The Budget Gap

1
San Francisco Unified School District
Community Advisory Committee On Student
Assignment Overview of Recommendations April
2005
2
Background Information

• SFUSD has been a party to a desegregation lawsuit
  and Consent Decree since 1983
• The Board of Education adopted a student
  assignment plan to achieve racially and
  ethnically diverse schools, educational equity
  and improved student achievement
• SFUSDs obligations under the Consent Decree,
  including the duty to use a Court-approved
  student assignment plan, are scheduled to end
  during the 2005-06 school year

3
Community Advisory Committee on Student
Assignment

• A broadly diverse group of San Francisco
  community members
• Approved in concept by the Board of Education in
  March 2004
• Established in April 2004 and has been meeting
  regularly since then

4
Charge of Community Advisory Committee

• Review current student assignment processes in
  SFUSD and other school districts used to
• provide students opportunities to attend schools
  with diverse enrollments and
• facilitate improved student achievement
• Find out what the community thinks about student
  assignment
• Consult with staff, community, representatives,
  and appropriate experts

5
Charge of Community Advisory Committee

• Consider relevant policies and plans, including
  the Consent Decree, Excellence for All, and the
  Facilities Master Plan
• Recommend three student assignment options for
  the 2006-07 school year

6
Overview of Committees Report

• Concerns About Current Process
• Recommended Options for Allocating Seats
• Other Committee Recommendations
• Other Issues the Committee Discussed

7
Preface to Committees Recommendations

• The quality of all SFUSD schools is the single
  most important factor on the effectiveness,
  popularity, and success of any method of student
  assignment
• Achieving excellence in schools across the city
  will be far more helpful than any technique of
  allocating over-demanded seats
• The Committee acknowledges and supports the
  Districts efforts to improve all schools and
  hopes these reforms will be enhanced, refined and
  accelerated

8
Current Student Assignment Process

• A race-neutral, choice-based student assignment
  system, including
• Program placement
• Ensure equitable access to high quality programs
  throughout SFUSD
• Attract and retain a diverse student population
  at each school
• Outreach and recruitment
• Inform parents and recruit students
• Modified lottery-based assignment process
  (Diversity Index)
• Applies to all schools except Lowell and SOTA
• Attempts to balance parental choice, equal
  access, and diversity without using
  race/ethnicity
• Only applies when demand exceeds the seats
  available

9
Concerns About Current Process

• It is confusing
• It has not reduced segregation
• It does not allow all students to attend schools
  close to home

10
Allocating Seats Developing Options

• The Committee proposed, discussed and reviewed
  several options, including simulations of
  assignment results
• The simulation results were compared across
  options and vs. the current system
• The Committee paid particular attention to
• Requested vs. non-requested assignments
• Assignment results for attendance area vs.
  non-attendance area students
• of schools with gt45 of assignments to students
  from one racial / ethnic group

11
Allocating Seats Option 1

• For schools with an attendance area
• Reserve 50 of seats for students residing within
  the attendance area, selected by random lottery
• Reserve 50 of seats for students residing
  outside the attendance area, selected using an
  index of factors linked to student achievement
• If seats allocated to either group are not
  filled, assign remaining seats to the other group
  using a random lottery
• Assignments for schools without attendance areas
  will be determined using a random lottery

12
Allocating Seats Option 2

• For schools with an attendance area
• Reserve 60 of seats for students residing within
  the attendance area, selected by random lottery
• Reserve 40 the seats for students residing
  outside the attendance, selected by random
  lottery
• If seats allocated to either group are not
  filled, assign remaining seats to the other group
  using a random lottery
• Assignments for schools without attendance areas
  will be determined using a random lottery

13
Allocating Seats Option 3

• Determine all offers to all schools using a
  random lottery
• No attendance areas
• No preference would be provided to any applicant
  based on geographic residence, any characteristic
  linked to academic achievement, or any other
  factor

14
Simulations Getting Requested Schools

• The simulations indicated that more families
  would receive assignments to requested schools
  under all three options recommended by the
  Committee than they would under the current
  system

15
Simulations Getting Attendance Area Schools
vs. Other Schools

• The simulations indicated that more students
  would receive assignments to their attendance
  area schools in Options 1 and 2 than under the
  current system, but slightly fewer students using
  Option 3

16
Simulations of Schools with gt45 of
assignments to one racial / ethnic group

• The simulations suggested that the number of
  schools with high racial concentrations would be
  slightly increased under Options 1 and 3 and
  slightly reduced under Option 2

17
Other Recommendations

• The Committee offered additional recommendations
  that could accompany any of the three options
• Attendance areas
• Attendance areas are out-of-date and should be
  reexamined and revised
• Attendance areas should be established for
  alternative schools that do not have
  specialized programs
• Satellite attendance areas are based on
  out-of-date policies and should be revised
• Any revisions to attendance areas must be
  undertaken carefully and comprehensively on the
  basis of current demographic information

18
Other Recommendations

• Program Placement
• Dream Schools
• Teacher and Staff Quality
• Transportation
• Sharing Best Practices
• Outreach and Recruitment
• Under-requested / Underperforming Schools
• School Capacity
• Designated Assignments
• Assistance for Schools with One Majority Racial
  Group

19
Other Questions Discussed by the Committee

• The Committee discussed several other questions,
  but did not reach consensus on specific
  recommendations
• Race Should race be a factor in determining
  assignments to schools?
• Diversity Index Should the Diversity Index be
  maintained, modified, or eliminated?
• Use of Zones/Clusters Should schools be grouped
  into geographic clusters with students receiving
  preference to attend schools within their
  respective cluster?
• Children of Teachers and Staff Should children
  of teachers and staff be given priority in the
  student assignment process?

20
Community Feedback

• Community meetings were conducted in late Feb. /
  early March
• Participants were notified that the Board could
  approve any or none of the recommended options
• Participants provided feedback, including what
  they liked/disliked about the options for
  allocating seats

21
Community Feedback Option 1

• Liked
• Consideration of neighborhood
• Outcome of simulations more families got choice
• Takes academic achievement into account
• Balances neighborhood and diversity mirrors
  competing desires of community
• Disliked
• Only 50 for neighborhood should be 100
• Potential impact on attendance area (AA) schools
  could reduce of AA assignments
• Use of Diversity Index lottery
• Use of random lottery for AA applicants
• Could increase racial concentrations

22
Community Feedback Option 2

• Liked
• 60 for neighborhood
• Use of random lottery for AA and non-AA
  applicants
• Random is an improvement over current Diversity
  Index
• Disliked
• Only 60 for neighborhood should be 100
• 60 -- too neighborhood focused
• Random process
• Doesnt consider academic achievement
• No advantage for students at low performing
  schools

23
Community Feedback Option 3

• Liked
• Simple and clear and easy to understand
• Everyone has equal opportunity / same chance
• No AA preference
• Improvement over current DI Lottery
• Disliked
• No AA preference ignores neighborhood
• No control less predictable outcome
• Doesnt address concerns about quality of schools
• Lottery is not fair