PARAGRAPH-BY-PARAGRAPH ANALYSIS

Report #16 - The SFUSD Consent Decree

Note: Paragraphs 1-11 of the Consent Decree document provide background regarding the lawsuit, information about the parties, class certification, and other procedural matters. None of these paragraphs are appropriately viewed as requiring any affirmative behavior on the part of the district. Thus the traditional paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of district compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree begins appropriately with Paragraph 12.

STUDENT DESEGREGATION

Paragraph 12

...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...

It is clear from the language of the Consent Decree, the parties' Second Joint Report, and the Special Plan for Bayview-Hunters Point that the desegregation contemplated here is not simply an end in itself. It is also a vehicle for (1) maximizing equal educational opportunity, (2) improving academic achievement, and (3) increasing educational quality district-wide. Thus it is imperative that an analysis of Consent Decree compliance include a focus on the extent to which the district's current desegregation practices are in fact serving to move the community toward the attainment of these three interrelated goals.

A. Background Data

SFUSD currently maintains 122 schools for 63,925 students. The four most represented groups are Chinese American (28.4%), Latino (21.3%), African American (16.0%), and White (12.1%).[29]

In order to facilitate the goal of eliminating racial and ethnic segregation or identifiability in all SFUSD schools, programs, and classrooms, the student population of SFUSD has in the past been broken up into nine racial classifications, as follows: Latino, Other White,[30] African American, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Native American, Filipino, and Other Non-White.[31]

Within this context, it is important to note comparative student enrollment figures:

SFUSD Student Population 1983[32]

L OW AA J C K ONW NA F

17.2 16.9 23.1 1.1 19.5 1.0 11.9 0.6 8.7

SFUSD Student Population 1999[33]

L OW AA J C K ONW NA F

21.3 12.1 16.0 1.0 28.4 1.0 12.3 0.7 7.2

While the numbers in most of these categories have remained substantially similar since the year the Consent Decree was formalized, the Chinese American student population has increased from 19.5% to 28.4%, and the Latino student population has increased from 17.2% to 21.3%. On the other hand, the African American student population has declined from 23.1% to 16.0%, and the White population has declined from 16.8% to 12.0%.

Over the past year, the Chinese American student population increased from 27.3 to 28.4%, while the African American population dropped from 16.6 to 16.0% and the White population dropped from 13.0 to 12.1%. The "Other Non White" population, comprised mostly of Asian and Pacific Islander students, increased slightly from 12.1 to 12.3%.

B. Paragraph 12 Compliance and the Problem of Within-School-Segregation

Paragraph 12 of the Consent Decree states 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 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.

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.[34]

While we note that in general within-school segregation is one of those intractable nationwide problems that have 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 continue building on the work of the Rojas administration and ameliorate the impact of within-school segregation over time.

Indeed, we have found increased sensitivity to these issues throughout the SFUSD community in 1998-1999. But while there have been some ongoing efforts to move toward more heterogeneous grouping at the elementary level, the problems we have identified in this context remain substantially unresolved...and much work still remains to be done.

In Report #15, we concluded our extensive analysis of within-school segregation in SFUSD by setting forth several research and inquiry questions. We asked, for example, whether it might be possible to reach a consensus on just what level of separation for purposes of language acquisition and for purposes of implementing a college prep or GATE curriculum might reasonably be tolerated within the framework of the Consent Decree. We also suggested that rather than leaving decisions regarding within-school segregation in the hands of individual schools, district officials might consider some new policy initiatives that could conceivably strengthen the impact of local school site efforts.[35] With the attention of district officials focused on such overarching issues as the Brian Ho trial, the Consent Decree Settlement Agreement, the failure of the State to reimburse the district for desegregation expenditures, and the departure of Superintendent Rojas, little has been done in this regard. But we remain optimistic that such new initiatives can indeed be forthcoming.

C. The Ongoing Prevalence of Low Expectations

As time goes by, the monitoring team continues to uncover evidence of low expectations for student achievement throughout SFUSD. While it must be emphasized that the great majority of educators in the community do not share the view that only certain students can achieve at the highest levels, and that less people share such a view with each passing year, there are still a substantial number of classroom teachers, school site administrators, and district-level administrators whose actions reflect continuing low expectations for certain students and student groups. Such low expectations are vestiges of segregation that have not been eliminated to the extent practicable.

In 1972, the San Francisco Board of Education requested that Dr. Jane R. Mercer (UC Riverside) "conduct an evaluation of San Francisco elementary schools as they relate to desegregation and integration." This report, submitted in 1973, concluded that teachers in the district had much lower "educational and occupational expectations" for African American and Latino children. Such expectations on the part of educators can be linked not only to curricular and pedagogical practices but to a whole range of placement decisions with regard to student assignments as well as teacher assignments in the years prior to the Consent Decree.

The Consent Decree itself and specifically the Special Plan for Bayview-Hunters Point sought to address this form of discrimination directly. In particular, the philosophical tenets -- which were adopted to establish expectations for both learning and behavior and that have come to be viewed as central to the implementation of Consent Decree goals -- explicitly address the issue of expectations and focus on changing the prevalent view that only some students can achieve and that if they do not achieve it is not the fault of the school:

...2) All individuals are entitled to be treated with respect and dignity; 3) All individuals want to learn and should be recognized for their achievements; 4) All individuals can learn; 5) All individuals learn in many different ways and at varying rates; 6) Each individual learns best in a particular way; 7) All individuals are both potential learners and potential teachers; 8) If individuals do not learn, then those assigned to be their teachers will accept responsibility for this failure and will take appropriate remedial action to ensure success;...11) Parents want their children to attain their fullest potential as learners and to succeed academically. Special Plan for Bayview-Hunters Point Schools, Draft Update, SFUSD Division for Integration, April, 1995, at 3-14.

Throughout both Phase One and the entire Rojas administration, these tenets have served as guiding principles, and innovative SFUSD leaders have worked hard to try to break up the cynical culture of low expectations that had permeated the district at all levels. As previous reports by the monitoring teams have shown, great progress has been achieved. But, as we noted in Report #15, two significant vestiges of segregation still remain unresolved: (a) a different, lower quality ("dumbed-down") curriculum for students in certain racially identifiable and socioeconomic-status-identifiable schools and classrooms, and (b) substantially different approaches to school discipline from school site to school site. Both these problems are directly related to continuing low expectations for certain students and student groups.

The monitoring team continues to find numerous examples of a different, lower quality curriculum for key segments of the student population in San Francisco. At certain schools that remain racially identifiable, and at others that are clearly identifiable as low socioeconomic status, children consistently are presented with a "dumbed-down" curriculum based on continued low expectations on the part of too many teachers, counselors, and administrators.

In addition, as we documented in great detail in Report #15, similar realities are evident in particular in certain segregated classrooms. In some schools, for example, African American students are separated into "leftover" classrooms after almost all the other students are placed in language acquisition programs that often deliver a stronger curriculum with higher standards. In other schools, segregated language acquisition classes may themselves be of a lower quality, with Chinese American and Latino students sometimes separated out for their entire elementary school career. Finally, while many SFUSD middle schools and high schools deliver top quality education for students in "advanced" or "GATE" classes, they often provide a watered-down curriculum based on low expectations for their other students...and these "other students" are too often grouped in a racially identifiable or socioeconomic-status-identifiable manner...resulting in classes that are disproportionately low-income African American, Asian/Pacific, and/or Hispanic/Latino. The same pattern can often be found in the district's special education classes.

