UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
|
Plaintiffs, vs. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al, Defendants |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
(Related Case: Ho v. SFUSD, No. C-94-2418 WHO) SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF CONSENT DECREE MONITOR
REGARDING MCATEER, GOLDEN GATE, AND MALCOLM X |
As the SFNAACP
v. SFUSD Consent Decree Monitor
for the State of California, I am filing this supplemental report to address issues
arising out of the recent monitoring team visits to McAteer High School, Golden
Gate Elementary School, and Malcolm X Elementary School. Given the urgent and ongoing nature of the
problems, and particularly in light of the legal and policy imperatives set
forth in the Order of this Court, dated January 17, 2001, it is clear that it
would not be appropriate to wait until the summer to share these findings with
the Court and the parties. In addition,
the questions and concerns raised by these visits go to the very heart of
the Consent Decree, and cannot be
ignored.
Consistent
with the open and collaborative nature of our approach to the monitoring
process, we shared our findings with district officials immediately after our
visits. Superintendent Arlene Ackerman
indicated to me that she would personally examine these issues, and respond in
writing with a plan to address these findings.
Thus this supplemental report contains three parts. Part I documents the visits by the
monitoring team to McAteer, Golden Gate, and Malcolm X. Part II contains the district’s response, in
the form of a letter from Superintendent Ackerman to me, reproduced
verbatim. Part III contains additional
analysis and recommendations.
Given the
centrality of the topics raised by these visits, we urge the parties to address
the findings of this supplemental report at the evidentiary hearings discussed
in the January 17, 2001 Order of this Court.
I.
Recent
Findings of Consent Decree Monitoring Team
Our
monitoring team continues to find extensive examples of high quality education
and successful policies implemented consistent with Consent Decree principles
and goals. Recent visits, for example,
to Alvarado, Jefferson, and Lincoln revealed stellar programs and practices
that represent some of the very best that public education has to offer
throughout the state.
Our recent
visits to Golden Gate, Malcolm X, and McAteer, however, not only reinforced
concerns that we have had about these schools for some time, but have uncovered
additional evidence in support of our findings that exigent circumstances exist
which require immediate and concrete steps to reverse current trends. I address each of these schools separately
in the paragraphs below.
· McAteer
We have found
that the weight of the evidence we have collected regarding McAteer over the
past several years leads inexorably to the conclusion that SFUSD must consider
drastic measures to reverse current
trends, including the possibility of disestablishing McAteer pursuant to
a plan that would provide viable enrollment options for current students at
other high schools throughout the City.
One of the
Consent Decree requirements adopted by the parties in 1992 contemplated the reconstitution
of low performing schools on an annual basis until the task was completed. In recent years, a de facto understanding
appears to have existed between the district and the parties to the effect that
no more schools needed to be dramatically reconstructed in this manner. We have found, however, that this reality no
longer exists. There is now a school --
McAteer High School -- which sorely needs to be dramatically
reconstructed. Such a reconstruction
could take various forms, including the disestablishment of the school as we
currently know it, and could be accompanied by a series of options that might
include the moving of another existing school (such as Wallenberg) to the
current McAteer site. Such a model --
adopted by the district when Wilson High was disestablished in lieu of
reconstitution -- could offer current McAteer students the level of opportunity
contemplated by the Consent Decree.
At the
outset, it must be recognized that the current version of McAteer High is a
creation of the current student assignment plan. It does not need to exist in this manner. McAteer is now a de facto "remainder
school," a school for students who cannot get into other schools in the
district or who have been asked to leave other schools in the district. It is common knowledge throughout the
district that "no one wants to go to McAteer," given a choice to go
somewhere else.
Although
ostensibly an "attendance boundary" school located in the Twin Peaks
area, McAteer consists only of students from such low income areas as
Bayview-Hunters Point, Potrero Hill, and the Tenderloin. Most students do not live nearby, but travel
some distance to get to the campus. It
is a school that serves a low income, urban population but is located nowhere
near the neighborhoods of the communities that it serves. In this regard, it is an aberration. Such an arrangement not only does not make
sense, but is unnecessary. As SFUSD
considers its options, it should note that the option of disestablishing the
school in conjunction with a change in the student assignment plan and a new
vision for the use of the McAteer campus may serve to change things for the
better.
Our decision
to recommend consideration of drastic measures, including the disestablishment
of McAteer High School, is based on numerous school site visits since 1997,
extensive conversations with members of the SFUSD community who are intimately
familiar with McAteer, and numerical data released by the district and included
in our recent reports. In addition to
our most recent visit, on November 8, 2000, members of our monitoring team
visited McAteer three different times during the 1999-2000 school year alone,
and Hoover Liddell -- Special Liaison to the Monitoring Team -- has spent
extensive amounts of time at McAteer over the past five years.
