San Francisco County Grand Jury • 2007-2008

The 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury for the*

Published: June 26, 2008 32 pages Consolidated Report
Ver PDF original

Findings 10 findings

F1
The SFUSD's school choice process and its Diversity Index are unnecessarily complex and confusing, time consuming, alienating to the families the District purports to serve and, most damning, fail to deliver a diversified school population. D. Back into the Ring for Round Two and Beyond Round Two applicants found out the results on April 27, 2008, and, if they received an acceptance, had until May 9, 2008, to register. There will be additional computer runs during the summer for those still holding out hope. Since it has been six months since the Round One registrations, one would think the process would be finished when the bell rings for the first day of school. Instead the bell marks the start of yet another round, because the SFUSD does not actually know who will be showing up when school starts. On the first day of school, the District now needs to count heads at each school. When it discovers that there is space available, children from the Waiting Pool can transfer in and out of class through the month of September. Last year 136 children left the kindergarten where they had started school and transferred to their more desired school. Moving children in and out of the class may mean that those who stay have to change teachers or classrooms. This shifting enrollment puts many families on edge and, worse, can unsettle a child just starting school. Applies to staff who have at least three years of full time work at that school "The uncertainty created by the current school assignment system has made it unpopular with many parents, some of whom have advocated for a school placement system based on a family's neighborhood."8 As might be expected with a system that is as complicated and opaque as School Choice, members of the Jury heard parents comment that they suspected the presence of hidden agendas and behind the scenes manipulation in the process. Some parents felt that the District and the Board of Education pulled strings to gain admittance for some children. Others were concerned that the District has no way to verify the honesty of the answers to the four determinant characteristics on the application. For example, rumors swirled around admittance to McKinley, because some families who had not requested McKinley were directed to the school, while others who had requested it had been turned away. Discussions with School District officials concerning the McKinley issue indicated that while there had been some mis-assignments, the cause involved technical elements that were difficult for lay persons to comprehend. Adding to some parents' anxiety is the fact that the Enrollment Application form asks for the child's racial/ethnic identity as well as parents' education level. While the District gives assurances that the information does not affect placement decisions, some parents are not reassured. They wonder if this is the case, why are the questions on the form.
F2
Questions about race/ethnicity on the Enrollment Application lead families to conclude that race/ethnicity are Diversity Index factors and in spite of denials by the District, will affect admissions. E. The Education Placement Center Runs Admissions The SFUSD's Educational Placement Center (EPC) tries to explain the School Choice system to parents, administers the Diversity Index, and registers students. EPC staff fans out through the City to some 150 events during the year to answer questions and to announce that soon after New Years, kindergarten parents (as well as parents of 5th graders and 8th graders) need to fill out School Choice forms for Round One. As an indication of the number of questions raised by the enrollment process, the EPC receives 500 phone calls a day during the various application deadlines. To run the EPC requires a staff of 29 and costs the District over $2 Million a year. The work of the EPC is complemented by the efforts of volunteers from the Parents for Public Schools San Francisco (PPSSF) who deserve acknowledgment for helping with the enrollment process and successfully promoting some of the less well-known schools. PPSSF started the first enrollment fair. Now it connects parent volunteers whose children are currently enrolled in schools with those who are looking at those same schools. Its work 8 Beth Winegamer, SF EXAMINER 3/6/08 goes on year round, but just in October alone it organized 50 preschool enrollment events reaching 2000 parents. Its work points up the complexity of the enrollment process and the help the District/EPC needs to explain the process to parents and the community.
