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
Consent Decree Monitor
for the State of California
WITHIN-SCHOOL
SEGREGATION: NEW FINDINGS
From Report #17: Pages 72-80
Paragraph 12 of the Consent Decree continues to state that "[a] major goal of the provisions of the Consent Decree shall be to eliminate racial/ethnic segregation or identifiability in any SFUSD school, program, or classroom and to achieve the broadest practicable distribution throughout the system of students from the racial and ethnic groups which comprise the enrollment of the SFUSD."
In our past reports, and particularly in Report #15, we noted that while the district continued to be substantially in compliance with the requirements of both Paragraph 12 and Paragraph 13 with regard to school-by-school desegregation, the same was not true with regard to the desegregation of programs and individual classrooms. And it is clear from the plain meaning of the language in Paragraph 12 that the desegregation contemplated by this Consent Decree can only be accomplished by focusing on all three components: school, program, and classroom. We went on to present our findings in this context, which included extensive evidence regarding the three types of within-school segregation in SFUSD.[138]
While we note again that in general within-school segregation is one of those intractable nationwide problems that has defied easy solution, we also are aware of a growing body of research in this area that could serve as the basis for some concrete policy decisions at the district level to ameliorate the impact of within-school segregation over time. And, as we discussed in the "Transition to 2002" section of this report, there is much that can be done within the context of Consent Decree goals and principles in this regard.
Yet we must report that we have seen little or no progress in this area since 1998. And indeed we have found evidence this year of a trend toward increased within-school segregation of Latino and Chinese American students in certain settings.
As we have reported in 1998 and again in 1999, the separation out of LEP students for language acquisition purposes at the elementary grades has often resulted in extensive within-school segregation of student populations on the basis of race or ethnicity. In Report #15, we provided detailed evidence of these practices, and documented their impact -- in particular -- on Latino students who were separated out, Chinese American students who were separated out, and African American students who ended up separated out as a result.[139] While we have confirmed the advantages of such grouping practices in particular instances from a curricular or pedagogical perspective, we have also noted that they can result in a disparate impact on the level of equal educational opportunity available to certain student groups. In some schools, the bilingual classes receive the strongest levels of instruction and a different, higher level curriculum...putting the students in the "other" classes at a disadvantage. In other schools, bilingual students may themselves receive a dumbed-down curriculum, rooted in lower expectations for LEP students that still persist in particular settings.[140]
When schools combine such separation with creative integration practices and successful transition from bilingual classes to regular classes, the negative effects of the separate classes can be ameliorated. But recent findings by the monitoring team have raised additional cause for concern in this area, and we document those findings in the following paragraphs.
1. Separating Students for the Wrong
Reasons
It is important to emphasize that some degree of separation by language ability is not only justified by extensive research in this area, but is indeed mandated by the California Education Code.[141] We have also documented in past reports the existence of effective integration plans in certain settings...where students are separated for part of the time, but integrated at other times for particular subject areas, programs, and/or activities.[142] Yet we are now beginning to find in this context that sometimes the separation of students is happening in the wrong ways and for the wrong reasons.
For example, there is a widely accepted model of bilingual education called "Late Exit Transitional," which envisions both a transition from primary language instruction to English language instruction over time, as well as the maintenance and indeed the building of skills in a student's primary language. In addition, such a model is accompanied by bi-cultural and multicultural education. A key goal of such a model is to have the students exit the program fully proficient in both English and their primary language. Yet we are beginning to find examples of schools where students already are fully proficient in English by the middle elementary grades, but are kept in separate classes for the upper grades where the instruction is entirely in English and there is no evidence that any maintenance in the primary language is taking place.[143]
Three justifications are typically given for a separation of students once they already know English: (1) the school is simply following the preferred late exit transitional model, (2) the grouping practices reflect the desires of the local community, or (3) staffing, enrollment, and available space require it. All of these justifications, however, can turn out to be the wrong reasons in particular situations. First, the late exit model does not contemplate separate grouping if the goals of the program are already achieved and no maintenance in the primary language is taking place. Second, as several principals have indicated to us over the years, parents sometimes wish to keep their children in separate bilingual classes to avoid contact with students of other races and ethnicities. But such desires cannot dictate district policy, particularly when they are contrary to the goals of the Consent Decree and arguably discriminatory under civil rights law. And finally, basing such placement decisions on existing staffing, enrollment, and space requirements is only justified in the immediate, short term. Once these realities are discovered, the district's Educational Placement Center can and should compensate by adjusting teacher and student assignment practices for the particular schools. Creative heterogeneous grouping practices by school site administrators can also help a great deal.