In summary,
here is an overview of recent evidence that -- when combined with the findings
from extensive interviews of district officials and other school site visits
conducted over the years -- has led to our recommendation to seriously consider
taking drastic measures, including disestablishment of this school...
1. McAteer test scores have
placed it at the very bottom of the state's API index. It is rated a "1" by the state,
the lowest rating possible.
2. McAteer's attendance
figures -- based on district data documented in Report #17 -- are the very
lowest in the district. "At
McAteer," we reported in July 2000, "the percentages of students
attending 91-100% of the time range from a high of only 31.5% of the Chinese
American students to lows that include 15.1% of the Latino students, 14.6% of
the Filipino students, and just 7.7% of the African American
students...horrendous attendance figures across the board."
3. In our Spring 2000 and
Fall 2000 visits, we found extensive indication of just why students may not
want to attend this school. In the Fall
2000 visit, for example, we saw not one instance of warmth between school
personnel and students, and not one instance of camaraderie between and among
members of the McAteer community.
Students did not smile, except when they were giggling and acting silly
in counterproductive ways.
4. We visited 6-8 classrooms
in the Fall 2000 visit, and found that at best the teaching practices were
mediocre, and at worst they were downright unacceptable. AP English students were sitting and reading
silently, when they should have been actively engaged with each other and with
their teacher. A veteran ESL teacher
complained to us about the students, and showed us the detention corner of her
room, complete with rules that students who were excluded from the group were
expected to follow. "It's come to
this," she said, demonstrating the proverbial low expectations that run
completely counter to Consent Decree principles.
5. Even worse, during our
Fall 2000 visit, were two classrooms where no teaching at all was taking
place. In a science class, taught by a
veteran teacher, the students were spending inordinate amounts of time on a
binder check, even though most of the students did not have their binder...and
thus nothing to check. Students were
just sitting there doing nothing. In
another class, the lights were off (on a dark, cloudy day) -- ostensibly,
according to the teacher, to calm the students. And the students were reading newspapers, but most were reading
the comics...in the dark.
6. In our Spring 2000 visit,
we met with students who laughed when they were asked if they felt challenged
by the curriculum. They told us that they felt the teachers did not care about
them, that they were not pushed, and that they were hardly assigned any
homework.
7. Also, in the Spring 2000
visit, we found students loitering in the halls during class time, with no
security guards or school personnel in sight.
In addition, we found a group of students jumping the back fence as we
walked around the school. Students we
spoke to indicated that they were afraid of gang-affiliated students
threatening them while they were on campus.
8. In the Fall of 2000, we
walked around the halls with a school administrator, and came upon several
students who were out of class. The
administrator asked them why they were out of class, and called them over, but
they completely defied him and walked away.
He called them back, but they did not listen.
9. In our Fall 2000 meeting
with school administrators, we were given additional information about the
current enrollment. The ninth grade
class, for example, is resegregating...and is now 40% African American. According to the principal, 20% of the ninth
grade class is in special education classes, and another 20% had at least 4 F's
on their eighth grade report cards.
10. The principal also told
us of an extensive gang problem at the school, with the two major Bayview-Hunters
Point gangs prominently represented, causing ongoing tension between and among
the African American students. In
addition, we were told of Latino and Asian gang-related issues impacting Latino
and Asian Pacific American students at the school.
11. In our Fall 2000 visit,
the library was closed. Apparently the
school does not have a certificated librarian, so the library is only open
intermittently.
We found
nothing positive to report from these last two visits. Our young people deserve better than to be
funneled into this unhappy environment.
No one person or group of persons is at fault here. The school is simply not working. There are a large number of factors at work
here that will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to turn this
school around. Indeed, the evidence
raises the issue of whether even a significant infusion of Consent Decree funds
(which have inexplicably not flowed to McAteer even though it serves students
targeted by the decree) can adequately address the range of problems we have
identified. It is for this reason that
we recommend that SFUSD consider all options, including disestablishing McAteer
pursuant to a carefully thought-out plan so that students can have the
opportunity to do better.
With respect
to reconstitution, one possibility, but of course not the only one, is to
replicate the Wilson model. When Wilson
was disestablished, Burton High (then located at a much smaller campus) was
moved to the Wilson campus and given an opportunity to grow in size...thus
providing greater and more viable options for students in the community. A similar plan might include the
disestablishment of McAteer and the moving of Wallenberg High (currently
located in a building originally built as an elementary school) to the McAteer
site.
