Elementary School Assignment Policy

Committee of the WholeDecember 1, 2020

1

Orla O’KeeffeChief Policy & Operations

Henry O’ConnellProject Manager

1. School segregationa. Focal students attend schools with higher levels

of povertyb. Unconstrained choice leads to self-segregation

2. Burden on familiesa. Meaningful ability to choose is inequitably

distributedb. Our current process causes stress and anxiety

for families

3. Disconnect between schools and communitiesa. Unconstrained choice undermines confidence in

school qualityb. Unconstrained choice undermines community

cohesion

4. Under enrollmenta. Unconstrained choice has contributed to under

enrollmentb. Too many children in San Francisco attend

private or charter schools instead of SFUSD

1. Diversity: Create integrated elementary

schools that provide students with the

opportunity to experience the rich diversity

of our city.

2. Predictability: Offer families of elementary

students a high degree of predictability

about where their elementary children will

be enrolled in school.

3. Proximity: Create strong community

connections to local schools and reduce the

number of families with elementary students

traveling across the city.

Problem Statements Policy Goals 2

Historical Context ● 120 years of de jure and de facto school segregation in SFUSD

(1851-1971)

● 50 years of school integration effortsSFUSD believes that students are best served in learning environments that are racially and socioeconomically integrated and has, since 1971, implemented a series of court-mandated and voluntary student assignment plans designed to support integrated learning environments:

○ 1971 - Horseshoe Plan○ 1974 - Operation Integrate○ 1978 - Educational Redesign○ 1983 - Desegregation Consent Decree○ 1999 - Last year using race in student assignment○ 2002 - Diversity Index Lottery○ 2010 - Current Student Assignment System○ 2018 - Board Reso 189-25A1: Developing a Community Based Student

Assignment System for SFUSD

3

1937 Redlining Map

Our Journey Since 2018

Dec 2018Resolution 189-25A1

unanimously approved. Begins policy development process

Spring 2019

Research, case studies of other districts

Summer 2019Project plan, build team structures,

secure grant $ to support robust community engagement

Summer 2020

Simulate policy options and evaluate findings. Begin to develop

policy recommendation

Spring 2019Conduct extensive

communications and community engagement throughout the City

Fall 2020Refine recommendation and bring final

policy to Board for a vote. Communicate with families to ensure transparency

Fall 2019

Define key terms, generate potential concepts for new system

Choice within Zones with Diversity Categories

● Move from district-wide choice to choice within zones○ Preserve access to language pathways, K-8 schools, and

special education programs for every child

● Streamline tiebreakers for TK & K and limit the number of requests that receive a tiebreaker○ Sibling, Equity, and PreK

● Apply “diversity categories” to disrupt segregation ○ Intended long term impact: every elementary school falls

within a 15% range of the District’s average for FRPM, and focal students are enrolled in schools with similar poverty rates as non-focal students

5

Policy Recommendation

Submitted for First Reading on 10/20/2020

Choice within Zones Diversity Categories: Every School Resembles its Zone

6

School A

Zone

Orange Circles

Purple Stripes

Blue Triangles

Zone Average 33% 33% 33%

School A 33% 33% 33%

My Home Zone

School A

School D

School B

School C

School E - Language Pathway

My Language ZoneSchool F - K-8

My K-8 Zone

School G - Special Day Class

My Special Education Zone

School H - Special Day Class

Policy

Data (demographics, choice, capacities, etc.)

Feedback from the Board of

Education

Community Input Research and

Case Studies

Simulations of Policy

Outcomes

How well do options achieve the Board’s policy goals of diversity, predictability, and proximity?

