The SFUSD Desegregation Consent Decree

San Francisco NAACP v. SFUSD et al, No. C-78 1445 WHO

Paragraph 44 Independent Review (Report #17)

THE REPORT OF THE CONSENT DECREE MONITORING TEAM

Submitted to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

July 27, 2000

By Stuart Biegel

Consent Decree Monitor

for the State of California

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

From Report #17: Pages 1-18

1999-2000 has been a year of difficult transition for SFUSD. In the aftermath of the changes in district leadership and the approval of the Ho Settlement Agreement, many key district officials moved on to other posts. Technical and financial management issues received a great deal of attention, and several audits uncovered serious district deficiencies in these areas. In light of problems relating to accounting, databases, and the mainframe computer setup, the district was severely criticized by public officials and commentators, both locally and statewide.

Yet while the monitoring team has been similarly frustrated by technical management problems that clearly could have been avoided, we have found that at the local school site level -- where we spend most of our time -- SFUSD continues to move forward in a vibrant and innovative fashion. Indeed, we have found that the district can point to the existence of a large number of highly successful schools...filled with dedicated educators who serve the community with distinction.

Still, in spite of the successes, major challenges remain. The academic achievement gap documented in previous reports still persists, and certain low performing schools have either not improved or have reversed course and given up the gains of the 1990's...in spite of all the reform efforts that have been put in place over the years. In addition, the state has continued to exacerbate these problems by refusing to reimburse SFUSD for large sums of money that the district has already spent in furtherance of Consent Decree goals and objectives. This troubling failure by state officials -- in an era of unprecedented prosperity -- has kept many economically disadvantaged students from obtaining benefits that are rightfully theirs under this decree.

We urge the community to come together and hold its elected officials accountable for this failure to reimburse the district. And we urge district officials to build on existing Consent Decree principles and affirmatively address the realities that we have been sharing on a day-to-day basis with all members of the SFUSD community. These include (a) the different, lower quality curriculum for students in certain racially identifiable and socioeconomic-status-identifiable schools and classrooms, (b) the substantially different approaches to school discipline from school site to school site, (c) the blatant attendance disparities that are clearly linked to differences in academic achievement, (d) the lack of a systematic assessment plan for the limited-English proficient students who make up almost one third of the entire student population, and (e) the severe resegregation that has emerged in the incoming classes at approximately 20 of the district's schools.

Finally, we urge all relevant stakeholders to begin preparing for a possible end to the Consent Decree. The decree now sets forth a specific target date for its own termination -- December 31, 2002. No matter what the views of individual persons and groups might be regarding either the efficacy of such a termination or the likelihood that it will actually take place, contingency plans must be put in place now to avoid the disastrous results that could occur if present patterns continue and the Consent Decree actually does end in another two years and five months.

I. The Monitoring Process

This report reflects our monitoring team's third full year -- and fourth year overall --conducting an independent review of compliance with the terms and conditions of the SFNAACP v. SFUSD Consent Decree.[1] We began our monitoring process in late January 1997, and have since completed three independent reviews: Report #14 (September 1997), Report #15 (July 1998), and Report #16 (July 1999). We are pleased to present Report #17, which contains our findings for the entire twelve-month period beginning August 1999 and continuing through July 2000.

At this point, we have visited virtually all of the district's 116 schools. On numerous occasions, we have visited the same school more than once, returning to explore specific issues that may have been raised by our initial visits. During the 1999-2000 academic year alone, we conducted 98 different school site visits. All told, since January 1997, we have visited individual school sites a total of 326 different times.

Several basic guidelines continue to inform our monitoring process. First, our overarching goal is to provide the federal district court and the people of the State of California with a context for assessing the progress of the San Francisco Unified School District under the terms of the Consent Decree. Since the Consent Decree impacts every school in the district, we have not limited our visits to the so-called "targeted" or "consent decree" schools,[2] but have made it a priority to visit every neighborhood and analyze the range of educational programs that are being designed and implemented district-wide.