Some have argued that such practices are not discriminatory but actually necessary to meet the differing needs of students who currently achieve at different levels. However, research has shown that such grouping practices -- linked to lower expectations -- may indeed be discriminatory. Professor Jeannie Oakes has found, for example, that "schools far more often judge African American and Latino students to have learning deficits and limited potential. Not surprisingly, then, schools place these students disproportionately in low-track, remedial programs." Oakes also found that "criteria used to assign students to particular tracks were neither clearly specified nor consistently applied." [36] The monitoring team has found similar evidence in San Francisco. We have also found "inconsistent staff development" efforts in this context,[37] particularly within certain schools.[38]

In light of this ongoing evidence uncovered by the monitoring team, the issue of low expectations must remain a relevant component of our analysis under Paragraphs 12 & 13 (assignment of students to schools & classrooms), Paragraph 36 (staff development), and Paragraph 39 (academic achievement).

ACHIEVING STUDENT DESEGREGATION

Paragraph 13

(Paragraph 13 sets forth specific guidelines designed "to achieve the goals as stated in Paragraph 12." Pursuant to the order of this Court dated July 2, 1999, "No later than August 6, 1999, the parties will submit to the Court a stipulated, modified Consent Decree that incorporates the changes set forth in the settlement agreement." These changes will most directly impact the guidelines of Paragraph 13.

The Ho Settlement Agreement, as set forth in the July 2, 1999 order of this Court, provides, in pertinent part:

B. ...the SFUSD and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction shall develop a new student assignment plan consistent with the criteria contained in this agreement. The SFUSD and the State Superintendent shall submit the proposed modifications to the San Francisco NAACP and the Ho Plaintiffs for review and comment.

C. The parties acknowledge that SFUSD officials have the duty and authority to determine lawful criteria for admission to all schools in the SFUSD. The parties further acknowledge that in setting those criteria, state and federal law provide that district officials may consider many factors, including the desire to promote residential, geographic, economic, racial and ethnic diversity in all SFUSD schools. However, race or ethnicity may not be the primary or predominant consideration in determining such admission criteria. Further, the SFUSD shall 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.

E. The proposed modifications for student assignments beginning with the 2000-01 school year shall be submitted to the Court for approval. If approved, the proposed modifications shall replace Paragraphs 13(a), (b), (c), (d), and (h) of the Consent Decree[39]...

F. Once approved, the SFUSD will publicize the modifications, including those made under this agreement, throughout the SFUSD. Principals, Education Placement Center personnel and others involved in the assignment of pupils in the SFUSD shall be trained for effective administration of the new procedures, and workshops shall be convened in parent centers to explain them.

G. The parties acknowledge that notwithstanding Paragraph C above, it is possible that there may be identifiable racial or ethnic concentration at a particular school or schools that will adversely affect the SFUSD's educational goals or programs in that school or schools. By October 15, 2000, and by October 15, 2001, the SFUSD shall make available to the parties information concerning the racial composition of each school within the SFUSD. If any party notifies the District that it believes that there may be identifiable racial or ethnic concentration at a particular school or schools, or at the Court's direction, the parties shall meet promptly to discuss the matter. If the parties agree that further modification of Paragraph 13 of the Consent Decree is warranted, the proposed modifications shall be submitted to the Court for approval. If the parties are unable to agree, the District shall confer with the State Monitor to develop appropriate proposed modifications...)

The following guidelines from Paragraph 13 are currently still in effect:

e.. . . SFUSD, while retaining discretion to initiate, modify or terminate such special programs as magnet or alternative schools or curricula, shall, in exercising its discretion, continue to avoid choosing sites for such special programs which would disproportionately burden any racial/ethnic groups.

f.. . . SFUSD shall continue to avoid facility utilization policies or practices, including school openings, closings, conversions, renovations, grade structure changes, boundary changes, or feeder pattern changes, that disproportionately burden any racial/ethnic group. . . shall also continue to avoid transportation policies that disproportionately burden any racial/ethnic group.

g. Except upon agreement of the parties or order of the Court, the SFUSD shall not be precluded from continuing to use optional attendance or discontiguous assignment zones where they contribute to desegregation…

As we noted above and as we have explained in previous reports, Paragraphs 12 and 13 are inextricably intertwined. Thus the findings regarding each of the requirements in these two Consent Decree paragraphs cannot appropriately be looked at separately. The analysis set forth below must be considered in light of the monitoring team's ongoing findings regarding the continuing lack of district compliance with the terms and conditions of Paragraph 12.

A. Paragraph 13 Desegregation Requirements: Assessing District Compliance Both Before and After the 1999 Settlement Agreement

The 1999 Settlement Agreement represents a major turning point for the Consent Decree. Before the agreement, no regular school in SFUSD could contain more than 45% of any one race or ethnicity, and no alternative school could contain more than 40%. Such a determination was made by referring to the nine categories spelled out in the original Consent Decree. In addition, at least four of the nine categories had to be represented at each school.[40] After the settlement agreement, these requirements are no longer in effect.

This report, therefore, must examine both the last round of district-wide, school-by-school enrollment figures under the old requirements, and then it must move on to discuss and analyze the new requirements. Finally, it must assess the steps that the district has taken and is planning to take to comply with the imperatives of the settlement agreement.

Before turning to the school-by-school enrollment figures, however, it is important to reference the district's Optional Enrollment Request (OER) process. As we discussed in Report #14, SFUSD has designed and implemented an innovative, multi-faceted school choice system for the community. In recent years, parents in San Francisco have had the option of either sending their school-age children to the school designated for their neighborhood, or to an alternative school anywhere in the district. In addition, parents may request admission at a school designated for a different neighborhood, on a space-available basis. Parents apply to an alternative school or seek admission to a school other than the one designated for their neighborhood by completing an OER form. Admission is based on a lottery formula at all schools except Lowell High (where grades and test scores must be submitted) and the School of the Arts (where the students must audition).

In Report #14, we highlighted several key questions that had been raised by members of the SFUSD community regarding the OER process. In particular, we noted that African American and Latino families have not been participating in the OER process to the same degree as families of other races and ethnicities. We also noted concerns relating to the dissemination of information to parents. Many believe that not all parents have had access to the same information in the same way, and that the district can do more to arrange information sessions for parents at individual school sites (for example) rather than simply expecting parents to act on information contained in memos.[41] While district officials were sensitive to these concerns when they were raised in 1997, we have not seen any progress in this regard over the past two years. Too often, it is the parents with more money and more time who can obtain additional information regarding the OER process and alternative schools in general...often through visits to local school sites, private networks, or private publications that may be sold in bookstores. These realities raise issues of equal access that cannot and should not be ignored.

B. Final School-by-School Enrollment Figures under Paragraph 13 (1998-1999)

This section presents the last round of enrollment figures under the old Paragraph 13 guidelines. In general, all of these figures may serve as an appropriate starting point in assessing the impact of any future enrollment shifts under the Ho Settlement Agreement.

1. School-by-School Data Generally

The following data reflect a drift away from the pattern of substantial compliance with the numerical guidelines of this paragraph that the district has demonstrated in recent years. For example:

· Thirty-eight (38) regular schools were out of compliance at some point during the 1998-1999 academic year. This is a 25% increase in the number of regular schools out of compliance at some point during the year. In 1997-1998, thirty (30) regular schools were out of compliance, and 1996-1997, thirty-one (31) regular schools were out of compliance at some point during the year.

· In 1998-1999, six (6) schools enrolled more than 50% of one race/ethnicity (Harte, Garfield, Parker, Malcolm X, Spring Valley, & Chin), a significant increase over 1997-1998, when only one school (Garfield) was in this category.