2. Perceptions
We have found that practices at the local school site level such as those described in the previous paragraph may be based in part on perceptions that certain approaches to grouping have been mandated by the SFUSD "Language Academy,"[144] when in fact such mandates may not actually exist.
During the 1999-2000 school year, for example, we found growing evidence of a perceived district-level mandate from the Language Academy to continue adding separate bilingual classes, particularly at the upper elementary grades. This past spring alone, just about every school site administrator who was asked about the issue confirmed this perception. Peabody Principal Victor Tam, for example, explained that over the past several years -- during the time that he was still a kindergarten teacher at Sutro -- a directive was issued mandating the separation of students for language acquisition purposes. When asked if this was a district-wide directive, Mr. Tam noted that it was not in writing, but that it was perceived at his school site as district-wide.[145] Sutro Principal Annette Lim reinforced these perceptions, and added that as a result of this directive the "Chinese Bilingual" program now consists of separate classes for Cantonese-speaking LEP students at each grade level.[146]
Treasure Island Principal Lisa Shek noted that they have had separate bilingual classes at her school through the 3rd grade, but that as a result of perceived district policy, they will be adding a Grade 3-4 Chinese Bilingual class and a Grade 4 Spanish Bilingual class in the Fall.[147] And Visitacion Valley Elementary Principal Vincent Chao described recent events by stating that, in his view, the district's bilingual department "does not want 'isolated' bilingual classes any more," but wants the program to be "an entire strand," continuing from kindergarten through Grade 5. Thus, according to this perceived mandate, a school cannot just have separate bilingual classes at the grades where the need exists.[148]
In the view of Sally Chou -- former principal of Galileo High School and the SFUSD Associate Superintendent who has recently begun monitoring this area -- the district's mandate only extends to adding bilingual classes in grades and settings where LEP students are enrolled but are not "clustered." She adds that the purpose of grouping these students together is to provide a higher level of appropriate educational services to better meet their needs. Ms. Chou believes that communication from the district-level bilingual coordinators[149] may have been misinterpreted from school site to school site, and hopes to work on changing this pattern in the future.[150]
To the best of our knowledge, then, there has not been an actual directive in writing, but the perception is certainly there that the district wants schools with transitional bilingual programs to add and/or create more separate classes for students. It is clear from our recent findings that school site administrators definitely believe there is a particular district policy in this area.
3. The Growing Disconnect between
District Bilingual Coordinators and School
Site Principals
Underlying all these findings is evidence of a growing disconnect between district-level bilingual coordinators and school site administrators. Clearly much of this could be related to the lack of a permanent replacement for recently departed Language Academy Director Rosita Apodaca and to the larger transition issues we reference throughout this report. But on some level we have been seeing such a disconnect for years. In 1998 and again in 1999 we reported the existence of contradictory information and practices in this context from school to school, and ongoing inconsistencies between statements at the district level and at the local school site level.[151]
Recent interviews with school site administrators only confirm the persistence of this pattern. For example, when asked about language acquisition practices at the elementary schools in and around Chinatown, Garfield Principal Karen Law told us that each school in the area does things "pretty much their own way," even as she indicated her perception that they all follow what the Language Academy says they should be doing.[152] When discussing the issue of Language Academy policies and directives, Burbank Middle School Principal John Rubio said that there was "no clear picture" of what the bilingual coordinators want the school to be doing.[153] And Peabody Principal Victor Tam added that there is little in writing from the Language Academy in this regard.[154] Language Academy documents obtained by the monitoring team reveal exciting broad visions, but few specific directives. Without specific directives in writing, confusion is likely to persist.[155]
In this context, Sally Chou told us recently that she has been seeing a similar disconnect on many levels, and notes that there has been little or no training of school site principals in the area of language acquisition for the past 2-3 years. Thus, she explains, district directives may be misinterpreted. She hopes that SFUSD can implement extensive training for its administrators in this regard during the upcoming year. Such a view is consistent with our ongoing findings, documented in previous reports, regarding the need for principal staff development across the board. We look forward to progress in this area in the upcoming year.