F3
Even with the expenditure of $2 Million and a diligent outreach and volunteer effort the District cannot explain an inexplicable enrollment system. F. The Current System Has Reintroduced Racial Isolation Since the District can no longer legally use race to assign students to achieve diversity due to the Supreme Court ruling in Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, it appears to have attempted to achieve the same result by developing surrogate identifiers such as families in compromised economic circumstances and those living in extreme poverty. This effort has not been successful in part because of the realities associated with families living in San Francisco. For example some 53% of district students qualify for free or reduced cost lunches according to the Office of the Superintendent of Schools. A significant portion lives in subsidized housing. Both of these factors are determinants of whether a child is from an economically challenged family or one living in extreme poverty. When the preponderance of the school population falls into the "economically challenged" category, use of that category as a method of achieving diversity is futile. Efforts to "spread out" children from these circumstances simply has not worked as evidenced by the District's own data. While the poverty definitions used by the District may apply to too many families, the efforts by EPC to recruit for School Choice reach too few. Last year a third of Hispanic families and half of African American families did not participate in Round One. By comparison nearly all Chinese and White families participated. In the most recently available information (three years old) it was revealed that 30 of the 71 San Francisco elementary schools had classrooms containing 60% or more of students of the same race/ethnicity and each of the schools was in a neighborhood of that same dominant ethnicity even though the District does not give preference to neighborhood school assignment. This is evidence that School Choice and the Diversity Index are not succeeding at achieving diversity. Some examples are the following: African American: 78% at Charles R. Drew in Bayview/Hunter's Point Chinese: 81% at Gordon J. Lau in Chinatown Hispanic: 86% at Bryant in the Mission11 9 Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education. U.S. __ (2007). In San Francisco's 'School Choice' System, What Are Parents Really Choosing?; Amanda Johnson; Policy Matters, Vol.4, No. 2 (Spring 2007), pp. 13-21. SFUSD School Profiles 2007-2008
F4
The Jury's research revealed that a simple school selection lottery would result in only a slight difference in the racial mix of the classroom. G. The Current System Creates School Disparity, Not Diversity Some schools are over-subscribed: last year 84% of the classes (including bilingual • and general education) received more total requests than seats available. Some 27% received more first choice requests than seats available. 13 (Applicants are asked to choose seven schools which accounts for the high totals.) Other schools are unpopular: 25 of last year's kindergarten classes received 10 or fewer first-place choices among the 3,972 children who participated in Round One. Overall, SFUSD has the highest test scores of any of the seven largest school districts in the state. However, African American students in this City test lower than in any of these • other districts.14 Aware of that statistic, an African American civic leader told the Jury, "If our kids • are failing in school, I'd rather have them fail in the neighborhood than in a school across town." A promising report from racially mixed Potrero Hill centers on low demand Daniel Webster. In 2007-08, it had a total of only 18 requests for admission. A group of local parents, planning on raising their children on Potrero Hill and realizing they will likely gain admission to the undersubscribed school, has agreed that when their children reach school age they will attend the school. By starting now to be involved in the school, they expect to see some school improvements by the time their children enroll. If, however, the parents are successful, the school's reputation improves, and word begins to spread, it will be only a few years before the school is fully subscribed and a wait list forms. Then ironically, the Diversity Index will kick in and Potrero Hill families with younger children will lose any assurance that they can get into nearby Webster.