Other
campuses that former McAteer students may attend include those throughout SFUSD
that are currently under-utilized, including the new O'Connell campus in the
Mission District.
· Golden
Gate Elementary
Since we
began our monitoring efforts in January 1997, we have raised the issue of
within-school segregation linked to language acquisition programs in each of
our annual reports. We have referenced
Golden Gate by name in this context three straight years,[1]
and have discussed issues raised by practices such as those pursued at Golden
Gate in all four of our annual reports to the Court. Yet in our most recent visit to Golden Gate, we found that
nothing had changed. There are still
three separate schools within-a-school.
In one "school," Chinese Americans are separated out for their
entire school career in bilingual Cantonese classes. In a second "school," Latinos are separated out for
their entire school career in bilingual Spanish classes. And in a third "school," most of
the students are African American and are separated out for their entire
elementary school careers in classes that are mislabeled "General
ELD." In addition, we note that
the new Golden Gate principal conceded to us that absolutely no integration
efforts are taking place at this school.
In July 1998,
we devoted a major portion of Report #15 to the topic of within-school
segregation. In a section entitled Separation
of African American Students as a Result of Language Acquisition Programs, we
wrote:
"Over the course of time, we found numerous examples of elementary
schools where both the LEP students and the African American students were
essentially segregated by classroom.
These schools include -- but are not limited to -- De Avila, Edison,
E.R. Taylor, Golden Gate,
Bret Harte, Rosa Parks, Sanchez, and Starr King. 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...The picture at
such elementary school sites is one of several
"schools-within-a-school," with students grouped together virtually
all the time by race or ethnicity....
"This type of within-school segregation raises both compliance
issues generally and larger questions of equity. From a compliance perspective, such classroom placements appear
to be in direct violation of Consent Decree Paragraph 12. From an equity perspective, even if it can
be argued that the separation benefits Spanish-speaking and Cantonese-speaking
LEP students, it has been difficult for the monitoring team to ascertain any
benefits of such a structure for African American students. In such circumstances, African American
students -- unlike the Chinese American and Latino students in the bilingual or
English Language Development classrooms -- get no special treatment, no special
programmatic structure, and indeed no apparent gain."[2]
In July 1999, we addressed this unresolved topic under our discussion
of the interface between desegregation and language acquisition programs. Noting that the problem reported in 1997 and
1998 still persisted, we wrote the following:
"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.[3]
Finally, in
our most recent report (July 2000), we addressed this issue under our Paragraph
12 analysis in a section entitled Within-School
Segregation: New Findings:
...we must report that we have seen little or no progress in this
area...indeed we have found evidence this year of a trend toward increased within-school segregation...in
certain settings.
It is important to emphasize that some degree of separation by language
ability is not only justified by extensive research in this area, but is indeed
mandated by the California Education Code.[4] We have also documented in past reports the existence
of effective integration plans in certain settings...where students are
separated for part of the time, but integrated at other times for particular
subject areas, programs, and/or activities.[5] Yet we are now beginning to find in this
context that sometimes the separation of students is happening in the wrong
ways and for the wrong reasons.
For example, there is a widely accepted model of bilingual education
called "Late Exit Transitional," which envisions both a transition
from primary language instruction to English language instruction over time, as
well as the maintenance and indeed the building of skills in a student's
primary language....A key goal of such a model is to have the students exit the
program fully proficient in both English and their primary language. Yet we are beginning to find examples of
schools where students already are fully proficient in English by the middle
elementary grades, but are kept in separate classes for the upper grades where
the instruction is entirely in English and there is no evidence that any
maintenance in the primary language is taking place.
Three justifications are typically given for a separation of students
once they already know English: (1) the
school is simply following the preferred late exit transitional model, (2) the
grouping practices reflect the desires of the local community, or (3) staffing,
enrollment, and available space require it.
All of these justifications, however, can turn out to be the wrong
reasons in particular situations. First,
the late exit model does not contemplate separate grouping if the goals of the
program are already achieved and no maintenance in the primary language is
taking place. Second, as several
principals have indicated to us over the years, parents sometimes wish to keep
their children in separate bilingual classes to avoid contact with students of
other races and ethnicities. But such
desires cannot dictate district policy, particularly when they are contrary to
the goals of the Consent Decree and arguably discriminatory under civil rights
law. And finally, basing such
placement decisions on existing staffing, enrollment, and space requirements is
only justified in the immediate, short term.