7

How Policy Recommendation Was Developed

Ad Hoc Committee on Student Assignment

● Committee Norton, Committee Chair

● Board President Sanchez

● Commissioner Cook

Process for Policy Simulations

● Research partnership with Stanford University○ Irene Lo, Assistant Professor, Management,

Sciences and Engineering○ Itai Ashlagi, Associate Professor, Management,

Sciences and Engineering

● Simulated and evaluated thousands of zones

● Optimized to balance students with school capacities, and socio-economic and ethnic diversity before and after choice

● Compared different zone shapes and sizes

● Measured predictability, proximity, and

diversity of assignments

8

Current policy

Neighbor-hood

schools

Choice within zones

Proposed policy

Proximity x Y Y Y

Predict-ability

x Y Y Y

Diversity x x x Y

Findings from Simulations

Improvements in diversity:

● Simulations of zones with diversity

categories showed significant improvements

in socioeconomic diversity and moderate

improvements in racial/ethnic diversity.

Important Tradeoffs

9

● Smaller zones are less socioeconomically diverse due to residential segregation.

● Non-contiguous zones best disrupt existing residential patterns of socioeconomic disparity.

● Large zones have most diverse student populations, but choice can lead to resegregation within zone.

● Zones with diversity categories can significantly improve diversity, but result in slight decreases in proximity.

What Feedback Have we Already Heard from the Community?

Families recognize that school

choice can be inequitable and can

harm schools that are perceived as

being less desirable. At the same

time, families want to be able to

choose a school that works for them.

Above all, families want to send their

children to high quality schools and

expressed that student assignment

would not be as important if all schools

were considered high quality.

Many African American and Latinx

families were distrustful of the

motivations for redesigning student

assignment. Families raised serious

concerns that a neighborhood-based

system would harm those with the least resources.

All else equal, most families would

prefer to send their children to school close to home. However, most families

would not want to send their child to a

neighborhood school unless they

viewed it as a high quality school.

Feedback From Spring 2019 Community WorkshopsRead our full community engagement report online at

www.sfusd.edu/studentassignment

10

● Created a newsletter and blog series to provide transparency throughout the process.

● Hosted 4 panel discussions in partnership with Stanford and UC Berkeley.

● Hosted 4 virtual Community Information Sessions in late October and early November.

● Families were able to watch on YouTube Live and Facebook Live and ask questions and give input via Thought Exchange.

● Community partners hosted 11 virtual watch parties to provide a more personal forum for families to talk to other families and ask questions in a smaller group setting.

● 2,000 watched the Information Sessions

● 345 participated in ThoughtExchange

● 312 attended a watch party○ 52 African American Parent Advisory Council

(AAPAC)○ 8 Parent Advisory Council (PAC)○ 20 Community Advisory Committee for Special

Education (CAC)○ 63 Parents for Public Schools (PPS) *English ○ 7 2nd District PTA○ 60 Parents for Public Schools (PPS) *Cantonese○ 30 APA Family Services *Cantonese○ 3 Chinatown YMCA *Cantonese○ 14 Wu Yee *Cantonese○ 15 Parents for Public Schools (PPS) *Spanish○ 40 Mission Graduates *Spanish

How Did We Inform Families about the Policy and Gather

Questions and Thoughts? Who We Heard From

11

● Quality Schools: “My hope is for high quality schools

across the city that are well funded.” In Watch Parties, parents shared a concern that zones would isolate black and brown families in poor neighborhoods and further isolate them.

● Proximity to School: “Every family should be

allowed to choose a school in their own neighborhood.”

● Language Pathways: “I want language pathways to

remain citywide.”

● Tradeoffs Between Goals: “San Francisco is

economically and racially segregated ... Diversity & Proximity are hard to achieve at the same time.”

● Transparency: “Transparency about how the zones

are determined.” “Can you be more clear and transparent about the block-by-block assignment of ‘diversity categories’?”

Questions From the Community

Hopes, Ideas, and Concerns from the Community

12

● Siblings: “Will younger siblings have access to the older

sibling’s school even if it’s not in our zone?”

● Language Pathways: “Will citywide language programs

continue to be citywide?”

● Special Education: Many families of children with IEP’s

wondered, “where do we fit” in the new system?