F5
Parents who know that their child can go to school in the neighborhood where they live are good candidates to work to make that a successful school for all neighborhood children. ^{12} School official’s testimony to the Grand Jury and Recommendations for Student Assignment in the SFUSD, prepared by the Community Advisory Committee on Student Assignment, February 22, 2005, p. 6 13 Student Assignment Update SFUSD 3/28/2007, p. 15 14 Office of the Superintendent SFUSD
F6
San Franciscans identify with their neighborhoods. Most neighborhoods have a local school that local residents, merchants, and parents have known about and perhaps attended, and provided support. With the District's current non-attendance area policy most children now go to school outside their neighborhood and as a result support for neighborhood schools has diminished. A senior school official told the jury, "We could create additional great schools in the neighborhoods and that would go a long way towards helping relieve pressure on the high demand schools." H. Alternative Schools Alternative Schools is a term local school officials use to describe schools without attendance areas. Many have specialized programs such as bilingual education. According to a senior staff member, "Some are so small that educational and cost efficiencies cannot be maintained." There is also an apparent lack of parental support for bilingual classes. Eighteen of the 25 least popular or least selected kindergarten classes were bilingual programs. These programs are the result of a class action lawsuit brought against the officials of the school district by non-English-speaking Chinese students. The Court ruled that the SFUSD must provide a program of "bilingual, bicultural education" for Learning English Proficiency (LEP) students. Most, if not all, Alternative Schools have specialized programs such as bilingual education, which may go through eighth grade. Some Attendance Area Schools also have specialized program areas. (See "Attendance and Non Attendance Area Schools" in the Appendix.) For example, both types of schools offer specialized learning programs. One of the goals of Alternative Schools should be to attract students by placing "high demand programs in low demand schools."17
F7
The number of Alternative Schools has grown to 15 and the difference between them and attendance area schools has blurred over time. Five year comparison of Round 1 Demand, SFUSD, March 16, 2007 Lau v. Nichols. Supreme Court of the United States. U.S. 563 (1974) 17 SFUSD Student Assignment Report, November 28, 2006 I. At 57 of 71 Elementary Schools It Is "Get on the Bus!" Historically, busing was used as part of the consent decree to desegregate the City's schools. SFUSD's transportation system has not been updated in over a generation. It is based on an old, out-dated student assignment process. Long after race became an impermissible factor in school assignment, buses continue to bring children from distant parts of the City to schools assigned to them as their "neighborhood schools" in an attempt to achieve diversified classrooms. Since neighborhood schools are not a priority in the SFUSD's School Choice Program, some 4,600 out of a total of 25,000 general education elementary students are transported to school in District-provided buses. Bus routes do not provide service equally between schools and different sections of the City. For example there are seven routes bringing children west from Bayview, Hunter's Point and Visitacion Valley where many schools are under attended to the Sunset and Richmond where many schools are oversubscribed. Only one route goes to schools in the other direction. Excluding the cost of busing for special education students, the annual toll is $5.3 Million. It would be even more expensive if all elementary and middle schools started at the same time. The demands of the busing schedule require separate cycles of starting and dismissal times for elementary schools, as well as a separate dismissal schedule for kindergartens. This further complicates a family's daily routine - trying to juggle various times to wake up and feed children of varying ages, attending different schools, and coming home at different times. Parents must adjust their work schedules to the unyielding demands of bus and school timing. "... Some of our K-5 students are on the bus for up to 70 minutes each way. Very young children, required to be at the bus stop at 6:20, often come to school sleepy and without breakfast."19 As an important corollary, the more distant the school the less likely the parents are to be involved in school support activities. Children who ride the bus are denied the opportunity to participate in after school activities and form friendships with school mates. Busing also requires families to make special arrangements to get their children to and from the bus. The Jury wondered if students who ride buses might have a higher rate of truancy, but did not find any research from the District regarding that possibility.