Once these realities are discovered, the district's Educational
Placement Center can and should compensate by adjusting teacher and student
assignment practices for the particular schools. Creative heterogeneous grouping practices by school site
administrators can also help a great deal.[6]
The situation
at Golden Gate reflects district practices that are completely out of
compliance with the terms and conditions of Paragraph 12 of the Consent
Decree. This need not continue. Changes in the student assignment plan and
in the practice of grouping students separately for language acquisition
purposes throughout a school day and throughout an elementary school career can
together lead to a new reality at Golden Gate and at other schools like
it. We urge the district to take immediate
action in this regard.
· Malcolm
X Elementary
We visited
Malcolm X Elementary in Late October.
The school, of course, is one of the original Phase One elementary
schools in Bayview-Hunters Point that was targeted under the Consent Decree and
reconstituted in 1983-84.
Two findings
need to be shared. First, although the
school-wide African American enrollment was reported by the principal as in the
ballpark of 50% (and the school profile currently posted on the Web indicates
that the number is 54.9%, as of Fall 1999), we found that in just about every
classroom, the great majority of students are African American. Thus, while we did not perform an exact head
count, it is clear that the numbers on paper do not tell the whole story here. In addition to the resegregation numbers we
documented for kindergarten and Grade 1 in Report #17, it is clear now that
this entire school has dramatically resegregated.[7]
Also, the
principal reports serious concerns about health at the school, related to the
possibility of toxic waste and other emissions from current and former
industrial operations in the area. She
reports that both she and the students are sick all the time, and that faculty
have had problems as well. A veteran
Malcolm X teacher who spearheaded innovative computer-based activities at the
school has come down with cancer, and this was mentioned in the same
context. In addition, a fire department
official who spent four straight days at the school reportedly became ill.
We also note that
Gloria R Davis Middle School, which is located very close to Malcolm X, had to
be relocated for health reasons until school site problems were addressed.
While these
findings are not as extensive as those documented above for McAteer and Golden
Gate, and while directions that must be pursued are certainly not as clear, we
urge the district to act quickly to ascertain the nature of the current
realities and the parameters of existing claims in this regard.
II.
Recent
SFUSD Response to Findings regarding McAteer High School, Golden Gate
Elementary School, and Malcolm X Elementary School
As discussed
above, the findings described in Part I were shared immediately with
Superintendent Arlene Ackerman...first in person and then in memo form (using the exact words reproduced in Part I).
On February 10, 2001, I received the following response from
Superintendent Ackerman, which is reproduced verbatim:
“As
part of our ongoing regular discussions concerning the Consent Decree, this
constitutes the San Francisco Unified School District’s (“SFUSD” or “District”)
response to your report of November 27, 2000, in which you outlined various
findings with respect to three District schools: McAteer High School, Golden Gate Elementary School, and Malcolm X
Elementary.
“Please note that this
response has been drafted following my own first-hand observations as well as
those of my staff, and subsequent discussions.
In addition, the proposed course of action outlined in this response
will be incorporated, in greater detail, into the comprehensive plan that the
District will be filing with the Court in the coming weeks.
Your observations of the
educational program at McAteer High School are valid. Based on my visits to the school, it is clear that significant
changes must be implemented to dramatically improve the environment for
learning, as well as the instructional program itself.
“Having reached this
conclusion, my staff and I have discussed the various options available to the
District to ensure the expeditious implementation of these changes, including
your recommendation that the District reconstitute the school. After careful consideration, we have
concluded that, from an educational standpoint, reconstitution is not the best
solution at this time.
“Instead the District will
stimulate reform with the following changes:
·
While
the existing principal is a capable administrator, she is new to the position
of principal. To assist the principal,
the District will provide that the principal and her leadership team the
opportunity to participate in professional development during the Spring and
Summer of 2001. The purpose of this
professional development will be to assist the McAteer leadership team to improve
teaching and learning for students.
Additionally, I will assign a veteran principal with demonstrated
success at the high school level to the McAteer principal to serve as a mentor
to provide additional support and coaching for the 2001‑02 school
year. Finally, we will carefully
evaluate to determine whether changes should be made to strengthen the
administrative leadership at the school.
·
The
District has initiated conversations with the teacher preparation program at a
local university, as well as the United Educators of San Francisco (“UESF”), to
develop a “Teacher Academy” at the McAteer site. The Teacher Academy will serve as the location for teacher
development for the District and will include veteran teachers as coaches. In addition, the District will relocate the
math/science/technology components of the Curriculum, Instruction and
Professional Development department to McAteer. Because of this relocation to McAteer, the staff from the
math/science technology sections of the Curriculum, Instruction and
Professional Development department will assist the McAteer staff in improving
teaching and learning for McAteer students.
The District believes that both the Teacher Academy and the relocations
of the math/science/technology sections of the CIPD will result in McAteer
becoming a model school for the implementation of best teaching practices and
on the teaching and learning in the classrooms.