● Details of Zones: “Has the number of zones been

determined yet?” “How will we provide input around zone development?” “Who makes the final decision regarding zone design?”

● Demographic Data: “What data are used to measure

block level diversity, and how will that be updated over time?”

● Getting a Top Choice: “If we are not happy with our

assignment, can we apply to change schools?”

Proposed Amendment to Policy Submitted for First Reading

Why we’re proposing an amendment

We heard very clearly in community feedback

that drawing zones and/or creating diversity

categories must include explicit, meaningful

opportunities for families to participate in and

inform that process. The final results should

demonstrate how feedback from families has

impacted the decision-making process.

13

Decisions about zones and diversity categories

will be made in partnership with staff, District

advisory bodies, families, and the community.

Specifically, representatives of the

aforementioned stakeholders will be part of the

team recommending zones and diversity

categories to the Superintendent.

The approach to developing zones and diversity

categories will be an active, conscious, and

non-neutral process focused on the proactive

counteraction of race inequities.

Proposed Language to Include in Second Reading

● Communicate clearly & constantly● Facilitate community engagement● Build public confidence & support● Prepare, equip, and support

schools and families to successfully transition

Engagement

14Implementation Workstreams

● Build data architecture● Create equity tiebreaker● Develop diversity categories

● Establish school capacities● Project enrollment● Create boundary development

tools and strategies● Facilitate process to draw zones

and revise MS feeders● Support shifts required to ensure

equitable access

Data Zones

● Revise bell schedules● Build new transportation routes● Respond to ripple effects, e.g.,

human capital, resource allocation, facilities utilization

Infrastructure● Design a simple user experience● Transition how EPC operates● Develop marketing and outreach

campaign● Build monitoring and evaluation

systems and structures

Enrollment

● Develop new software/ algorithm

● Integrate data systems● Build zone-based application and

school finder tools

Technology

15

Category Description Cost

Data, Zones & Enrollment

● GIS/Data Analyst to manage data, to help draft and maintain zones and tiebreakers, to coordinate with DoT, to create systems/processes to monitor for equity and impact.

● Demographers / technical support drawing zones. $525,000

Stakeholder Engagement

● Community Engagement Manager to lead community meetings, coordinate advisory bodies, and use multiple strategies to engage and inform all key stakeholders, and support cross departmental collaboration.

● Marketing and Communications analyst to help build community confidence, knowledge, and support. New marketing materials in multiple languages.

● Change management tools and strategies to prepare, equip and support EPC, schools and families to successfully transition. $582,000

Enrollment Technology

● Project Manager to develop new software and data systems. Development support. New platform customization and configuration. $1,250,000

Transportation ● Transportation Analyst to help create new zone-based routes, revise bell times, and maximize transportation resources for families. $200,000

Total Costs (for ~18 months) $2,557,000

Fiscal Impact Analysis

+ Cross departmental collaboration

+ Research Partnerships

Immediate Next Steps

● Complete policy development work○ Submit proposed amendment for Second Reading and Action

on 12/8/2020

○ Develop, translate, and disseminate FAQ

○ Document and share policy development process

● Transition from policy development to implementation○ Secure resources

○ Build teams and collaborative work structures

○ Kick-off planning process

○ Review the implementation timeline

16

Board Approval

Design

Launch

BuildTest

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Questions

17

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Appendix

18

2020-21 School Year 2021-22 SY 2022-23 SYFall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall

Start of School

● Boundaries & feeders● Transportation routes● Programmatic changes● Enrollment infrastructure● Marketing & communication