F8
Schools have not improved or become more diverse, even with the use of busing. Busing further erodes parental and/or neighborhood involvement in schools Buses carry nearly 5,000 children to elementary school and cost the District over $5 Million annually. For each bus not deployed the District saves $100,000.20 18 http://portal.sfusd.edu/data/home/2_Full%20Doc_SERR_Plan.pdf p. 75 19 http://portal.sfusd.edu/data/AcademicPlans/acad-79601.pdf p. 4 20 http://portal.sfusd.edu/data/home/2 Full%20Doc SERR Plan.pdf p. J. Other Factors Politics 1. With fewer children and parents involved in the schools compared to other cities, San Francisco's school staff, elected officials, and activists do not usually work in the spotlight. As a result, those who are politically ambitious take up issues that resonate with voters, not necessarily or directly those that address educating the City's children. For example, members of the Board of Education continue to discuss the expensive, divisive idea of being the lead school district in challenging last year's Supreme Court decision regarding the issue of race in school assignment. If this action is pursued it would bring legal costs estimated by the District at $500K.21 2. Demographics Parochial and private schools enjoy widespread support in the City. Nearly 30% of all of the City's school age children are not enrolled in SFUSD schools, nearly four times the state average.22 San Francisco is believed to have the lowest percentage of households with children among the 50 largest cities in the U.S. Beginning with such a small number of prospective students, the public schools need to be able to successfully compete to enroll children in San Francisco.23 To this end, it would be instructive if the District were to address the question of why 17% of the children who applied to public schools in 2006 chose not to enroll. This is especially important since nearly half of them were applying to kindergarten, and nearly half had been assigned to their first choice school.24 Perhaps the best news on this front is that between 2000 and 2005 the number of pre-school aged children in San Francisco increased by 14%.25 After several decades of declining enrollment and the concomitant loss of $20 Million in state funds in just five years, the number of children enrolling in grade school in 2007 grew over the previous year. This spring the number of grade school applicants increased again. Tempering this good news is 21 SERR Full Report, p. 67 22 "Schools Gone Wild," Diana Kappa, San Francisco Magazine, October 2007 23 Ilene Lelchuk, SF Chronicle, May 30, 2006 24 SFUSD Student Assignment Report, p. 11, 11/28/06. Getting Behind the Headlines: Families Leaving San Francisco, September 21, 2005, Public Research Institute, San Francisco State University, p 2 that improving school quality topped the list of parents' suggestions for how to improve San Francisco for families.26 3. Facilities Forty years ago some 90,000 students attended San Francisco public schools. Today there are just 55,000. "The cost of maintaining this excess capacity draws resources away from programs and services that serve students' needs."27 A member of the Board of Education told the Jury that many District schools are too small and fixed costs are claiming a disproportionate share of available revenue. The Board seems unwilling to face and to withstand the protests that come when a school closure is calendared. While declining enrollment and academic achievement are factors, there are no fixed criteria for closing a school. This contributes to the public's concern and misapprehension. At this writing an agreed upon checklist is being considered by the District in an effort to help the public understand the reason for school closures. Last fall the District received a $20 Million bid for the vacant school on Font Boulevard. "The cash-strapped San Francisco Unified School District is looking into unloading eight properties that could pump upwards of $100 Million into the schools and potentially free up land for as many as 917 housing units."28 Until new legislation is passed in Sacramento proceeds from the sale of surplus property must be spent only on school facilities. K. New Leaders, Big Challenges...an Opportunity to Tackle School Enrollment This report coincides with the introduction of new leadership at the SFUSD. The question now for the leadership is whether they will take the District in a new direction or will past rancor continue only with new names on the jerseys? The Jury sees hope in the fact that a year ago, Carlos Garcia became the Superintendent of Schools. He has brought in Dr. Anthony Smith as a new Assistant Superintendent with duties specifically focused on issues of instruction, innovation and social justice. The Director of the Educational Placement Center, Darlene Lim, in charge of all school assignments, has been on the job for a year. New members of the Board of Education will be elected in November 2008 to replace two proponents of the current admissions policy who are leaving the Board. Within the next two years 47% or 33 elementary school principals will be eligible to retire according to the office of the Superintendent of Schools. With these dramatic changes in leadership the Jury believes that there is the opportunity for the Board of Education and District leaders to correct the deficiencies inherent in the School Choice program. Ibid 27 Student Enrollment, Recruitment and Retention, Full Report, SFUSD 28 "SF schools to market 8 properties", JK Dineen, San Francisco Business Times, Friday, May 2, 2008. During the Jury's interviews, a long-time elementary school principal stated, "Actions of some members of the Board of Education give the impression that their priority is diversity rather than improving the level of education." This is in sharp contract to numerous statements made to the Jury that the number one priority should be quality schools throughout the city.
F9
Some members of the Board of Education appear to have made student diversity their first priority for the District.