· In 1998-1999, twelve (12) alternative schools were out of compliance at some point during the year. This is double the number that were out of compliance at some point during 1997-1998, and 50% higher than 1996-1997.

a. Regular Schools Out of Compliance with the "No More Than 45%" Requirement

The following tables show that according to figures released by the district at the end of the 1998-1999 academic year, as of October 7, 1998 (CBEDS date) thirty-four (34) regular schools were out of compliance with the requirement that no racial/ethnic group comprise more than 45% of the student population at any regular school. By May 10, 1999, twenty-nine (29) schools from the original group were still out of compliance:

	Oct. 7, 1998		May 10, 1999
Bessie Carmichael	45.4%	Filipino	46.2%
Bret Harte	50.6%	African American	49.9%
Bryant	49.6%	Hispanic	48.5%
Cleveland	48.7%	Hispanic	49.6%
Gordon J Lau	49.6%	Chinese	48.3%
Fairmount	48.2%	Hispanic	46.4%
F. Scott Key	46.8%	Chinese	46.9%
Frank McCoppin	49.6%	Chinese	49.7%
Garfield	50.0%	Chinese	48.7%
Glen Park	46.1%	Hispanic	45.7%
Cesar Chavez	47.7%	Hispanic	48.8%
G. W. Carver	49.4%	African American	49.5%
Jean Parker	51.7%	Chinese	51.9%
Jefferson	46.4%	Chinese	47.1%
Junipero Serra	45.3%	Hispanic	45.3%
L. R. Flynn	48.7%	Hispanic	50.7%
Marshall	49.6%	Hispanic	49.7%
	Oct. 7, 1998		May 10, 1999
George Moscone	45.9%	Hispanic	45.8%
R. L. Stevenson	46.7%	Chinese	47.4%
Sanchez	47.4%	Hispanic	48.1%
Malcolm X	51.7%	African American	52.8%
Spring Valley	50.5%	Chinese	49.6%
Starr King	46.5%	Hispanic	46.5%
Sutro	49.3%	Chinese	47.4%
Ulloa	49.4%	Chinese	48.1%
John Y. Chin	51.9%	Chinese	51.8%
West Portal	45.3%	Chinese	45.4%
Francisco	45.8%	Chinese	46.4%
Lincoln	48.3%	Chinese	49.0%

Five schools did improve sufficiently to be in compliance by the Spring of 1999.

The following four (4) schools were in compliance on October 7, 1998 (CBEDS date) but were out of compliance by May 10, 1999.

	Oct. 7, 1998		May 10, 1999
Benjamin Franklin	39.4%	Chinese	45.6%
Galileo	42.3%	Chinese	45.7%
George Peabody	45.0%	Chinese	45.7%
Sheridan	44.4%	African American	45.2%

b. Alternative Schools Out of Compliance with the "No More Than 40%" Requirement

The following tables show that according to figures released by the district at the end of the 1998-1999 academic year, as of October 7, 1998 (the CBEDS date), eleven (11) alternative schools were out of compliance with the requirement that no racial/ethnic group comprise more than 40% of the student population at any alternative school.

By May 10, 1999, ten (10) of these schools were still out of compliance. Additionally, one (1) school that was in compliance on October 7, 1998 came out of compliance on May 10, 1999:

	Oct. 7, 1998		May 10, 1999
Dr. Charles Drew Alt	45.1%	African American	46.3%
Gateway Alt	44.6%	White	47.3%
John O'Connell Alt	44.6%	Hispanic	41.7%
Lawton Alt	41.2%	Chinese	40.69%
Lowell Alt	43.3%	Chinese	43.8%
Newcomer Alt	68.0%	Chinese	55.2%
Downtown Alt	43.6%	African American	43.6%
Ida B Wells Alt	44.7%	African American	41.9%
Yick Wo Alt	41.7%	Chinese	41.0%
21^ST Century Alt	46.5%	African American	46.6%
Gloria Davis Alt	39.5%	African American	41.7%
Creative Arts Alt	41.7%	White	36.9%

2. Racial/Ethnic Representation in Selected District-Wide Programs

Once again, we include in our report additional data released by the district regarding the racial/ethnic representation of students in district-wide programs such as GATE and Special Education. These numbers continue to confirm the findings of our monitoring team in our ongoing school site visits. For example, African American and Latino students are still significantly underrepresented in Gifted and Talented Education programs. African American students make up 16.6% of the students in the district, but represent only 5.5% of those enrolled in GATE programs (a decrease of .04 from last year). Latino students make up 21.4% of the students in the district, but represent only 8.4% of those enrolled in GATE programs (no improvement at all over last year).

a. Racial/Ethnic Representation of Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) Students

98-99	L	OW	AA	C	J	K	AI	F	ONW	Total
District Total %	21.4	12.7	16.6	27.5	1.0	1.0	.7	7.0	12.2	100%
GATE Total %	8.4	24.3	5.5	39.3	2.7	1.7	.7	5.0	12.3	100%

b. Racial/Ethnic Representation of Special Education Students as of October 7, 1998

The district's figures for Racial/Ethnic representation in Special Education show additional disparities. African Americans representing 16.6% of the students in SFUSD comprise 31.3% of the students in Special Ed:

98-99	L	OW	AA	C	J	K	AI	F	ONW	Total
District Total %	21.4	12.7	16.6	27.5	1.0	1.0	.7	7.0	12.2	100%
Sp. Ed. Total %	22.7	17.4	31.3	12.5	.6	.4	1.0	4.3	9.8	100%

The district has released additional figures showing racial/ethnic representation of special education students by special day class (SDC), resource specialist program (RSP), and designated instruction (DIS) groups (as of October 7, 1998). The figures show that African American students are most disproportionately represented in special day class (38.9%), as follows:

98-99	L	OW	AA	C	J	K	AI	F	ONW	Total
District Total %	21.4	12.7	16.6	27.5	1.0	1.0	.7	7.0	12.2	100%
SDC %	21.8	15.3	38.9	10.1	.3	.3	.9	4.5	8.0	41.6
RSP %	25.5	16.9	30.2	10.6	.7	.3	1.3	4.0	10.5	35.2
DIS %	20.1	21.8	19.4	19.9	1.2	.7	.5	4.3	12.1	23.2
Sp. Ed. Total %	22.7	17.4	31.3	12.5	.6	.4	1.0	4.3	9.8	100%

c. Transportation Figures

SFUSD also releases data regarding transportation for desegregation purposes. Paragraphs 13 (e) and (f) require that the district avoid choosing sites for special programs and avoid transportation policies that disproportionately burden any racial/ethnic group. Once again, we have found that the district has gone out of its way to link innovative programs to the surrounding communities, and to minimize busing as much as possible.

This year, the Transportation Department provided school bus service for approximately 9,000 students in Grades K-12 (less than 15% of the student population). The district reports that during the past year, approximately 875 route changes were instituted. Stops were added or modified as needed for students who could not attend their attendance boundary school due to racial considerations.[42]

Based on an analysis of the assigned feeder patterns, the racial/ethnic percentages of students receiving transportation in 1998-199 are as follows:

L	OW	AA	C	J	K	AI	F	ONW
22.3	14.2	19.6	23.6	.8	.6	.5	5.3	13.1

These numbers very closely approximate the district-wide enrollment numbers for each of the nine racial/ethnic categories, and are virtually unchanged from 1997-1998.

C. New Paragraph 13 Guidelines for Student Assignment

Under the requirements of the modified Consent Decree (and consistent with Option 1 of Attachment A to the Report filed by SFUSD with the Court on February 1, 1999), there will in fact be two new student assignment plans:

1. An interim plan for 1999-2000 (set forth by the district on February 1, 1999) which is in actuality the same as the 1998-1999 student assignment plan with one major change: all preferences on the basic of race or ethnicity have been deleted;[43]

2. A long-range plan which would take effect in the Fall of 2000 and which would be consistent with the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement.

Under the settlement agreement...

· SFUSD officials have the duty and authority to determine lawful criteria for admission to all schools in the SFUSD.

· In setting those criteria, state and federal law provide that district officials may consider many factors, including the desire to promote residential, geographic, economic, racial and ethnic diversity in all SFUSD schools.