Second, our approach to monitoring is an open and collaborative one. We have worked closely with district officials, and any concerns that are discovered in the course of our research are shared with them immediately. We continue to find that we are able to gain new insights into these concerns as a result of this openness.

Third, we have found that it does not serve the best interests of the young people of San Francisco to only examine Consent Decree issues in a vacuum. Thus we continue to include references to similar issues and problems at both the state and national levels. We must emphasize that this focus is not intended in any way to diminish or explain away any problems that we have identified.

It is important to note that while SFUSD continues to be friendly, welcoming, open, and committed to Consent Decree principles, it has not been as easy obtaining certain basic information as it had been during the previous three years. Changes in district personnel and ongoing problems with databases and the mainframe computer in the aftermath of the Y2K transition have prevented us from obtaining certain data in a timely manner. In general, however, district officials are not defensive when difficult questions are raised, and they continue to welcome information regarding problem areas.

The material in this report is based on 326 school site visits, an intensive review of district records and documents, an analysis of all 16 previous state monitor reports, and extensive ongoing meetings with district administrators, principals, classroom teachers, parents, students, and other members of the community. As always, we welcome feedback on any of these issues from all interested parties.

II. Patterns and Trends

A. Retirement of Linda Davis and Robert Harrington

Before proceeding with this report, it is important to acknowledge the recent retirement of two notable district officials who played major roles in the implementation of the Consent Decree and were instrumental in creating programs and forging the sort of consensus needed to move the district forward in this regard.

Linda Davis came to the district in 1986 and served as Deputy Superintendent under both Ray Cortines and Bill Rojas. Her knowledge of curriculum, her sensitivity to multicultural issues, and her commitment to Consent Decree principles were reflected in her many achievements over time. Ms. Davis proved to be a strong, stable, and dynamic force for positive change, both during her 13 years as Deputy Superintendent and during her one year as Interim Superintendent.

Robert Harrington spent virtually his entire career as an educator in SFUSD, beginning as a classroom teacher, moving up to principal, and eventually serving as Associate Superintendent for most of the 1990's. His many achievements included the coordinating of a research and planning department that -- by 1996 -- was spearheading a state-of-the-art system of data collection and information processing. In addition, he was the primary force behind the prescient 1993 technology master plan. And he served in an unofficial capacity as a resident Consent Decree historian, sharing his intimate knowledge of its intricacies with every person who had reason to inquire about it.

Our monitoring team has benefited greatly from its interaction with both of these dedicated educators. No matter how busy they were, they always took the time to provide us with the most detailed and thorough answers to any and all of our questions and concerns. And we can report that the SFUSD community is a much better place as a result of their many contributions over the years.

B. "Student Assignment Plan" Issues in the Aftermath of the Ho Settlement Agreement

Issues relating to student assignment and desegregation remain at the center of recent SFUSD developments at this point in time. Since 1983, and continuously through the end of 1998, the district student assignment plan was based on a combination of neighborhood attendance boundaries and optional enrollment at alternative schools. A parent could choose to send his or her child to the school designated for their own neighborhood (if space was available), or could seek to enroll the child at either an alternative school or another neighborhood school. All student assignments were subject to the predetermined formula of Consent Decree Paragraph 13, which limited enrollment of any racial/ethnic group to 45% at regular schools and 40% at alternative schools. In addition, at least 4 of 9 designated racial/ethnic categories had to be represented at every school in the district.[3] And a list of specific factors -- which included certain racial preferences -- determined which students were given priority in the optional enrollment (OER) process.

As the Ho case moved toward a scheduled trial date, this Court ordered the district "to file, by February 1, 1999, a proposed student assignment plan that was not race based, and that could be implemented in time for the 1999-2000 school year if...[it]...did not prevail at trial." The district at the time chose to comply with the order by simply continuing its current plan, while removing the racial preferences priority from the OER process. In the settlement agreement that was reached in mid-February and approved by this Court on July 2, 1999, the parties agreed that this default plan would govern student assignments for 1999-2000.[4] For the 2000-2001 school year, however, it was expected that the district would come up with a new plan that would build on Consent Decree principles without using race as a primary or predominant factor.