● 10/20/20 First Reading

● Community Engagement

● 12/1/202 3 pm Committee of the Whole

● 12/8/20 Second Reading and Action

Launch enrollment

2023-24 SYAug Sep Oct Nov Dec Spring

* Might require more time depending on the scale of change

Policy Development Timeline

Develop

Decide

Implement*

Enroll

● Aug 31 - 5 pm, Ad Hoc

● Sep 11 - 3 pm, Speaker Series - History

● Sep 14 - 5 pm, Ad Hoc

● Sep 17 - 4 pm, Speaker Series - Integration

● Sep 21 - 3 pm, Speaker Series, Choice

● Sep 29 - 5 pm, Ad Hoc

● Oct 14 - 5 pm, Ad Hoc - Recommendation

○ Itai Ashlagi, Associate Professor of Management Science and Engineering

○ Irene Lo, Assistant Professor of Management Science and Engineering

Background/expertise in matching markets & algorithm design

● Adonis Pugh, Undergraduate student in

Chemistry

● Faidra Monachou, PhD student in

Management Science and Engineering

● Juliette Love, Masters student in Computer

Science

● Kaleigh Mentzer, PhD student in

Computational and Mathematical Engineering

● Lulabell Ruiz-Seitz, Undergraduate student in

Mathematics

● Max Allman, PhD student in Management

Science and Engineering

Stanford Research Team 20

● Web page: www.sfusd.edu/studentassignment○ Community Engagement Report

● Class Action: Desegregation and Diversity in San Francisco Schools, by Rand Quinn (UPenn)

● Children of the Dream: Why School Integration Works, by Rucker Johnson (UC Berkeley)

● The Color of Law : A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, by Richard Rothstein

● How to Be an Antiracist, by Ibram X. Kendi

● Nice White Parents, New York Times Podcast

Suggested Reading and Podcasts

21

Policy Development Materials● Resolution 189-25A1: Developing a Community Based Student Assignment

System for SFUSD (Approved 12/11/2018)

● Ad Hoc Committee on Student Assignment

● www.sfusd.edu/studentassignment

● Community Engagement Report

● Speaker Series

● Blog

● Analysis of Current State of Portfolio of Elementary Schools

● First Reading 10/20/2020

Current Student Assignment Policy● Video● Board Policy ● Enrollment Guide● School Finder● Steps to Apply for 2020-21

Supporting Materials

22

Quality Schools

23

What We’ve Heard From the Community (2007-2018)

● Summary of Findings and Recommendations from Stakeholder Engagement to Inform SFUSD Student Assignment Policy

[2019]

● Feedback on Resolution 189-25A1: Developing a Community Based Student Assignment System for SFUSD

○ Joint Considerations from SFUSD’s District Advisory Bodies [2019]

○ Community Advisory Committee for Special Education [2019]

● AAPAC Reflections on SFUSD’s Student Assignment Policy [2017]

● Report of Findings from Community Forums about Proposed K-8 Pathways and Building Quality Middle Schools [2011]

● PAC Feb 2010 Report: Recommendations for Changing the Student Assignment System

● Findings & Recommendations from Community Conversations about Changing the Student Assignment System [2009]

● Student Enrollment, Recruitment and Retention: Community Conversations about San Francisco Public Schools [2007]

24

Big Picture:Student Assignment Policy in Context

25

Facilities Capital

Plan

Human Capital

Vision 2025

Student Assign-

ment policy

Quality teaching

and learning

Programs & Services e.g. After

SchoolStructures e.g. Size,

Start Times

Marketing &

Outreach

Family & Community

Partners

Transport-ation

Resources

● School quality is the paramount concern, and student assignment does not create high quality schools.

● Providing equitable access to quality schools is not the same as ensuring that each and every elementary school is high quality.

Quality Schools

26

SFUSD’s Core Belief ● Quality schools offer engaging and challenging programs, caring and

committed staff, strong and visible leaders, and instruction

differentiated to meet each child’s needs.

Student Assignment and Quality Schools● Student assignment does not create high quality schools; it can help

create equitable access to quality schools.

● Creating equitable access to quality schools is not the same as ensuring that each and every one of our schools is high quality.