· However, race or ethnicity may not be the primary or predominant consideration in determining such admission criteria.

· Further, the SFUSD shall 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.

One of the unresolved questions under these modifications is the future of the nine categories of student race/ethnicity originally spelled out in 1983. While the use of race for purposes of student assignment is limited by the specific terms of the settlement agreement, it will be necessary to refer to racial categories in assessing the parameters of future desegregation efforts and reporting on any possible resegregation of schools. In addition, many other paragraphs of the Consent Decree require the reporting of information in racial and ethnic terms (e.g. Paragraph 34 (Faculty & Staff Hiring), Paragraph 38 (discipline), Paragraph 39 (academic achievement)). At some level, then, we will need to continue referencing race in our annual reports, and it would be advantageous for the parties to come up with a list of categories that reflect recent demographic changes in this regard.

In Reports #14 and #15, we highlighted issues relating to the nine categories. We noted that many have suggested that the original nine racial/ethnic categories -- which include Japanese (only 1% of district enrollment), Korean (only 1% of district enrollment), and Native American (less than 1% of district enrollment), but lump together groups such as Vietnamese (4% of the district enrollment and growing), Cambodian, and other Asian and Pacific Islander groups into one catch-all category ("Other Non-White") -- are anachronistic and need to be revised.[44]

We also noted that many in the community believe it is important to focus on the increasing number of bi-racial and multi-racial students -- a number that had grown nationwide from 500,000 to more than 2 million by 1997.[45] In San Francisco, it is generally believed that these increases are even more prevalent. Given the concurrent increase in interracial dating, demographic experts predict that the number of bi-racial and multi-racial children will continue to grow significantly.

A related issue which must be addressed in the coming year is the method of collecting race-based information on enrollment for the reporting requirements of the Consent Decree. Under Paragraph D of the Ho Settlement Agreement, "the SFUSD may request, but not require, that parents and/or students identify themselves by race or ethnicity at the time of actual enrollment. Any request for racial or ethnic data shall be optional, except as required by state or federal statute or regulation, and shall contain a 'decline to state' provision." While SFUSD Educational Placement Center Director Margaret Wells reports that only a small number of parents have chosen "decline to state," the number has increased since the spring.[46] Schools, of course, become aware of the race or ethnicity of a child through day-to-day contact, and thus any race-based information required for reporting purposes may be obtained from school officials rather than through the self-identification on student enrollment applications. It must be noted, however, that due to the large number of multi-racial students in the district, the race/ethnicity reported by the school may very well turn out to be different than the race/ethnicity that might have been chosen by the parent or the child. Particularly at certain elementary schools with larger numbers of multi-racial students, enrollment figures based on local school site reports may present a picture of changes in the racial/ethnic makeup of the school population that may not in fact be a true reflection of any possible enrollment shifts.

D. New Student Assignment Plans: 1999-2000 and 2000-2001

As everyone expected, the immediate removal of priorities for students on the basis of race or ethnicity has resulted in the resegregation of certain incoming classes at certain elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools in SFUSD for 1999-2000. For example -- according to district enrollment figures released on May 25, 1999 -- at the elementary level, resegregated kindergarten classes include Garfield (81% Chinese American), Flynn (81% Latino), Carver (75% African American), Edison (73% Latino), Drew (71% African American), Sanchez (70% Latino), Chavez (68% Latino), Lau (68% Chinese American), 21st Century (64% African American), and New Traditions (63% White).

At the middle school level, resegregated sixth grade classes include Mann (64% Latino) and Marina (61% Chinese American). At the basic high school level, only the ninth grade class at O'Connell (53% Latino) topped the 50% mark.

The following tables present an overview of these enrollment shifts for incoming classes (i.e. at kindergarten, Grade 6, and Grade 9), highlighting the schools with the greatest changes in their largest racial category.

Elem. School (K-5)	Grade	Ethn. Gain	Ethn. % School Total	% 1998-1999	% 1999-2000	% Change	Ethn. Loss	% Change 1999-2000
W.R. De Avila ES	K	ON	9.23	8.89	41.67	32.78	C	-17.22
Garfield ES	K	C	56.12	48.72	81.08	32.36	AA	-15.25
Edison ES	K	L	46.09	42.17	73.42	31.25	AA	-23.43
New TraditionsES	K	OW	35.82	36.36	63.33	26.97	AA	-22.42
Sanchez ES	K	L	48.81	46.27	70.00	23.73	AA	-21.34
Cabrillo ES	K	C	46.56	37.78	61.22	23.44	OW	-8.30
G.W. Carver ES	K	AA	54.07	52.46	75.00	22.54	AI	-7.91
Jose Ortega ES	K	C	34.18	22.73	45.00	22.27	AA	-23.33
E.R. Taylor ES	K	C	39.92	34.17	55.08	20.91	L	-10.49
L.R. Flynn ES	K	L	54.69	60.49	81.25	20.76	AA	-17.53
G.J. Lau ES	K	C	51.26	50.45	68.09	17.64	L	-15.34
El Dorado ES	K	C	33.33	29.31	47.37	18.06	AA	-16.91
Dr. C. Drew ES	K	AA	52.30	54.55	71.11	16.56	L	-11.42
Mckinley ES	K	ON	10.59	10.64	25.00	14.36	AA	-8.86
West Portal ES	K	C	45.06	35.48	50.55	15.07	ON	-13.67
Glen Park ES	K	F	10.64	9.68	23.40	13.72	L	-13.83
Cesar Chavez ES	K	L	50.00	53.62	67.69	14.07	ON	-5.52
Spring Valley ES	K	C	45.87	35.59	49.02	13.43	L	-10.10
Harvey Milk ES	K	C	6.28	7.69	20.00	12.31	OW	-9.75
Jean Parker ES	K	C	52.73	47.37	60.00	12.63	ON	-6.89

As these figures show, for incoming kindergarten classes at the K-5 elementary level -- as of May 25, 1999 -- DeAvila's "Other Non White" population increased by 32.78% over the previous year. Garfield's Chinese population increased 32.36%, Edison's Latino population increased 31%, and New Traditions' White population increased 26.97%. At the same time, the African American population dropped 23.4% at Edison, 23.3% at Ortega, 22.4% at New Traditions, and 21.3% at Sanchez.

Middle School (6-8)	Grade	Ethn. Gain	Ethn. % School Total	% 1998-1999	% 1999-2000	% Change	Ethn. Loss	% Change 1999-2000
Horace Mann MS	6	L	47.04	41.06	64.47	23.41	AA	-7.6
Marina MS	6	C	49.83	38.11	61.01	22.90	AA	-11.16
G. R. Davis MS	6	AA	47.75	43.65	57.66	14.01	L	-14.01
B. Franklin MS	6	AA	27.53	23.90	36.69	12.79	C	-18.49
Everett MS	6	L	49.70	48.30	58.68	10.38	AA	-5.6
Vis. Valley MS	6	L	17.39	12.65	23.83	11.18	C	-11.85
James Lick MS	6	OW	13.78	9.09	16.08	6.99	L	-9.28

At the middle school level, for incoming 6th grade classes, Horace Mann's Latino population increased 23.4%, Marina's Chinese population increased 22.9%, and Davis' African American population increased 14%. At the same time, Franklin's Chinese population decreased 18.4%, and Davis' Latino population decreased 14%.

