, compared with 66% in 2012 (40% change).
o 45% of students enrolled Presidio in 2011 came from the elementary schools feeding
into Presidio, compared with 81% in 2012 (36% change).
o 15% of students enrolled Aptos in 2011 came from the elementary schools feeding
into Aptos, compared with 46% in 2012 (31% change).
Student Assignment 2012-13
41 | P a g e
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
2011-2012 SY Enrollment
(without tie-breaker)
2012-2013 SY Enrollment
(with tie-breaker)
Difference
A P GIANNINI 6 50 43 -7
APTOS 5 49 45 -4
EVERETT 6 44 30 -14
FRANCISCO 5 36 23 -13
HOOVER 5 49 42 -7
ISA 2 24 22 -2
DENMAN 5 42 31 -11
LICK 6 25 27 +2
MARINA 5 52 50 -2
ML KING 3 38 29 -9
PRESIDIO 5 48 38 -10
ROOSEVELT 6 42 37 -5
VIS VALLEY 4 44 25 -19
AVERAGE 5 42 34
Chart 6: Number of elementary schools feeding into each middle school
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2011-2012 SY 2012-2013 SY # ES Feeders
Student Assignment 2012-13
42 | P a g e
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.
o 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.
o 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 Year African American
Chinese
Latino Other Other Asian
White
A P GIANNINI 2011-2012 7% 51% 10% 13% 7% 12%
2012-2013 7% 49% 9% 10% 11% 14%
A P GIANNINI difference 0% -2% -1% -4% 4% 2%
APTOS 2011-2012 11% 21% 32% 12% 9% 16%
2012-2013 11% 26% 32% 9% 10% 13%
APTOS difference 0% 4% 0% -3% 1% -3%
DENMAN 2011-2012 7% 21% 37% 11% 20% 5%
2012-2013 7% 15% 40% 7% 25% 5%
DENMAN difference 1% -6% 3% -4% 5% 0%
Student Assignment 2012-13
43 | P a g e
Middle School Year African American
Chinese
Latino Other Other Asian
White
EVERETT 2011-2012 16% 8% 42% 9% 10% 15%
2012-2013 10% 3% 52% 11% 5% 18%
EVERETT difference -6% -5% 10% 2% -5% 3%
FRANCISCO 2011-2012 10% 53% 11% 14% 7% 5%
2012-2013 11% 59% 10% 9% 8% 5%
FRANCISCO difference 0% 6% -1% -5% 0% 0%
HOOVER 2011-2012 6% 48% 23% 8% 9% 6%
2012-2013 4% 48% 23% 10% 10% 6%
HOOVER difference -2% -1% -1% 2% 1% 0%
ISA 2011-2012 41% 2% 31% 16% 0% 10%
2012-2013 18% 2% 43% 20% 11% 7%
ISA difference -23% 0% 12% 4% 11% -3%
LICK 2011-2012 10% 1% 69% 9% 1% 11%
2012-2013 4% 1% 70% 9% 4% 12%
LICK difference -6% 0% 2% 0% 3% 1%
MARINA 2011-2012 11% 51% 15% 8% 6% 9%
2012-2013 9% 41% 18% 12% 11% 10%
MARINA difference -1% -11% 3% 3% 6% 1%
ML KING 2011-2012 18% 33% 20% 8% 18% 3%
2012-2013 17% 26% 31% 10% 15% 2%
ML KING difference -1% -7% 11% 2% -3% -2%
PRESIDIO 2011-2012 7% 41% 10% 12% 12% 18%
2012-2013 7% 34% 9% 14% 14% 22%
PRESIDIO difference 0% -6% -2% 2% 3% 4%
ROOSEVELT 2011-2012 7% 33% 14% 12% 15% 20%
2012-2013 5% 42% 12% 14% 12% 15%
ROOSEVELT difference -2% 9% -2% 2% -3% -5%
VIS VALLEY MS 2011-2012 21% 17% 30% 10% 12% 10%
2012-2013 31% 17% 28% 11% 9% 4%
VIS VALLEY difference 10% 0% -2% 0% -3% -6%
OBSERVATIONS
• It is too soon to reach tentative conclusions about whether the middle school 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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
44 | 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.
o There was an increase in the percent of African Americans enrolled in Visitaction Valley, going from 21% to 31%.
o 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.
o 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).
o 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.
Conclusion
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
45 | P a g e
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?
Outreach and Recruitment
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 pre-
schools, 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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
46 | 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
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.
24%
4%
13%
9% 9%
5%
20%
3%
10% 9% 9%
4%
23%
4%
11% 11%9%
6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
AfricanAmerican
Chinese Latino Other Other Asian White
2010
2011
2012
Conclusion
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
47 | P a g e
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
48 | P a g e
Kindergarten
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?