F10
The District needs to make crucial decisions about surplus school property, updating 30 year old and now obsolete school attendance zones, and establishing policy to guide decisions to shut failed schools. Voters faced with future requests for funding from the District will react favorably to the District's efforts to streamline their property management activities and to convert these non-performing assets into resources that support District educational activities. L. How Other Districts Successfully Enroll Students As noted, the San Francisco School Assignment Process with its use of multiple "diversity" factors is unique. This Jury can find no other urban districts anywhere else with the "School Choice" enrollment process that begins in kindergarten. Even districts that offer some form of open enrollment seem to also operate a concomitant or parallel neighborhood system. 1. Sacramento The Sacramento Unified School System provides neighborhood schools for its elementary ... school pupils while also operating an open selection, lottery based system. The Sacramento and San Francisco Districts are close in many important comparables: Sacramento Unified (in the 2006-07 School Year) had 64 elementary schools, 27,283 pupils and 1421 teachers compared to San Francisco's 71 schools, 25,713 pupils and 1428 teachers. In Sacramento, students are presumed to be enrolled in their neighborhood schools. A parent, however, can request participation in the Open Enrollment Program. On-line applications are permitted. At a specified point (February of this year) all applications are processed through a lottery system. Based on space availability in the requested school with first priority given to siblings of enrolled students, children of school employees and children with unique special considerations, school assignments are offered. Once a non- neighborhood school assignment is accepted then the new school becomes the "neighborhood" school. Participation in the Sacramento Open Enrollment program is voluntary and transportation is not provided. For more information about enrollment go to: www.scusd.edu/open_enrollment/index.htm. ٠, 2. San Diego The San Diego Unified School District is larger than SFUSD. There are 118 elementary schools and 3,678 teachers serving 63,685 students. It is the second largest school district in California and the eighth largest in the United States. The student population includes 15 ethnic groups and over 60 languages and dialects. The SDUSD provides parents with the initial opportunity to send their children to a neighborhood school. Parents are also presented with the option to send their child to another school outside their residence area by the use of an Enrollment Option Application. A web site will be available for online applications for the 2008 - 2009 school year this fall. Currently, two out of three students attend neighborhood schools and a third go to alternative schools. The SDUSD believes in preserving the vitality and core values inherent in neighborhood schools. What follows is a quote from a fact sheet that the District created indicating how neighborhood schools benefit children and their families: As a resident of the neighborhood, it is your right to attend that school. There is no waiting list, no special application deadlines. You have first priority to enroll. Families have a greater sense of community ownership; more of a neighborhood ٠ feeling. You may develop stronger relationships with your neighbors. You can walk next door and have discussions with your neighbors about school ٠ issues or concerns. You will spend less time driving your child to school. More convenient for volunteering and attending parent meetings. Your child will have more time to spend with his/her friends rather than riding to • and from school on a bus or in a car. Your child will be able to go to school with the same children he/she plays with, ٠ and they can study and do homework together The San Diego enrollment website: http://www.sandi.net/enrollmentoptions/ 3. Seattle Seattle Public Schools (SPS) are about the size of SFUSD. The SPS approved their Student Assignment Plan on June 20, 2007. Elementary students start with an assignment to a school in their local reference area, which is the area immediately surrounding the school. This provides predictability for families. If they want to keep this assignment, the family would not have to do anything else. The City is divided into nine clusters. Each cluster has four or more elementary schools. Families could exercise school choice for another school in their cluster or at any Alternative School. If they choose to go outside the cluster they may have to provide their own transportation. Seattle Public Schools states that it believes this plan enables stronger family engagement with schools, provides equitable access to programs, continues to offer opportunities for school choice and fosters diversity. Seattle website:www.seattleschools.org/area/newassign/current_assignplan.html#top IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS: 1. The SFUSD school choice process and its Diversity Index are unnecessarily complex and confusing, time consuming, alienating to the families they purport to serve and, most damning, fail to deliver a diversified school population. 2. Questions about race/ethnicity on the Enrollment Application lead families to conclude that race/ ethnicity are Diversity Index factors and, in spite of denials by the District, will affect admissions. 3. Even with the expenditure of $2 Million and a diligent outreach and volunteer effort the District cannot explain an inexplicable enrollment system.

Recommendations 10

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.