K-8 School	Grade	Ethn. Gain	Ethn. % School Total	% 1998-1999	% 1999-2000	% Change	Ethn. Loss	% Change 1999-2000
21^st Century K8	K	AA	48.31	42.50	64.52	22.02	ON	-15.32
21^st Century K8	6	AA	48.31	44.44	51.79	7.35	OW	-9.32
Rooftop K8	K	OW	31.08	18.03	38.89	20.86	C	-11.84
Rooftop K8	6	L	22.74	9.38	23.61	14.23	C	-6.94
SF Community K8	K	C	12.66	8.33	26.83	18.50	L	-14.50
SF Community K8	6	C	12.66	6.67	14.81	8.14	OW	-18.89
Lawton K8	K	C	41.31	38.33	49.18	10.85	ON	-10.30
Lawton K8	6	C	41.31	40.00	48.48	8.48	L	-10.30
Treasure Island K8	6	C	32.24	17.65	33.33	15.68	ON	-10.85

At the K-8 schools, for the incoming kindergarten classes, the African American population at 21st Century increased 22%, the White population at Rooftop increased 20.8%, and the Chinese population at SF Community increased 18%. Enrollment increases were less dramatic at the sixth grade level, although the Latino population of sixth graders at Rooftop increased 14.2%. But the White population at SF Community dropped 18.8% at the sixth grade level. At the kindergarten level, the "Other Non White" population at 21st Century dropped 15.3%, the Latino population at SF Community dropped 14.5%, and the Chinese population at Rooftop declined 11.8%.

High School (9-12)	Grade	Ethn. Gain	Ethn. % School Total	% 1998-1999	% 1999-2000	% Change	Ethn. Loss	% Change 1999-2000
R. Wallenberg HS	9	C	35.97	29.45	41.33	11.88	AA	-6.35
Lowell HS	9	OW	18.99	15.76	23.99	8.23	L	-5.95
J.E. McAteer	9	AA	24.55	25.00	33.11	8.11	L	-7.19
J. O'Connell HS	9	L	43.60	45.65	53.42	7.77	ON	-3.74
Balboa HS	9	L	28.08	25.16	32.22	7.06	ON	-4.97
Intl. Stu. Aca. HS	9	L	37.30	41.86	48.15	6.29	C	-5.84

At the high school level, for incoming ninth grade classes, the changes were much less dramatic. The only racial/ethnic group to even increase more than 10% was the Chinese population at Wallenberg (11.8% increase). And the largest decrease was the 7.19% drop in the Latino population at McAteer.

It is important to note that -- thus far -- these changes have typically been confined to selected kindergarten, sixth grade, and ninth grade classes. On a school-by-school level, the district remains desegregated. Even the schools with the worst resegregation of incoming classes remain substantially desegregated when one looks at school-wide enrollment figures across the board. Yet it must also be noted that these numbers represent a snapshot in time, and that enrollment figures change in August, right before the beginning of the new semester. Thus we will continue to closely monitor the enrollment shifts for 1999-2000 over the next month...and indeed over the next year.

In the Ho Settlement Agreement, the parties intended that the changes in enrollment for the 1999-2000 academic year would come to be viewed as an aberration. Under Paragraph B of the Settlement Agreement:

"the SFUSD and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction shall develop a new student assignment plan consistent with the criteria contained in this agreement. The SFUSD and the State Superintendent shall submit the proposed modifications to the San Francisco NAACP and the Ho Plaintiffs for review and comment."

The goal of the parties is that the district and the Superintendent of Public Instruction develop and implement a new plan for 2000-2001 and beyond that would not use

race as a primary or predominant consideration, but would avoid resegregation of the district after the Consent Decree ends. Such a plan would necessarily reflect a new long-range vision of desegregation for SFUSD, and would address both the attendance boundary area schools and the alternative schools.

In Report #14 (page 34), we wrote:

While the Consent Decree is silent regarding issues of socioeconomic status, some believe that more attention must be paid to the impact of the current desegregation plan on low income families. Indeed, we have found that throughout the SFUSD community discussions continue regarding the advantages and disadvantages of greater desegregation on the basis of socioeconomic status. The district's attempts to minimize busing have sometimes resulted in school enrollments composed almost entirely of low income students, with poor students from one neighborhood being brought in to attend schools with poor students from another neighborhood.

The language in Report #14 regarding socioeconomic status issues led to further discussions with district officials over the next 12 to 18 months, and to a focus on factors other than race when assessing the nature of student enrollment during visits to local school sites. In meetings with Superintendent Rojas in Late 1998 and Early 1999, he has on several occasions mentioned the importance of analyzing student achievement in relation to socioeconomic status. And other district officials in recent meetings have suggested that in their view it would be possible to employ factors such as socioeconomic status, residence, and achievement test scores in devising a new student assignment plan. In these meetings, it became clear that it should indeed be possible, over a period of time, to devise a new plan based on these factors that would maintain a desegregated school district and enable SFUSD to continue moving toward the attainment of Consent Decree goals.

David Ely, an expert in this area, conducted a series of computer modeling runs in Early 1999 analyzing relevant census data and school district data in this context. In general, his findings confirm the possibility of using factors other than race as the basis of a new student assignment plan that would prevent resegregation in San Francisco. However, given the fact that Ely's computer modeling was based on 1990 census data and on test data that may not include scores for all the students in the district, it is important that the results of such an assignment system be carefully monitored to be certain that no school becomes racially isolated.

District officials agree that the possible adjustment of attendance zone boundaries is the easier task to address. More complex are the alternative schools, where the removal of race-based requirements could conceivably lead to widespread resegregation down the road. But in an informal meeting with several district officials on January 11, 1999, it was suggested that creative solutions are indeed possible for both the alternative school admissions dilemma in general and -- in particular -- for the challenges facing schools such as Lowell High (which requires tests and grades) and the School of the Arts (which requires an audition). Potential solutions may include the immediate readjustment of OER lottery priorities for residents of certain zip codes, and a long range plan to develop more academically advanced schools such as Burton and Thurgood Marshall in low income neighborhoods.[47] As Superintendent Rojas explained last month, alternative schools can and will attract students to every part of The City if they establish top quality programs, implement rigorous curriculum standards, and demonstrate that they have the resources to deliver innovative educational opportunities.

On May 12, 1999, Superintendent Rojas appointed a 22-person committee -- comprised of SFUSD officials -- to develop a timetable and generate this new student assignment plan. The committee is co-chaired by Dr. Anthony Anderson (Assistant Superintendent for Integration) and Davida Desmond (former principal of Charles Drew Elementary, a Phase One school in Bayview-Hunters Point). At this point in time, the committee has reviewed past district practices, viewed a presentation by David Ely, and heard from other district officials regarding the interface between desegregation and other programs such as language acquisition, special education, and GATE. It has also brought in Don Barfield -- a former SFUSD administrator currently at WestEd, a local non-profit research, development and service agency dedicated to improving education and other opportunities for children, youth and adults. Barfield has been working with the committee to develop a diversity index for each SFUSD school, which would serve as a statistically significant approach for examining both a school's current diversity level and its prospective level under any proposed changes in the student assignment plan.[48]

In addition, the district has recently begun to develop a framework for working with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction in this context, as required by the July 2, 1999 order of this Court.

We look forward to continuing progress reports from this committee as it moves forward to meet the deadlines spelled out in the Settlement Agreement. We note that after the district and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction develop the new plan and receive comments back from the Ho Plaintiffs and the SFNAACP (as required by Paragraph B), these proposed "modifications for student assignments beginning with the 2000-01 school year shall be submitted to the Court for approval. If approved, the proposed modifications shall replace Paragraphs 13(a), (b), (c), (d), and (h) of the Consent Decree. In the event the parties cannot agree on the terms of the proposed modifications by October 1, 1999, any party may then seek Court approval of its own plan (under Paragraph E)."

E. Lowell High School

One of the best known high schools in the State, and consistently rated in the top ten of all high schools nationally, Lowell is the one alternative school in SFUSD that requires its applicants to submit grades and test scores. Lowell delivers an academically advanced curriculum, and its admissions process is highly competitive. Local families not only see the Lowell experience as intrinsically valuable in and of itself, but the school is often viewed as the first step in a process that leads inevitably to admission at a top college or university.