SFUSD did indeed submit a new plan to the Court in the Fall of 1999, but it was rejected on the grounds that it not only violated the terms of the Ho Settlement Agreement, but also unconstitutionally relied on race as a primary or predominant factor. The district was given the choice of either coming up with a new plan, or continuing with the default student assignment plan in effect since February 1999. For reasons which remain unclear, it chose to continue with this default plan.

As a result of these events, the student assignment process in SFUSD has changed in significant ways over the past two enrollment cycles. Our monitoring team has examined this changeover in great detail, analyzing the final data of the Spring 1999 enrollment process and the incomplete data currently available from the recent Spring 2000 process. We have found that while most of the district's schools have remained relatively stable thus far, approximately 16 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, and 1 high school have shown severe resegregation at the incoming class level.[5]

In this report, we present a detailed analysis of all the data we have been able to obtain as of July 14, 2000, including a series of comparative tables showing the nature and extent of these resegregation trends. We also urge the district to take advantage of an existing consensus in the City regarding the importance of equal educational opportunity and move forward to develop a creative new plan that would replace the less-than-satisfactory default process still in effect.

C. Academic Achievement Issues: From Reconstitution to II/USP

In recent years, SFUSD has shifted gears several times as it seeks to address the issue of low performing schools under the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree. Highlights of these efforts in the 1990's include a refinement of the original reconstitution process[6] via the Comprehensive Schools Improvement Program (CSIP) that was implemented in 1993, negotiations seeking to establish a new "School Accountability Process" (1997-1999), and the decision to end those negotiations and work under California's new Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) in the Fall of 1999.

As documented at great length in previous reports, the Comprehensive Schools Improvement Program (CSIP) and the accompanying reconstitution process for schools that did not improve were at the center of an explicit SFUSD plan to improve academic achievement in the 1990's.[7] Under this process, low performing schools were placed on a CSIP list and targeted for close monitoring and additional reform efforts. Most "graduated" from the list after two years, but 9 were reconstituted from 1994 through 1997…with district officials bringing in new administrators and substantially new staffs to replace existing personnel.[8] In addition, during this same time period, three new Consent Decree schools were established, and one other low performing school was disestablished. These actions brought the total of dramatic changes for the entire fifteen-year reconstitution period (1983-1997) to 15 schools reconstituted, five new Consent Decree schools established,[9] and one high school disestablished.[10]

After the Spring of 1997, CSIP/Reconstitution was put on hold, as district officials and teachers union officials sought to work out a modification of the process for addressing low performing schools. The new "School Accountability Process" envisioned by the negotiating teams would have established a common framework and criteria to guide reform. As contemplated, it would have identified clearly defined roles and responsibilities for individuals, schools, and central offices. The key to the process would have been its emphasis on site-based management, site plan critiques, and school portfolios. Members of the negotiating teams sought to develop a range of indicators, building on but not necessarily matching the district's recent portfolio assessment.[11]

Negotiations between the district and the teachers on the School Accountability Process were unofficially terminated in the Fall of 1999...as SFUSD officials chose instead to buy into California's new Immediate Intervention/ Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP). These shifts of direction initially resulted in an additional level of tension between the district and the teachers union, but by the end of the 1999-2000 academic year a Labor Management Community Advisory Committee had begun work toward developing a process that would hopefully lead to improved II/USP collaboration.[12]

The II/USP statewide process is set forth under California's new Public Schools Accountability Act.[13] While currently optional, it is anticipated that at some point in the future it will be mandatory.[14] In San Francisco, thirty-nine SFUSD schools were originally identified as qualifying for II/USP based on the fact that their test scores fell below the state average each of the previous two years. Out of these thirty-nine, the California Department of Education (CDE) selected fourteen.[15] Each one of the schools received a planning grant of $50,00 to hire an external evaluator and prepare an II/USP action plan.[16]