1
2
3
4
5
Attend school with sibling 20% 1% 5% 5% 69%
Attend after school program at school 7% 4% 15% 16% 58%
Language pathway 13% 6% 18% 16% 47%
Special education services 39% 9% 18% 9% 24%
School bus transportation 35% 11% 19% 9% 26%
Near home 7% 4% 16% 16% 57%
Near childcare 27% 9% 20% 14% 30%
Near work 25% 10% 26% 14% 25%
School hours 5% 4% 19% 22% 49%
Diversity of students 6% 4% 23% 25% 42%
Neighborhood safety 1% 0% 4% 11% 84%
School’s academic reputation 1% 0% 5% 15% 79%
Teachers and principal 1% 0% 3% 13% 83%
Parent community 1% 1% 9% 23% 66%
Recommended by family/friends 4% 3% 17% 25% 51%
Chart 8: % kindergarten families rated factors 1(not important) to 5 (very important)
69%58%
47%
24% 26%
57%
30%25%
49%42%
84%79% 83%
66%
51%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
1 Not important 2 3 4 5 Very Important
Student Assignment 2012-13
49 | P a g e
6th Grade
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?
1
2
3
4
5
Attend school with sibling 20% 2% 8% 8% 62%
Attend after school program at school 8% 3% 14% 15% 60%
Language pathway 17% 5% 19% 16% 42%
Special education services 29% 7% 18% 14% 32%
School bus transportation 24% 7% 18% 13% 37%
Near home 10% 5% 15% 16% 54%
Near childcare 32% 9% 21% 12% 27%
Near work 26% 9% 23% 15% 27%
School hours 7% 3% 17% 20% 53%
Diversity of students 6% 3% 23% 23% 45%
Neighborhood safety 1% 0% 3% 8% 87%
School’s academic reputation 1% 0% 5% 13% 80%
Teachers and principal 1% 0% 3% 11% 85%
Parent community 1% 1% 12% 24% 61%
Recommended by family/friends 4% 3% 17% 23% 54%
Chart 9: % 6th grade families who rated factors 1(not important) to 5 (very important)
62% 60%
42%32%
37%
54%
27% 27%
53%45%
87%80%
85%
61%54%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
1 Not important 2 3 4 5 Very Important
Student Assignment 2012-13
50 | P a g e
9th Grade
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?
1
2
3
4
5
Attend school with sibling 34% 4% 13% 9% 40%
Attend after school program at school 20% 8% 20% 17% 36%
Language pathway 28% 6% 22% 17% 28%
Special education services 43% 8% 17% 10% 21%
School bus transportation 37% 8% 19% 12% 24%
Near home 15% 7% 21% 14% 42%
Near childcare 53% 11% 17% 7% 12%
Near work 41% 10% 23% 10% 15%
School hours 13% 6% 23% 21% 37%
Diversity of students 10% 6% 28% 22% 34%
Neighborhood safety 2% 1% 5% 13% 79%
School’s academic reputation 1% 1% 7% 16% 75%
Teachers and principal 1% 1% 6% 15% 76%
Parent community 4% 4% 17% 25% 49%
Recommended by family/friends 6% 5% 21% 25% 44%
Chart 10: % 9th grade families who rated factors 1(not important) to 5 (very important)
40%36%
28%21% 24%
42%
12% 15%
37% 34%
79% 75% 76%
49%44%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
1 Not important 2 3 4 5 Very Important
Student Assignment 2012-13
51 | P a g e
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.
o Teachers and principals was rated very important by 83% of kindergarten families,
85% of 6th grade families, and 76% of 9th grade families.
o 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 Parent community was rated very important by 66% of kindergarten families, 61% of
6th grade families, and 49% of 9th grade families.
o 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.
Conclusion
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
52 | P a g e
Student Assignment 2012-13
53 | P a g e
ATTENDANCE AREA BOUNDARIES
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
54 | P a g e
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
Student Assignment 2012-13
55 | P a g e
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).
o 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.
o 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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
56 | P a g e
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
Student Assignment 2012-13
57 | P a g e
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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
58 | P a g e
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
59 | P a g e
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
60 | P a g e
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.
Conclusion
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
61 | P a g e
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 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
# Buses
# Schools # Elementary riders
# Middle riders
2010-11 44 59 elementary / five middle 3,300 358
2011-12 38 48 elementary/ five middle 2,400 379
2012-13 30 42 elementary/ six middle 1,618 309
2013-14 25 39 elementary/ six middle unknown 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).
Student Assignment 2012-13
62 | P a g e
Changes Implemented for the 2011-12 School Year (6 fewer buses)
11 schools lost general education transportation services in August 2011. • Chavez • Garfield • Grattan • Key • Marshall • Miraloma
• Parker • Peabody • Sunset • Sutro • Yick Wo
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 Stops with low ridership and stops within ½ mile of each other were deleted.
o One bus instead of two buses per school was available to provide services to Hillcrest, Ortega, Parks, Taylor, and Ulloa.
o Two buses instead of three buses per school was available to provide services to Sherman and Rooftop.
o One bus instead of three buses was available to maintain services for Carver and Malcolm X.
o 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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
63 | P a g e
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
64 | P a g e
The following general education transportation services will be available for the 2013-14 school
year.