·
We
will be evaluating the teaching staff to consider whether changes should be made
to ensure that the teachers at the school are supportive of the reform efforts
being implemented.
·
The
District has identified McAteer to potentially participate in a pilot project
based on the school reform model, First Things First, developed by the
Institute of Research and Reform in Education, which has demonstrated positive
outcomes, in terms of graduation rates, increased attendance and
achievement. It is a five-year project
supported by the U.S. Department of Education.
·
The
District will reevaluate process used to assign and transfer of students to
McAteer to ensure that students with discipline problems and low achievement
are not disproportionately assigned or transferred to McAteer.
·
Additional
opportunities for after-school and extra-curricular activities will be
explored, including providing transportation for students who would otherwise
be unable to participate in these activities.
Your observations of the
educational program at Golden Gate Elementary School are valid. Again, after a careful examination of the
issues you outlined, we have concluded that the impact of the placement of
different language programs at the school and the ethnic composition of the
programs has combined to create a problem of in-school segregation.
“In response to this
problem, the District will implement the following actions:
Your observations merit immediate attention by the District. Accordingly, the District’s environmental hygienist has been directed to conduct a site review focused on the health issues raised by the staff and noted in your report. Upon completion, this review will be presented to me, the Superintendent, who, in turn, will make subsequent recommendation for action.
“The actions outlined above
are preliminary recommendations to remediate the problems we have agreed are
having a significant negative impact on the academic achievement of students at
these schools. Over the next several
months, a thoroughly developed plan will be prepared and submitted.”
(The above letter was
addressed to me and signed by Superintendent Arlene Ackerman on February 10,
2001.)
III.
Additional
Comments and Recommendations
I am pleased
to report to this Court, and through the Court to the parties, that the
district has responded in a direct, thoughtful, and forthcoming manner to these
very troubling findings. District
officials have not been defensive, but have instead spent a great deal of time
evaluating the current situation and seeking to identify future
directions. The letter reproduced in
Part II sets forth a series of concrete preliminary steps…while at the same
time it does not rule out other measures that may be appropriate upon further
consideration.
For example,
while the district may have decided that the reconstitution or disestablishment
of McAteer is not appropriate at this time, it is very possible that after
steps are taken pursuant to this Court’s January 17th order, everyone
will come to a different conclusion.
*********
A new student assignment plan is an absolute necessity at the present time. Indeed, circumstances at each of the schools addressed in this supplemental report provide compelling evidence in support of the need to develop such a plan. The current version of McAteer, for example, is – as discussed above – a creation of the current student assignment plan. The configuration of LEP classes and within-school segregation at Golden Gate is a function of current student assignment practices. And the disconnect between the numbers on district enrollment charts and the day-to-day realities at Malcolm X can only be addressed by modifications in student assignment practices based on information gathered from on-site visits.
As SFUSD continues to seek out new approaches in this regard, I would urge district officials to think outside of the proverbial box and address student assignment issues such as those discussed above in a comprehensive, detailed, and highly specific manner…taking into account the range of related findings set forth in the most recent reports of the monitoring team and the Consent Decree Advisory Committee. In particular, the resegregation data set forth in Reports #16 and #17 is clear evidence of a trend that is completely counter to Consent Decree goals and principles. And the need to make LEP programmatic decisions a key component of the student assignment process – a policy imperative discussed repeatedly in both the recent monitoring team reports and the 1999 Consent Decree Advisory Committee report – has never been more urgent.
Pursuant to
the mandate set forth in Paragraph 44 of the Consent Decree, we will continue to
monitor developments at these three schools – and indeed related developments
throughout the district – and will report back to the Court and the parties in
a timely manner.
Dated: February 12, 2001 Respectfully submitted,
|
|
|
|
|
STUART BIEGEL Consent Decree Monitor |
[1] See Report #14, at Pages 28-29; Report #15, at Pages 32-25; Report #16, at Pages 69-70.
[2] Report #15, at Pages 32-25.
[3] Report #16, at Pages 69-70.
[4] See, e.g., Lynne T. Diaz-Rico & Kathryn Z. Weed, The Crosscultural Language and Academic Development (CLAD) Handbook, Longman (1995). See generally Cal. Educ. Code, Sections 305-306.
[5] See, e.g., Report #15, Pages 37-46.
[6] Report #17, at Pages 74-75.
[7] The principal reports that other than the African
American student population for the neighborhood, students enrolled include
Samoans and one bus from the Tenderloin.
But she concedes that since the opening of the Tenderloin School a few
years ago, the number of students from that area has decreased significantly.