In the academic achievement section of this report, we look at this new process in greater detail, and examine some of the data that has been generated as a result. We also seek to identify larger patterns and trends that have become evident in the aftermath of these various reform efforts. We have found, for example, that the two most successful efforts over the entire 18-year period of the Consent Decree have been the Phase One reforms of 1983-1985 and the CSIP/Reconstitution program of 1993-1997. Although the more recent efforts were not uniformly successful, most of the schools that participated in CSIP did indeed improve. Yet not every one of the schools that did improve has been able to sustain the momentum, and some have given up their original gains. We urge all the relevant stakeholders to look closely at both why the reforms initially worked and why they were not always sustained. Such an analysis can hopefully inform district efforts to work toward the interrelated goals of maximizing equal educational opportunity under a new student assignment plan and improving academic achievement today at certain persistently low performing schools.

D. Determining the Nature & Extent of Academic Achievement: Testing Issues and the Interface between the Monitoring Process and State Legislative Developments

Given the Consent Decree's explicit focus on improving academic achievement through a combination of desegregation, targeted programs, and reform efforts, our previous reports have necessarily included extensive data documenting standardized test results. We continue to do so this year. Schools and school districts must be accountable to the taxpayers, and standardized tests can provide very important information in this regard. Basic skills are an essential foundation of a good education, and to the extent that standardized tests measure growth and progress in basic skills, they serve a valuable function.

But these tests should be viewed as only one of many possible measures. As we have pointed out year after year, research in the area of educational assessment and evaluation points unequivocally to the centrality of a basic principle in this area: relying on one standardized test to measure anything is at best inappropriate and at worst a very dangerous practice.

Thus we have continued to include a range of other indicators of academic achievement and educational quality in addition to the statewide test scores in each of our reports. These include attendance figures, GPA's, and numbers of students in Advanced Placement (AP) classes. We have also included precise indicators of educational quality identified by key researchers in the field. And we have supplemented this information with empirical evidence gleaned from our extensive visits to individual school sites. We urge SFUSD stakeholders to continue to rely on this entire range of indicators, rather than just focusing on the scores of one standardized test.

Cutting against these research-based imperatives, however, is the state's ongoing effort to tie a growing number of programs and policy decisions to the results of only one test -- the STAR test (aka the SAT-9). The legislatively mandated Accountability Performance Index (API) school rankings, for example, are currently based solely on these test results.[17] And these rankings now form the basis of numerous state-funded reform efforts, including:

· Eligibility for II/USP

· Bonuses of approximately $1,600 to all employees at schools whose scores on the API rise by 5%.

· Additional money for individual school campuses that meet their 5% growth targets.

· Additional bonuses for teachers at schools that show extraordinary testing gains, defined as an increase of more than 10% on the performance index.[18]

In addition, the state will now be funding merit scholarships of $1,000 for ninth, 10th, and 11th graders who score in the top 10% of their school or the top 5% of students statewide on the SAT-9.[19]

The monitoring team has found that as a result of this increased focus on the scores of this one test, individual school sites in San Francisco have understandably begun to devote more time to test preparation exercises and activities. To the extent that these activities help build basic skills, they can serve a valuable purpose. But at a certain point, test preparation crosses the line and ceases to be a valuable educational activity. At a certain point, it serves only a narrow cognitive function, taking away from time that can and should be spent developing the students' writing skills, problem solving skills, higher order thinking skills, and creative abilities in general. Thus we urge members of the SFUSD community to closely monitor the nature and extent of test preparation activities in individual schools and supplement this monitoring with relevant staff development so that an important curricular balance continues to be maintained.

E. Testing of Limited-English Proficient (LEP) Students

In Report #16, we wrote that we were not able to provide a complete report to this Court regarding the academic achievement of SFUSD students because so many LEP students are not formally assessed. We have found once again that no systematic assessment program is currently in place to objectively measure the skill attainment and language acquisition progress of all the LEP students in the district. And it must again be noted that almost one third of all the students in SFUSD are English Learners.[20] If we are only able to provide this Court with systematic data for the fluent English proficient (FEP) students, then the picture provided by the test data is necessarily incomplete... reflecting as it does the basic skills levels of just two thirds of the district's students.