While the monitoring team has visited Lowell High School on numerous occasions over the past three years, we have avoided any in-depth discussion of this well-known institution because of the ongoing Brian Ho litigation...which had focused to such a great extent on Lowell and in fact had come to be known in certain quarters as "the Lowell High School" case. Now that the Ho case has been settled, however, we have expanded our coverage of Lowell in the Paragraph 13 section of this report. Indeed, many people in the San Francisco community have been focusing on Lowell recently...in light of the changes in the admissions process for the 1999-2000 academic year.

Lowell has continued to maintain its standing as one of the top high schools in the nation. In 1998, for example, Lowell was ranked sixth nationally in number of students taking the SAT II (AP) exams. 717 Lowell students took 1,565 AP exams, with a 90% pass rate. That same year, 96.1% of the graduating class attended college. Over 60% of those students will attend a California public university. Its school newspaper, "The Lowell," has consistently been recognized as being one of the best student newspapers in the U.S. Our visits to Lowell have only confirmed the fact that this high school is a vibrant and successful education community where the great majority of students enjoy the learning process and leave with a solid academic foundation that serves them well in future years.[49]

While competition for seats at Lowell has resulted in predictable unhappiness for those who have not gotten in, this unhappiness has been particularly evident in the African American, Latino, and Chinese American communities. We have found that certain members of the African American and Latino communities have long been critical of policies which they believe have resulted in disproportionately low numbers of their students being admitted. In addition, we continue to find that the perception exists among at least some people in the community that Lowell is not a welcoming place for African Americans and Latinos.[50]

With regard to the Chinese American community, we have found an ongoing dissatisfaction with the limits placed on the admission of any one racial/ethnic group at Lowell. For a long time now, the Chinese American student population at Lowell has been at the maximum (40%) limit under the old Paragraph 13 guidelines. We continue to find that the perception exists among at least some people in the community that the district has discriminated against Chinese Americans, not only in this regard but in general over a long period of time.[51]

A goal of the Consent Decree has been to establish other academically advanced high schools in San Francisco, and to place them in and around low income neighborhoods. To this end, the district established Philip & Sala Burton High School in 1983, and Thurgood Marshall High School in 1994. As we reported last year, "there is a broad consensus throughout the SFUSD community that the establishment of [these two quality high schools] in the Bayview-Hunters Point area has been one of the most notable achievements of the Consent Decree. Both schools have established reputations for high standards, and as OER schools continue to draw diverse student populations from all over the city."[52]

One of the original three plaintiffs in the Brian Ho litigation -- Patrick Wong -- was a student who had allegedly been denied admission to Lowell "because his entry index score of 58 was lower than the minimum score of 62 required for Chinese applicants, although it was equal to the minimum score of 58 required for applicants of other racial/ethnic groups. Wong also was...[allegedly]...rejected for admission to two other high schools because those schools were 'capped out' for students of Chinese descent."[53]

As this Court noted in its May 1997 decision, the district changed its Lowell admissions policy in 1996 in an attempt to "ameliorate the problem, a result of the constraints of paragraph 13 of the Consent Decree, of turning away Chinese-American applicants with higher scores than members of other ethnic groups...[T]he school board 'established a single cutoff score for all races, but set aside 20 percent of the freshman class for those with lower scores.' Criteria for selection in the [value-added] group includes a mix of socioeconomic factors, but admission still requires achievement of a specified minimum test score. The new process resulted in about 55 disadvantaged white and Asian students winning admission to Lowell, virtually none of whom would have been admitted under the old formula. [citations omitted]."[54]

The following table -- based on information received from SFUSD's Educational Placement Center -- provides an overview of admissions to the incoming class at Lowell by race/ethnicity. It should be noted that 864 students were admitted in 1999, an increase of 75 over 1998 and 77 over 1997.

Ninth Grade Admissions by Race/Ethnicity at Lowell High School (1997-1999)

AA C F J K L NA ONW OW

97-98 % 4.3 37.5 3.7 1.5 2.2 12.7 0.9 9.2 28.1

98-99 % 5.6 39.5 3.8 2.4 1.8 11.4 0.6 11.2 23.5

99-00 % 1.9 45.6 3.5 1.5 2.2 5.4 0.2 12.6 26.9

As this table indicates, the incoming ninth grade class at Lowell showed a drop in the African American enrollment from 5.57% to 1.97%, and a drop in the Latino enrollment from 11.41% to 5.4%. At the same time, the number of Chinese American students in the ninth grade class at Lowell increased from 39.5% to 45.6%, and the number of White students increased from 23.5% to 26.9%.

Two recent reports -- one by UC Berkeley Professor Pedro Noguera and the other by Stanford student Racy Ming -- have analyzed issues relating to diversity at Lowell. Ming's report, released in 1997, argued that the admissions policy at Lowell was too slanted toward standardized tests scores, and recommended an admissions model resembling that of universities. She also raised issues relating to the perception among Lowell students that the value-added system, installed in 1996 to bring further diversity to Lowell, has only benefited some student groups to the exclusion of others.[55]

Noguera, from the Center on Diversity and Urban School Reform, was asked by Superintendent Rojas to assess the impact of the value-added policy on Lowell. For his report, Noguera and several of his doctoral students at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Education monitored the academic performance of the value-added students in the classes of 2000 and 2001. The research group conducted a student survey, student interviews, teacher interviews, a student record analysis, classroom observations, and focal student studies.[56]

Value-added students include those who come from single parent homes, reside in public housing or otherwise face extenuating circumstances. They are given extra points based on these factors, which may help admit them into Lowell. If admitted, they are required to attend the Summer Bridge Program before beginning their freshman year. During that first year, they are also required to attend a class called Strategies for Success (SFS). If they do well in school (3.5 GPA or above), they can immediately exit the class after the first semester.

We have found that there is indeed a perception at Lowell that this valued-added program works to the exclusive benefit of African American and Latino students, and our findings were confirmed by both Ming and Noguera. However, we have also found that this program has benefited students from diverse ethnic backgrounds, and in sheer numbers, has admitted far more Chinese students than students of other ethnicities. For example -- according to district Educational Placement Center data -- Chinese students comprised 49.9% of the value-added students admitted for 1999-2000, while African American students were only 3.11% of all the value-added students admitted for the upcoming year.

Noguera reported that with regard to the Class of 2000, the Spring 1998 average G.P.A. for value-added students was 2.63, while the average G.P.A. for non-value-added students was 3.18. Indeed, he found that the average G.P.A. for value-added students was consistently lower than the average G.P.A. for non-value-added students. He also determined that more than one third of the incoming classes in 1997 and 1998 came from Giannini, Presidio, and Hoover middle schools -- which are all located in middle and upper-class areas of San Francisco.

In Noguera's survey, several results are of particular interest. He found, for example, that value-added students are more likely to be enrolled in lower level math classes than non-value-added students. Also, among freshmen, value-added students are less likely to be enrolled in science classes than non-value-added students. Even among the students who are enrolled in science courses, value-added students are less likely to be enrolled in advanced courses. Concerns have been raised regarding these discrepancies, with some people suggesting that they arguably indicate a subtle tracking system within Lowell. Since more value-added students are enrolled in algebra instead of geometry, they are less likely to be enrolled in advanced placement calculus classes by the end of their senior year. In our own on-site interviews, students noted that less African American and Latino American students are in the advanced math classes.

Based on these findings, Noguera's research group made four recommendations: (1) greater effort should be made to provide all students with access to academic support in a personalized manner by either a teacher or a counselor; (2) academic resources outside of the classroom should also be stressed by teachers and staff; (3) new methods should be developed to provide value-added students with consistent feedback on their progress throughout the semester; and (4) professional development workshops should be used to train the faculty on how to provide students with feedback and on how to use assessment to modify instructional practices.