4. Placement of Students Who Have
Been Redesignated
A related issue in this area is the apparent practice of keeping certain students in separate bilingual classes even after they have been redesignated. Redesignation is the term given to the process of certifying that a student has successfully completed a language acquisition program and is now fluent-English proficient (FEP).[156] In theory, of course, this means that a student is ready to move on to a regular classroom setting. Yet we are finding that such a move does not always take place.
At Jean Parker Elementary, for example, students are redesignated, but -- according to Principal Janet Dung -- there is "no place to go," and they must stay in bilingual classes or transfer to another school.[157] Dung explained to us that the only alternative placements at Parker outside of the bilingual classes are the "English Proficiency" classes, and because these classes are "always full," students wishing to transfer out of the bilingual strand -- even if redesignated -- can only do so by leaving Parker itself. Thus students who enter Parker and are placed in a Spanish bilingual or a Cantonese bilingual track will almost always stay in that track for their entire elementary school careers, no matter how proficient them might become in English along the way.
We are not currently aware of the extent of such practices district-wide, and indeed it may be the case that they exist at only a small number of schools...and that the common practice is just the opposite. But Sally Chou did confirm in a recent interview that there is "no systematic monitoring of redesignation" in SFUSD.[158] During the coming year, we will be requesting data from the district regarding the percentages of students who are redesignated but still remain in separate bilingual classes, and we hope to provide an extensive update of this particular question in our next annual report.
The monitoring team of course does not take a position on the correct way to instruct LEP students.[159] Many approaches from Two-Way Immersion to Early Exit to Late Exit to ESL, ELD, and SDAIE are available. Some approaches focus on education, initially, in a student's primary language, while others focus on instruction only in English. But no model of language acquisition includes keeping students separated out once they have achieved the goals of the program. Yet this is what appears to be happening at certain schools in the City. Students are kept in separate classes for reasons having nothing to do with language acquisition.
It is important to emphasize the fact that SFUSD educators are working very hard on a day-to-day basis to meet the needs of language minority students in spite of ongoing problems with resources and continuing challenges in a variety of contexts. There are no "villains" here. Everyone is putting a tremendous amount of effort into improving this process. And there have been great successes in this area, as we have noted in the past. Models of exemplary practice in the area of bilingual education exist throughout the City.
Yet we are finding the existence of unsettled patterns and persistent contradictions that must be reported. We urge the district to address this topic, and these recent developments, in a coordinated way. Close monitoring of what is taking place in this regard at local school sites can reveal the extent to which students in general -- and especially the students in SFUSD's three largest racial/ethnic groups (African Americans, Chinese Americans, and Latinos) -- are being impacted. In particular, we urge SFUSD officials to examine the troubling disconnect between the district's bilingual coordinators and school site administrators throughout the City that may have led to ongoing inconsistencies and the perpetuation of practices that are in violation of the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree.
[138] In one category of
within-school segregation were classrooms where LEP students are separated out for
purposes of language acquisition. In a
second category were classrooms where the enrollment is predominantly -- or in
some cases almost entirely -- African American as a result of the fact that
most other students in the school are placed in bilingual programs. In a third category were middle schools and
high schools where students are grouped on the basis of perceived ability,
often resulting in a disproportionate number of African American and Latino
students being placed in the "lower" level classrooms. See
Report #15, Pages 28-47.