• 39 elementary schools will receive limited transportation:
1. ALAMO
2. ALVARADO
3. ARGONNE
4. BV/MANN K-8
5. CARMICHAEL K8
6. CARVER
7. CHIN
8. CLARENDON
9. DREW
10. EL DORADO
11. FAIRMOUNT
12. FLYNN
13. GLEN PARK
14. HILLCREST
15. LAFAYETTE
16. LAKESHORE
17. LAWTON K-8
18. LILIENTHAL K-8
19. MALCOLM X
20. MEC
21. MILK
22. MUIR
23. ORTEGA
24. PARKS
25. REVERE K-8
26. ROOFTOP K-8
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
• 6 middle schools will receive limited transportation:
1. APTOS
2. FRANCISCO
3. GIANNINI
4. HOOVER
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 Safe Routes to School: www.sfsaferoutes.org
o Walking School Bus: www.walksf.org
o Family Biking: www.sfbike.org
o SchoolPool: www.WePool2School.org
o MUNI: www.sfmta.com
Student Assignment 2012-13
65 | P a g e
NEXT STEPS
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 2012-13 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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
66 | P a g e
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
67 | P a g e
APPENDIX
Student Assignment 2012-13
68 | P a g e
Student Assignment 2012-13
69 | P a g e
1. Historical Context
Consent Decree
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
70 | P a g e
Diversity Index
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.
Hearing from the Community
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
71 | P a g e
Current Policy
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
72 | P a g e
Student Assignment 2012-13
73 | 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.
Tie-Breakers
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
74 | P a g e
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
Student Assignment 2012-13
75 | P a g e
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
76 | P a g e
Student Assignment 2012-13
77 | P a g e
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 tie-
breaker, 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)
Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc., computations. % may seem not to total 100 percent because of rounding.
CTIP region Description
Shading on map
Lowest
average CST-ELA score of
tracts in CTIP region
Highest
average CST-ELA score of
tracts in CTIP region
Number of
2006-2009 K-12 student
residents with CST scores
Percent of K-12 test-
taking students who
were in CTIP region
Percent of all K-12 students
who were in CTIP region
CTIP 1 lowest quintile darkest
green
296.7 331.4 29,783 20.6% 21.3%
CTIP 2 next-to-lowest
quintile
medium
green
331.5 345.0 29,105 20.1% 19.8%
CTIP 3 middle quintile lighest green 345.2 357.4 28,700 19.8% 19.7%
CTIP 4 next-to-highest
quintile
lighter purple 358.1 376.4 28,770 19.9% 19.3%
CTIP 5 highest quintile dark purple 376.4 407.0 28,472 19.7% 19.9%
Total 296.7 407.0 144,830 100% 100%
Student Assignment 2012-13
78 | P a g e
Map A: All CTIP Regions (1-5)
Map B: CTIP1 Regions
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 (left) shows the geographic pattern for CTIP1 (i.e., areas of the city with the lowest average test scores)
Student Assignment 2012-13
79 | P a g e
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.
o 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.
o 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
Student Assignment 2012-13
80 | 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
81 | P a g e
Elementary to Middle School Feeders
Sorted in alphabetical order by middle school
Middle School Elementary
Aptos MS
Carver
Feinstein
King ES
Ortega
Sloat
Denman MS
Lakeshore
Longfellow
Miraloma
Sheridan
Sunnyside
Everett MS
Chavez
Fairmount
Marshall ES
McKinley
Milk
Sanchez
Francisco MS
CEC
Chin
Garfield
Parker
Tenderloin
Yick Wo
Giannini MS
Drew
Grattan
Jefferson
Key
Stevenson
Sunset
Hoover MS
Monroe
Moscone
Serra
Ulloa West Portal
Middle School Elementary
ISA MS
Bryant
Webster
King MS
Hillcrest
Malcolm X
Taylor
Lick MS
Alvarado
Flynn
Glen Park
Harte
MEC
Muir
Marina MS
Lau
Montessori
Redding
Sherman
Spring Valley
Presidio MS
Alamo
Argonne
Clarendon
Lafayette
Parks
Roosevelt MS
CIS @ DeAvila
Cobb
McCoppin
New Traditions
Peabody
Sutro
Vis Valley MS
CEC
Cleveland
El Dorado
Guadalupe
Longfellow
Vis Valley ES
Student Assignment 2012-13
82 | P a g e
Student Assignment 2012-13
83 | P a g e
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
Student Assignment 2012-13
84 | P a g e
Student Assignment 2012-13
85 | P a g e
6. Glossary of Terms
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.
Student Assignment 2012-13
86 | 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.