In our most recent visit to Lowell, in Late May 1999, we found once again that during the lunch period students eat and socialize along delineated ethnic lines.[57] We spoke with some students, hoping to get a better picture of relationships between ethnic groups, as well as their viewpoint on the Consent Decree.[58]

The first student we spoke with was an African American male, a junior. We asked about interaction between ethnic groups in Lowell, and if he himself had experienced racial discrimination at Lowell. He felt that he had not experienced overt racial discrimination at Lowell, and that although students of different ethnicities generally got along while in school, they did not socialize outside of school. He expressed support for the Consent Decree, as well as worry about the declining number of African American students that were to enter into the school next year. He counted himself among the lucky ones who had both parents at home to support and encourage him to go to a school like Lowell. He was glad that he had chosen to attend Lowell, but was uneasy about the declining numbers of African Americans students and the deleterious effect this decline would have the dwindling Lowell African American community.

Other African American students whom we interviewed seemed very knowledgeable about the Consent Decree and the effects of the Ho settlement. Several expressed concerns that the low number of African Americans next year will affect the Black Student Association. Since next year's senior class has the largest African American student population, this concern is not immediate. However, the students believe the low number resulted in a mediocre Black History month celebration.

We also spoke with a group of first generation Russian immigrants, who had congregated together on the front steps of the school. When queried about ethnic relations, they also responded by saying that although ethnic groups mixed freely in class at school, there was little mixing outside of school. The Russian students had only a nebulous idea of what exactly the Consent Decree was, and had no particular opinion regarding Consent Decree issues.

Finally, we also spoke with numerous Chinese students. They too indicated that students mixed at school, but not outside. When asked about the ethnic relations at the school, many of the students responded by saying that they had never thought of the subject. They voiced little concern or knowledge regarding the declining African American, Latino and American Indian students at Lowell. Several Chinese males, while dribbling a basketball, said that there are too many Chinese students. When asked about the Consent Decree, only 3 out of the 11 Chinese students we spoke with knew of it.

We also spoke with two teachers -- Mr. Ragozono and Mr. Worth -- who worked exclusively with value-added students when they taught the Strategies for Success class. Both teachers -- who were teaching this class for the first time -- expressed concern regarding the stability of the program, which they report has had a heavy turnover rate. At the time we spoke to him, in fact, Ragozono was not sure if he was returning to the Lowell at all next year, and wondered whether -- even if he did return -- there would be an SFS position for him.

Mr. Worth viewed SFS as essentially a study skills class. He indicated that there had been some difficulty working in conjunction with the students' other teachers in the other classes, and in particular felt that other teachers were reluctant to provide tips on what the value-added students needed to do in order to succeed in a particular class. With regard to diversity in general, Worth asserted that his SFS classes were not made up disproportionately of African Americans and Latinos, but that they reflected the overall ethnic makeup of Lowell.

We spoke with Mr. Ragozono after he had just finished the last day with his SFS class. He explained that he enjoyed teaching these classes, although he did mention that he believed the SFS students to be "definitely rowdier" and that they acted up more than the students in other Lowell classes. Ragozono reported there were more African American and Latino students in his SFS class than a regular class, but not disproportionately so. Ragozono identified with the value-added students, explaining that -- in his view -- "these kids are on the fringe, just like I see myself."

We asked whether SFS students were stigmatized in any way, but both teachers told us that they did not believe that this was the case. They explained that the general academic teachers do not know who specifically is a SFS student, and for the most part, other students do not specifically know who the SFS students are either.

In our final interview with Superintendent Rojas, on June 14, 1999, he noted an important but not well-known hurdle that has apparently made it more difficult to increase the diversity of the Lowell population. As we have reported in the past, the district relies to a great extent on the availability of public transportation in its desegregation programs. Yet the southern part of The City does not have a transportation system that goes East-West. This, he believes, is an unrecognized reason why many Bayview-Hunters Point students would rather not attend Lowell. Indeed, the geographic placement of Lowell makes it easier for the residents of the Sunset and Richmond region to reach Lowell by public transportation. They can catch the Number 28 bus, which travels in a North-South axis from the Marina district, past the Richmond and Sunset area near Lowell, and then reaches its terminus just south of San Francisco in Daly City. As a result, the students living in the Sunset and Richmond region (mostly Asian and White) who wish to go to Lowell have a relatively easy trip to school, as compared with the more arduous journey by public transportation that students from the Bayview-Hunters Point area face.[59]

Interim Superintendent Linda Davis is very concerned about the diversity issue at Lowell, and indicated to us earlier this summer that she believes many eighth grade African American students did not even bother applying to Lowell this past year once they heard that the Ho case had been settled. She believes they may have felt that "if you do not want us, we will not bother." Davis hopes to increase district efforts to attract African American and Latino students to Lowell.[60]

And Lowell Principal Paul Cheng echoed Davis' determination. In a recent interview, he indicated that Lowell aggressively recruits students by sending representatives to High School fairs as well as sending out Assistant Principals to speak at Middle Schools. In general, even beyond these examples, there appears to be concerted effort to encourage or assist African American and Latino students to apply to Lowell in greater numbers next year.[61]

The monitoring team will continue to examine developments at Lowell over the next few years, particularly in light of the recent changes in Paragraph 13.

F. The Interface between Desegregation and Language Acquisition Programs

Since 1997, we have met on numerous occasions with SFUSD Program Administrators Margaret Wells and Jenny Horn at the district's Educational Placement Center. During just about every meeting we have had, the interface between desegregation and language acquisition programs has been raised by them.[62]

This interface has also come up in many of our school site visits, particularly when we discuss within-school grouping practices with principals. As we noted in Report #15, for example, we have found numerous examples of elementary schools where both the LEP students and the African American students were essentially segregated by classroom.[63] Such within-school segregation is tied to placement in language acquisition programs, and typically occurs at campuses that have both significant LEP student populations and a significant African American student population.

At these schools, the great majority of Latino and/or Chinese American students are separated out for language acquisition purposes, and the remaining classes often consist primarily of African American students. Superintendent Rojas agreed with the monitoring team last year that African American students in such a setting continue to receive the general program which may be lacking in the fundamental and enhanced skill development of the language acquisition program curriculum. He stated in the Spring of 1998 that SFUSD needs to reconsider the delivery system for its African American students who are in schools where the English Language Learners are the predominant population. By adjusting the student assignment plan to help ward off such grouping patterns at the elementary school level, by moving toward language acquisition programs that do not separate out students for most, if not all, of their elementary school careers, and by increasing the level of instruction -- and indeed the expectations -- for the students who have been treated as "leftovers" in these settings while they are still separated out, SFUSD can go a long way to resolving this problem.

Efforts to desegregate schools, classrooms, and programs and efforts to meet the needs of the district's LEP students are inextricably interrelated. Student assignment plans in general determine the composition of the LEP cohorts at individual schools, whether there will be enough native speakers of a particular language to justify maintaining or implementing a bilingual program, and/or whether it might be more appropriate to maintain or implement a general English Language Development (ELD) program with specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE). And, as we reported at great length in Report #15, the designs of individual language acquisition programs at local school sites may themselves impact the ability of the district to comply with the terms and conditions of Paragraphs 12 & 13. Not only do some forms of bilingual education have a segregative effect on the LEP students themselves, but sometimes they also serve to segregate students of other races or ethnicity. Finally, the duration of individual language acquisition programs is itself an issue in this context. While a consensus may indeed be possible regarding the separation of LEP students for purposes of language acquisition in general -- and indeed such an approach is mandated by Proposition 227 -- the consensus typically breaks down when students continue to be separated out for most if not all of their elementary school careers.