This issue is further complicated by the current state requirement that all California public school students must take the SAT-9 in English, a requirement that has been challenged in the courts by SFUSD and others. The case is scheduled for trial in November 2000.[21]

We have noted in previous reports that some LEP students do indeed take the SABE (a skills test in Spanish), and that others take the SAT-9, but that a large number of the LEP students take neither. The only other instrument that is apparently used throughout the district for the purpose of assessing LEP student progress is a skills checklist created by SFUSD called the Language and Literacy Assessment Rubric (LALAR). But -- as we noted in Report #16 -- because the LALAR is a skills checklist, it is by its very nature a subjective document. Along with another, more objective instrument, it can provide important and useful information. By itself, however, it provides data that is necessarily incomplete. In addition, we have found that the checklist is used differently at different schools, which may very well lead to inconsistent results.[22]

We continue to find that the assessment of LEP students in SFUSD is unsettled, leading to significant gaps both in the reporting of academic achievement at the district level and in the monitoring of student progress at the day-to-day classroom level. Individual schools have sometimes developed their own assessment and evaluation instruments, but these efforts vary from school site to school site. Thus decisions regarding placement and redesignation are often based on informal determinations. They may even be based on other inconsistent factors such as the space available in particular classrooms at individual school sites. And no comparative district-wide data of any sort is available to document the academic achievement of this large and diverse group of students.

We do note, however, that there has been some positive movement in this area over the past half year. For the first time, we have been able to obtain more concrete information regarding which students take the SABE -- a Spanish language test of basic skills -- and which students do not. Other standardized tests are also being administered to certain LEP students in the primary grades, and the district is continuing to work toward an objectifiable comparative database of LALAR checklist results. Finally, the new statewide English Language Development (ELD) test, slated to be administered to all LEP students in California perhaps as early as the Spring of 2001, will hopefully provide additional relevant feedback.

We have indicated in our previous reports that LEP testing is a particularly difficult issue to address, but at the same time we must recognize that there are indeed things that can be done. We urge the district to continue taking the steps necessary to begin moving forward in this area -- in the same spirit that it has approached other reform issues under the Consent Decree. If the district is committed to not testing LEP students in English, then it must consider a variety of systematic methods for assessing them in their primary language.[23] And now that most Spanish-speaking LEP students are required to take the SABE, even a similar basic skills test for the Chinese-speaking LEP students would result in a formal assessment process for the great majority of language minority students in SFUSD. Developing similar tests in Vietnamese and Tagalog would only add incrementally to the picture. Tables could then be created which would include both the formalized test results and the district-wide results of the LALAR assessments.

Unless and until the district takes steps to move forward in this area, we will not be able to provide a complete report to this Court -- and through this Court to the people of California -- regarding the academic achievement of all the students in the district...as required by the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree.

F. The Interface between Attendance, Academic Achievement, and Equal Educational Opportunity

As we noted in past reports, there is a direct correlation between attendance and academic achievement. Students who go to class invariably do better in school and maximize their chances for success down the road. In Report #16, we documented a shocking disparity at the high school level regarding the extent to which students of different races and ethnicities attend class regularly. And we promised to focus extensively on this issue in 1999-2000.

While problems with the district's data gathering operations limited our ability to obtain relevant information in a timely manner, we were still able to explore this issue at some length with educators at local school sites. We present the results of this analysis in the main section of this report, including extensive documentation of the range of views on what might cause attendance problems and what can be done by educators and community liaisons to reverse a very disturbing trend.

In addition, a few weeks before this report was scheduled to be filed, we obtained information on the differences in attendance from school to school. At the high school level, this information is as revealing as it is disappointing. District-wide, only 37.8% of all Filipino students, 24% of all Latino students, 21.5% of all Native American students, and 18.6% of all African American students attend 91-100% of all their classes. This is in marked contrast to -- for example -- the Korean American students (59.8%), the Japanese American Students (62.2%), and the Chinese American students (68.4%).

