PARAGRAPH-BY-PARAGRAPH ANALYSIS

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