● We believe creating a measure to rank quality within the context of student assignment might be harmful to schools [10/21/2019 Ad Hoc Committee on Student Assignment].

Theory of Action for Student Assignment

27If… (implementation of change idea) then... (immediate impact) so that…. (long term impact)

If the Student Assignment System:

● Creates assignment zones that are socioeconomically, racially/ethnically, linguistically, and academically diverse; and

● Limits the number of schools included in each zone and reduces the distance students must travel to attend any school in their zone; and

● Ensures every zone has sufficient capacity to accommodate all residents; and

● Is supported by transportation services designed to support zone assignments; and

● Gives all students access to the range of programs in the District; and

● Prioritizes students who reside in Federal public housing or historically underserved areas of San Francisco; and

● Assigns students so that every school mirrors the diversity of its zone; and

● Offers a simple process that makes it easy for families to apply and enroll.

SFUSD will achieve these outcomes in the short term:

● Student assignment will provide students with equitable access to the range of options in the District; and

● Student assignment will help create more diverse enrollment and will help increase enrollment in currently under-enrolled schools; and

● Elementary schools will have the opportunity to facilitate positive interaction across difference and provide equitable access to resources and opportunities that exist within the school; and

● All students will have certainty that they can be enrolled in a school in their zone; and

● All students will have the opportunity to live within a reasonable geographic distance to school.

And therefore the long term impact will be that:

● Each and every elementary school is socioeconomically representative of the District. Specifically, every elementary school falls within a 15% range of the District's average for FRPM; and

● The District’s focal students are enrolled in elementary schools with similar poverty rates (as measured by FRPM) as non-focal students; and

● Integrated schools and classrooms will help narrow the opportunity and achievement gap in the District; and

● Each and every student will receive the quality instruction and equitable support required to thrive in the 21st century.

Definitions

28

Diversity in SFUSD refers to the presence of the

many identities, experiences, ways of making

meaning and perspectives of students, families,

community, and staff in our District. These include

differences in background, thought, race, ethnicity,

socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation,

religion, language, national origin, ability, and other

socially constructed characteristics. Diversity is

greatest when a range of identities, experiences,

ways of making meaning, and perspectives are

present in a school, classroom, or workplace.

An integrated school is diverse, facilitates

positive interaction across difference, and

provides equitable access to resources and

opportunities that exist within the school.

Definition of Diversity Definition of Integrated Schools

29

SFUSD’s Definition of Equity

Every learner receives what they need to develop to their full potential.

30

The work of eliminating oppression, ending biases, and ensuring equally high outcomes for all participants through the creation of multicultural, multilingual, multiethnic, gender equitable, multiracial, and inclusive practices and conditions; removing the predictability of success or failure that currently correlates with any social or cultural factor.

SFUSD’s Definition of Working Towards Equity

SFUSD’s Definition of Anti-Racism

31

A Race Equity Culture is one that is focused on

proactive counteraction of race inequities inside and

outside of an organization. Building a Race Equity

Culture is the foundational work when organizations

seek to advance race equity; it creates the conditions

that help us to adopt anti-racist mindsets and actions

as individuals, and to center race equity in our life and

in our work. A Race Equity Culture is the antithesis of

dominant culture, which promotes assimilation over

integration and dismisses opportunities to create a

more inclusive, equitable environment. The work of

creating a Race Equity Culture requires an adaptive

and transformational approach that impacts behaviors

and mindsets as well as practices, programs, and

processes.

Equity in the Center. https://www.equityinthecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Awake-to-Woke-to-Work-Glossary-of-Terms-.pdf

SFUSD’s Definition of Race Equity Culture

Anti-racism is the active, conscious, and

non-neutral process of identifying and

eliminating racism by changing systems,

organizational structures, policies, practices,

and attitudes, so that power is redistributed and

shared equitably.

The heart of an anti-racist system is personal,

professional, and system-wide accountability.- adapted from NAC International Perspectives: Women and Global Solidarity