The disparity from campus to campus is even more startling. While attendance figures at schools such as Lowell and Wallenberg are significantly better than the district average, the numbers at other campuses are particularly troublesome. At Galileo, for example, only 25.7% of the White students, 25.5% of the Filipino students, 16.7% of the Japanese students, 13.5% of the Latino students, and 9.1% of the African American students attend 91-100% of their classes. And at McAteer, the percentages of students attending 91-100% of the time range from a high of only 31.5% of the Chinese American students to lows that include 15.1% of the Latino students, 14.6% of the Filipino students, and just 7.7% of the African American students...horrendous attendance figures across the board.

In addition, we have found a significant difference between attendance figures at the high school level and those at the elementary level. And these differences are consistent with our findings in both Report #16 and this report regarding the troubling drop in student test scores at the 9th and 10th grade levels. These objective indicators raise a number of red flags regarding the quality of education being delivered by SFUSD at its high schools. In our ongoing school site visits, although we are still finding notable examples of excellent educational programs in certain high school classrooms, we continue to find that as a general rule SFUSD teachers at the elementary level consistently provide more learning activities that engage students actively in the learning process. This pattern Most of the classrooms we visit that appear to have a large percentage of students who are not actively engaged are composed of older students at the higher grades...and these students are typically enrolled in the so-called "regular" or "general ed" classes.

Thus we have found three interrelated disparities in an attendance context: (1) the disparity between racial/ethnic groups across the board; (2) the disparities from one school to the next, particularly at the high school level; and (3) the disparity between attendance at elementary classrooms and attendance at high school classrooms across the board.

We have noted in past reports to this Court that school attendance is a central, Archimedean point on which academic achievement turns. If the SFUSD community can focus on improving its attendance figures, then academic achievement will inevitably go up. We heartily endorse recent efforts on the part of district officials, and the additional suggestions set forth by the SFNAACP in the parties' Third Joint Report, to address this vital area from every possible angle.

G. Generally Positive Findings Overall

All these issues notwithstanding, we have found throughout the course of our systematic monitoring efforts that SFUSD in many significant ways is a vibrant and highly successful district. The community can point to a large number of top quality public schools, where educators and students are interacting effectively in dynamic multicultural settings. The statewide Academic Performance Index rankings include a large percentage of SFUSD campuses in the top numerical categories. Noteworthy language acquisition programs at many schools reflect cutting-edge approaches to the teaching of English and the building of relevant language skills across the board. Creative partnerships with local businesses continue to bring a wealth of resources and expertise into individual school sites. Technology programs in many places serve as exemplars of the best that California has to offer. And the initiatives developed at particular school sites to reach out to local community residents continue to be impressive.

Thus SFUSD stakeholders need not look very far for appropriate models and approaches. Often, in fact, they need look no further than down the block, around the corner, or the next Muni stop. We urge the district to build on its own successes and utilize the expertise of its highly successful educators to replicate their many achievements in every corner of the City.

**************

Before turning to our traditional paragraph-by-paragraph analysis, we address for the first time the difficult subject of the transition to the end of the Consent Decree. While there continues to be major disagreement between and among the relevant parties regarding either the efficacy of such a termination or the likelihood that it will actually take place, the fact remains that the Consent Decree -- for the first time -- now contains a targeted end-date: December 31, 2002. Issues related to this targeted end-date are therefore examined in great detail in the following pages.

---

[1] As we have noted in all our previous reports, the SFNAACP v. SFUSD Consent Decree represents an agreement concluded in 1983 by the plaintiffs (SFNAACP), the defendant school district (SFUSD), and the "state defendants" (the California State Board of Education and its members, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the State Department of Education) in response to an equal educational opportunity lawsuit filed by the SFNAACP in 1978.

It is clear from the language of the Consent Decree that the parties' goal has been to benefit all the students in SFUSD, no matter what their race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status might be. While specific references in the Consent Decree and the parties' Second Joint Report reflect the parties' desire to provide additional efforts on behalf of African American and Latino students, references to the original lawsuit being brought "on behalf of…all children" and other specific references throughout the text indicate clearly and unambiguously the broad scope of this document.