[139] Schools identified in this
context included -- but were not limited to -- Hillcrest, Gordon J. Lau
(formerly Commodore Stockton), Leonard R. Flynn, Daniel Webster, De Avila,
Edison, E.R. Taylor, Golden Gate, Bret Harte, Rosa Parks, Sanchez, and Starr
King. See Report #15, Pages 30-35.
[140] Former Superintendent
Rojas, in several interviews with our monitoring team over time, conceded that
the issue of a different curriculum was indeed something that needed to be
addressed, and noted the problem of lower teacher expectations for LEP students
leading in certain cases to a dumbed-down curriculum in bilingual classes.
On the other hand, it should also be noted
that in many settings we have seen teachers with very high expectations for LEP
students...particularly in the case where -- as we found at Sunset Elementary
School this past spring -- teachers are properly trained and also fluent in two
languages.
[141] See, e.g., Lynne T.
Diaz-Rico & Kathryn Z. Weed, The
Crosscultural Language and Academic Development (CLAD) Handbook, Longman
(1995). See generally Cal. Educ. Code, Sections 305-306.
[142] See, e.g., Report #15,
Pages 37-46.
[143] We have found the existence
of such a pattern, for example, in certain classes at Moscone Elementary in
1998-1999, and at Jean Parker Elementary in 1999-2000.
[144] The district office in
charge of coordinating language acquisition programs is called the Language
Academy. This academy serves as a
vehicle for disseminating information, distributing materials, coordinating
supervision, and generating research.
[145] Interview with Peabody
Principal Victor Tam, March 27, 2000.
Tam noted that fellow teachers reacted negatively at the time, believing
that the apparent directive was contrary to Consent Decree goals of integrating
students, and that it went against practices that benefited all the
students...such as having good English-speaking role models in the same class,
being able to make friends easily with students of different ethnicities, and
in general "breaking down walls."
[146] Interview with Sutro
Principal Annette Lim, March 27, 2000.
[147] Interview with Treasure
Island Principal Lisa Shek, March 6, 2000.
[148] Interview with Visitacion
Valley Elementary School Principal Vincent Chao, March 13, 2000.
[149] As used in this section,
the term "bilingual coordinator" refers to those district officials
who work under the umbrella of the SFUSD Language Academy and focus on language
acquisition programs at individual school sites.
[150] Interview with SFUSD
Associate Superintendent Sally Chou, July 19, 2000.
[151] See, e.g., Report #15, Pages 99-118; Report #16, Pages 127-140.
This disconnect is manifested, as well, in
the lack of ongoing articulation between those responsible for desegregation
and education placement and those responsible for language acquisition programs
and policies. See supra, Transition to 2002 section.
[152] Interview with Garfield
Principal Karen Law, January 31, 2000.
[153] Interview with Burbank
Middle School Principal John Rubio, December 13, 1999.
[154] Interview with Peabody
Principal Victor Tam, March 27, 2000.
[155] Similar findings were
documented in Report #16, at Page 129:
"We
continue to find, as we did last year -- that while district-level Language
Academy documents reveal an exciting vision for language acquisition
instruction district-wide -- the district in practice has not adopted one
preferred model of instruction for language minority students and English
Language Learners. Indeed, at the
school site level, there is tremendous variety from school-to-school in this
context. Interviews with principals,
classroom teachers, and members of the community reveal a range of very strong
and often-contradictory views on the proper approaches for educating SFUSD's
LEP students. And during school site
visits we noted significant differences between language acquisition programs
for Chinese American students and language acquisition programs for Latino
students. These differences are
apparent not only from school to school, but also within specific
schools."
[156] See Appendix V for a sample
district redesignation form.
[157] Interview with Parker
Principal Janet Dung, March 20, 2000, May 31, 2000.
[158] Interview with SFUSD
Associate Superintendent Sally Chou, July 19, 2000.
[159] Indeed, except as it may
relate directly to desegregation or academic achievement issues, an inquiry
into pedagogical approaches is beyond the scope of the Consent Decree.