In Report #14, we suggested that reasonable modifications in current desegregation efforts might be implemented that would help maximize equal educational opportunities for English Language Learners district-wide. In Report #15, we suggested that modifications in current district language acquisition programs might help maximize equal educational opportunities for non-LEP students as well. We continue to find that the interface between desegregation and language acquisition is a central issue which must be addressed at the district level.

To this end, the Consent Decree Advisory Committee -- in its January 1999 report -- urged the district to consider integrating the operations of the program offices addressing desegregation issues and the program offices addressing language acquisition issues.[64] We have also found a similar disconnect in this regard. We note that both Superintendent Rojas and Interim Superintendent Davis have expressed similar concerns, and that the Extended Cabinet established over the past two years is certainly an appropriate first step in this context. However, Davis believes that much greater progress is indeed possible on this front over the next year. We look forward to the results of these efforts.

---

[29] This data was gathered from the San Francisco Unified School District & School Profiles Draft, released by SFUSD Research, Planning & Evaluation, May 1999.

[30] The category of "Other White" has come to be viewed as comprising all the Caucasian students in the district.

[31] Consent Decree, Paragraph 12.

[32] 576 F.Supp 34, 37. Key: L-Latino, OW-Other White, AA-African American, J-Japanese American, C-Chinese American, K-Korean American, ONW-Other Non-White, NA-Native American, F-Filipino.

[33] 1998-1999 statistics as of Spring 1999. San Francisco Unified School District & School Profiles Draft, released by SFUSD Research, Planning & Evaluation, May 1999.

[34] See Report #15, Pages 28-47.

[35] See id. at Page 47.

[36] See Jeannie Oakes, "Two Cities' Tracking and Within-School Segregation," 96 Teachers College Record 681-687, Columbia University, Summer 1995:

"...[S]tudents in lower-track classes had fewer learning opportunities. Teachers expected less of them and gave them less exposure to curriculum and instruction in essential knowledge and skills. Lower-track classes also provided...students with less access to a whole range of resources and opportunities: to highly qualified teachers; to classroom environments conducive to learning; to opportunities to earn extra 'grade points' that can bolster their grade point averages; and to courses that would qualify them for college entrance and a wide variety of careers as adults...Not only did...students receive a lower quality education as a result of tracking...[but]...their academic achievement suffered as well (emphasis added)."

[37] See, e.g., Report #14, p. 85.

[38] See, e.g., Report #14, p. 89, discussing "concerns regarding the nature and extent of staff development activities at reconstituted schools."

[39] Under the previous terms of Paragraph 13, the following guidelines applied:

"a. No school shall have fewer than four racial/ethnic groups represented in its student body.

b. No racial/ethnic group shall constitute more than 45 percent of the student enrollment at any regular school, nor more than 40 percent at any alternative school . . .

c. . . . the SFUSD shall monitor the entering classes of all regular schools in which a single racial/ethnic group comprises more than 45 percent of the student enrollment, to assure that students in that racial/ethnic group will not comprise more than 40 percent of the entering class at any such school.

d. . . . the trigger point for the granting of Optional Enrollment Requests (OER transfers) shall be lowered from 43 percent to 40 percent at both sending and receiving schools."

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

[41] See Report #14, at Pages 37-40.

[42] The district also reports that, in addition to basic transportation services to and from school, SFUSD has once again provided tutorial bus service to selected schools 3-4 days a week. In addition, late buses were again provided for middle school and high school students who participate in extracurricular activities. And additional buses were used to provide transportation services to the targeted schools for their extended year programs. SFUSD Internal Monitor's Report Draft, Paragraph 13 Section, June 1999.

[43] Interview with Associate Superintendent Robert Harrington, March 26, 1999.

[44] We also noted that SFUSD itself, in a number of its documents and reports, is now using 10-11 categories: adding "Indochinese" and sometimes "Samoan." Also, "Spanish-Speaking" often is used instead of "Latino," and "White" is used instead of "Other White."

[45] See Karen Grigsby Bates, Multiracialism: Vive La Difference, L.A. Times, November 11, 1997.

[46] Interview with Margaret Wells & Jenny Horn, March 22, 1999, & June 4, 1999.

[47] We note that the Consent Decree Advisory Committee has recommended that the district establish a high school with high academic standards (such as Burton or Thurgood Marshall) in the Mission District. See "Progress Made, Challenges Remaining In San Francisco School Desegregation," Report of the Consent Decree Advisory Committee, Prof. Gary Orfield, Chair (January 1999), at Pages 101, 151.

[48] Interview with Don Barfield, July 12, 1999.

[49] Other facts regarding Lowell include the following:

a. For the most part, students are free to “self-program” their schedules.

b. Each department -- except the Social Studies department -- has a Honors program. In order to qualify for the Honors classes, students must have at least a B in the previous semester.

c. As mentioned in the first paragraph, Lowell offers AP courses in almost every subject.

d. LEP students, however, constitute only 1.7% of the entire student body at Lowell.

e. Lowell Principal Paul Cheng has told the monitoring team on several occasions that in fact the number of Chinese students at Lowell has in fact exceeded the 40% cut-off in recent years, since according to Cheng a good number of ethnic Chinese students have been admitted as members of other groups, such as Korean or Vietnamese.

f. Cheng also reported to the monitoring team in the Spring of 1997 that the overall population of Lowell was approximately 70% Asian-Pacific students.

[50] We have received independent confirmation of this "perception" from a wide variety of persons throughout our three-year period of systematic monitoring. Sources include district officials as well as members of the larger community.

[51] We have similarly received independent confirmation of this "perception" from a wide variety of persons throughout our three-year period of systematic monitoring. Sources include district officials as well as members of the larger community. See also Wollenberg, All Deliberate Speed: Segregation & Exclusion in California Schools, 1855-1975, UC Press (1978).

[52] Report #15, Page 125.

[53] See Brian Ho v. SFUSD, 965 F. Supp. 1316 (N.D. Cal. 1997).

With regard to the other two named plaintiffs, it was alleged that "Brian Ho was rejected from the 1994-95 entering kindergarten class of Lawton and Jefferson elementary schools, one of which was his neighborhood school, because these schools were "capped out" for students of Chinese descent...[and that]...Hilary Chen was rejected for transfer admission to Lawton, Stevenson, and Jefferson elementary schools because each school was "capped out" for students of Chinese descent." See id.

[54] Id. at 1319, n. 2.

[55] Racy Ming, "Desegregation in a Diverse and Competitive Environment:

Admissions at Lowell High School," Submitted as a requirement for the Stanford University Undergraduate Honors Program in Education" May 30, 1997.

[56] Pedro A. Noguera, Mariam Araujo, Kyung-Hwan Mo, Rowena Robles & David Sanders, Report on the New Student Admissions Policy at Lowell High School and Its Impact on Students (Second Year Report - 1998).

[57] We note that this pattern is often evident at many -- but not at all -- schools throughout the community.

[58] These interviews were conducted by Chris Kwok and Thuy Nguyen on May 26, 1999.

[59] Interview with Superintendent Rojas, June 14, 1999.

[60] Interview with Interim Superintendent Linda Davis, June 14, 1999.

[61] Interview with Lowell HS Principal Paul Cheng, May 26, 1999.

[62] Interviews with Margaret Wells & Jenny Horn, June 9, 1997, March 22, 1999, & June 4, 1999.

[63] These schools included -- but were not limited to -- De Avila, Edison, E.R. Taylor, Golden Gate, Bret Harte, Sanchez, and Starr King.

[64] See "Progress Made, Challenges Remaining In San Francisco School Desegregation," Report of the Consent Decree Advisory Committee, Prof. Gary Orfield, Chair (January 1999), at Pages 143-145.