The Consent Decree continues to be viewed as unique because it not only mandates the desegregation of all schools, programs, and classrooms, but also requires increased efforts to achieve academic excellence for all students in the district. In fact, many people believe that because of this Consent Decree SFUSD is currently more accountable to the people of California than any other district in the state.

[2] As we discussed in Report #15, certain schools were designated as "targeted" or "consent decree" schools in the 1980's. These schools -- along with others that were placed on the Comprehensive School Improvement Program (CSIP) list and/or were reconstituted in the 1990's -- continue to receive a large percentage of Consent Decree money. The terms of the Consent Decree, however, generally apply to every school in the district.

[3] These nine categories included: Latino, Other White, African American, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Native American, Filipino, and Other Non-White.

[4] According to the settlement agreement, Paragraph H, "...the parties will stipulate to the entry of a preliminary injunction consistent with Option 1 of Attachment A to the Report filed by the SFUSD with the Court on February 1, 1999. Unless it is modified or dissolved, the preliminary injunction shall govern assignment of students in the SFUSD beginning with the 1999-2000 school year. The preliminary injunction shall provide that the SFUSD will not assign or admit any student to a particular school, class or program on the basis of the race or ethnicity of that student, except as related to the language needs of the student or otherwise to assure compliance with controlling federal or state law..."

[5] Elementary schools with at least 60% enrollment of one particular race or ethnicity projected at the kindergarten and/or the first grade level in the Fall of 2000 include (a) Bryant, Chavez, Edison, Flynn, Marshall, and Sanchez (predominantly Latino students); (b) Chin, Garfield, Lau, Stevenson, and Yick Wo (predominantly Chinese American students); (c) Carver, Drew, Malcolm X, and 21st Century (predominantly African American students); and (d) Creative Arts (predominantly White students).

Middle schools with at least 60% enrollment of one particular race or ethnicity projected at the sixth and/or the seventh grade level in the Fall of 2000 include Davis (predominantly African American students), Mann (predominantly Latino students), and Marina (predominantly Chinese students).

The one high school with at least 60% enrollment of one particular race or ethnicity projected at the ninth and/or the tenth grade level in the Fall of 2000 is O'Connell (predominantly Latino students).

[6] The first schools to be targeted at the beginning of the Consent Decree (1983-1985) continue to be called 'Phase One' schools. They include George Washington Carver, Charles Drew, and Malcolm X (formerly Sir Francis Drake) elementary schools, Martin Luther King and Horace Mann middle schools, and Phillip & Sala Burton High. King and Burton were brand-new schools, created by the Consent Decree. The other four were reconstituted.

[7] As we indicated in Report #16: "Reconstitution began in San Francisco under the terms of this Consent Decree and has since spread across the country to other cities and school districts. Under reconstitution, the entire faculty and administration at low performing schools is vacated, and a new team of educators is brought in. The new staff must be committed to reforming the school and improving student achievement according to the principles set forth in the eleven philosophical tenets. Teachers and administrators may apply for their former jobs, and in some cases they are rehired. Tenured educators are guaranteed a teaching position somewhere in the district." See Report #16, at Page 140.

After examining the positive results of the initial reconstitution process at the "Phase One" schools (1983-1985) and the mixed results at the 2 schools reconstituted in 1988, SFUSD established the new CSIP/Reconstitution process in 1993. As we reported last year, "under the CSIP/Reconstitution process developed by the district, low performing schools were identified through an assessment process based on seventeen indicators agreed to by the parties to the decree. Once targeted, schools entered the Comprehensive School Improvement Program (CSIP), and received additional assistance from the district and an opportunity to improve performance. Most CSIP schools graduated from this program, but those that did not were reconstituted. According to Consent Decree revisions adopted by the parties and approved by this Court, three schools per year were to be reconstituted beginning in 1994." See id.

[8] The following schools have been reconstituted since the beginning of the Consent Decree: Phase One: G.W. Carver, C. Drew, S.F. Drake (Malcolm X), H. Mann; 1988: J. Muir, J. Lick; 1994: B. Harte, Visitacion Valley; 1995: Edison, R. Parks; 1996: Aptos, Balboa, Starr King; 1997: Golden Gate, Mission. The schools reconstituted in the 1990's were originally part of a larger group that had been placed on the CSIP list.

[9] The new schools, established with Consent Decree money, were Burton HS (Phase One), King Middle School (Phase One), 21^st Century (K-8) (1993), Thurgood Marshall HS (1994), and Gloria R. Davis Middle School (1995).

[10] Wilson High School was dismantled in 1994.

[11] The district's portfolio assessment was actually implemented in 1998, and all SFUSD schools were required to assemble portfolios documenting their progress towards district standards. Results of the 1999 assessment were set forth by the monitoring team in Appendix I of Report #16.

[12] Still in its early stages, the group's current goal is to develop and share a model collaborative approach for creating II/USP action plans. Participants also hope that the different stakeholders will also eventually assist in the identifying and removing of barriers to school improvement.

These sentiments were expressed by UESF President Kent Mitchell and others at a meeting of the Labor Management Community Advisory Meeting, attended by our monitoring team on June 14, 2000.

[13] See Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999, Immediate Intervention/ Underperforming Schools Program, Article 3, Sections 52053-52055.5. It is also linked to the U.S. Department of Education's Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) program. See Public Law 105-78.

Directed primarily at Title I schools, CSRD has many of the same goals and processes as PSAA. For this reason, the PSAA incorporates CSRD as part of the implementation phase of II/USP. Thus, 78 schools statewide are federally funded CSRD schools and the first implementation schools under the II/USP.

[14] Interview with Bonnie Bergum and Dede Desmond, July 17, 2000.

[15]1999-2000 II/USP schools include: Cleveland, Bret Harte, Malcolm X, McKinley, Muir, John Swett, Webster, Franklin MS, Gloria R. Davis MS, King MS, Galileo HS, Thurgood Marshall HS, Mission HS, and Burton HS. It should be noted that these fourteen schools are not necessarily the lowest performing schools in the district. The legislation mandates that the Superintendent of Public Instruction select participants from the eligible schools. Consequently, while schools like Mission and Gloria R. Davis are among the lowest performing schools in the district, selected schools McKinley and Thurgood Marshall scored above average within the district.

[16] And after the evaluators completed their recommendations, each school created an action plan and submitted it to the CDE for approval. In addition, as part of this process, SFUSD officials in the central office also identified district-wide barriers... and strategies for removing those barriers.

[17] The parameters of this legislation are discussed at some length infra, in the Paragraph 39-41 section on II/USP.

[18] At least 1,000 teachers are expected to get $25,000 each. The remaining money will be divided into $5,000 and $10,000 bonuses, based on student improvement.

It should also be noted that additional state money has been budgeted to help schools in the bottom half of the accountability index recruit and retain fully credentialed teachers. Schools can use the money for signing bonuses, to forgive home loans and for other incentives.

[19] See generally Richard Lee Colvin & Duke Helfand, Millions for Schools Tied to Stanford 9 Test Scores, L.A. Times, July 1, 2000.

[20] According to recent data, 31.5% of all the students in SFUSD were either limited-English proficient (LEP) or non-English proficient (NEP). San Francisco Unified School District, District and School Profiles 1999-2000.

[21] See Third Amended Cross Complaint of Cross Complainant San Francisco Unified School District et al for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, California Department of Education et al v. San Francisco Unified School District Governing Board et al, Case #994049, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, January 7, 1999.

[22] According to figures we obtained last year, as of Spring 1999 the four largest groups of LEP students in SFUSD are Chinese, Spanish Surname, Other Non White, and Filipino. Chinese students comprise 7,336 of all LEP students, or 40%. Spanish Surname students comprise 6,864 of all LEP students, or 38%. Other Non White students -- who are mostly Asians and Pacific Islanders -- comprise 1,668 (9%), and Filipino students comprise 995 (5.5%). See Report #16, at Page 128.

[23] The students in Kindergarten and Grade 1 are particularly important in this regard, since such a large percentage of the district's LEP student population can be found at the primary level.