The SFUSD Desegregation Consent Decree

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

 

Paragraph 44 Independent Review (Report #17)

 

THE REPORT OF THE CONSENT DECREE MONITORING TEAM

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

 

July 27, 2000

 

By Stuart Biegel

Consent Decree Monitor

for the State of California

 

 

TRANSITION TO DECEMBER 2002 AND BEYOND[24]

 

From Report #17: Pages 19-69

 

 

On July 2, 1999, this Court issued an Order approving a settlement agreement of the Brian Ho lawsuit.[25] That settlement provided that, following a 3½ year "transition phase":

 

48. . . . (a) The Consent Decree will terminate no later than December 31, 2002, subject to Court approval; and (b) that any party may move for unitary status prior to that date.  The parties anticipate that no later than such time, the state and local governmental defendants will have taken all reasonably practical measures to remedy any vestiges of segregation.

 

Though the Court stated that it "will not dissolve the Consent Decree if there is evidence

that vestiges of segregation remain to be remedied," it also emphasized that "[i]t is important to understand that the Supreme Court has held that desegregation plans are not intended to operate in perpetuity."[26]

 

During the past few months, the monitoring team has sought from principals and teachers, district officials, the parties' attorneys, and other interested parties, opinions about what action must be taken to prepare for the possible termination of the Consent Decree.  Below, based on these interviews and our findings over the past four years, we raise some of the major issues related to the termination of the Consent Decree in December 2002.

 

The Consent Decree has provided not only a substantial amount of money – both to individual school sites and to the district – but also a vision for reform based on philosophical tenets and a plan that together, ideally, establish high expectations for learning and behavior for all students, staff and administrators.  The district has made great progress over the past seventeen years in seeking to create educational equity and excellence for all of its students, but, as the district itself has said, "much remains to be done to eliminate gaps in achievement and other educational outcomes among student groups."[27] 

 

The Settlement Agreement provided for a 3.5 year transition to the targeted end date.  Yet, thus far, we have found that nothing at all has been done at the district level to prepare for a possible termination of the decree in December 2002.  The difficult year that just ended was spent focusing on other important issues, such as uncertainty about the Student Assignment Plan, inconsistent data availability due to problems with the district's mainframe computer, the state's failure to reimburse the district for desegregation expenditures, and the rebuilding of a central office staff following the departure of Superintendent Rojas.  Thus SFUSD did not take advantage of the first year of this alleged transition period. 

 

In our previous reports, we have found a direct correlation between positive growth and change –  consistent with Consent Decree goals – and the district leadership's commitment to the Consent Decree.[28]  Therefore, in the coming year we urge the district to demonstrate its commitment to the Consent Decree goals by beginning to articulate a coordinated vision for extending the successes of the Decree, one that involves all of the stakeholders – parents and community advocates, teachers, administrators and district officials.

 

Such a vision would necessarily be comprised of three essential and interrelated components:  Desegregation, Academic Achievement, and Allocation of Resources.

 

I. The Goal of "Eliminating Racial/Ethnic Segregation or Identifiability"

 

The first of the two main goals of the Consent Decree is stated in Paragraph 12:

 

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.

 

Though, as this Court recognized, the "immediate effect of the [Brian Ho] settlement [was] to eliminate race-based student assignments," the Court reasoned that:

 

the [Ho] settlement permits the SFUSD to work to achieve a diverse student body, as long as it does not use race or ethnicity as a primary consideration in assigning students to schools.  It recognizes that without the ability to assign students by race, some schools may become racially identifiable, and provides for the possibility of further modifications to the Consent Decree if that occurs.[29]

 

Immediately following the Ho settlement, high-level district officials reaffirmed their commitment to the goal of desegregation.  For example, then School Board President Juanita Owens said:  "I do not want history to repeat itself.  I do not want schools to resegregate.  I do not want to go back twenty years. I am confident that this district will meet the challenge set by the Court."[30]  Interim Superintendent Linda Davis commented:  "Our belief in the value of a pluralistic learning environment has not diminished.  We will continue to work towards diversity, to value parent choice, to pursue excellence for all our children, and to comply with all other provisions of the Consent Decree."[31]  And a year later, the SFUSD's Educational Placement Center states:

 

The SFUSD remains committed to maintaining diversity in all schools and will continue to aggressively pursue the development and implementation of a student assignment system that supports parent choice and fulfills the goals of the Court-ordered Consent Decree.[32]

 

However, as discussed in the Paragraph 13 section of this report, the district has not come forward with an alternative plan and, in the upcoming school year, will continue to use the student assignment plan that was in effect for the 1999-2000 school year.  In light of recent evidence that some SFUSD schools have begun to resegregate, we urge district officials to take the lead in determining how to continue making progress toward the goal of eliminating segregation and identifiability – both throughout the district and within individual schools and programs.

 

A. Addressing School-by-School Desegregation in a Creative Manner

 

While the district may no longer use race as the primary or predominant factor in the student assignment process, there are many creative options available to SFUSD officials in this regard.  In fact, it must be noted that the current default plan is derived from a framework that was originally seen as embodying a significant degree of creativity and vision.  This framework -- which formed the basis of SFUSD's implementation of Consent Decree Paragraphs 12 & 13 -- contemplated the desegregation of the district in a manner that would minimize busing, maintain a large percentage of neighborhood schools, and provide parents with a significant degree of choice.

 

At least through the 1997-1998 school year – prior to the Brian Ho settlement – the district had substantially complied with the "school-by-school" requirements of both Paragraph 12 and Paragraph 13.[33]  In Report #16, however, we noted that after the Ho settlement the removal of priorities for students on the basis of race or ethnicity resulted in the resegregation of certain incoming classes at a number of schools.[34]  As described in the Paragraph 13 section below, we found a similar pattern again this year.[35]  

 

Further, though it is now clear that certain schools are less racially diverse, the true extent of resegregation in these schools and throughout the district may not be known for several years.  For example, to date, resegregation has been most marked in elementary schools and least evident in high schools.  However, lack of integration of elementary schools may lead to increased resegregation at the high school level as those elementary classes advance from year to year.  At the moment, therefore, the long term effects of this new resegregation are unknown.

 

While the district has not yet been able to implement a new student assignment plan since February 1999, we are sanguine that another year will not pass without progress in this area.  We have been informed that district officials are reviewing the existing plan and that they hope to present the contours of a new plan to this Court some time in the fall.  In fact, a few weeks before the filing of this report, an ad hoc committee of the Board of Education held its first hearing on this matter. 

 

While it is not yet clear what the new student assignment plan might look like, we have learned that SFUSD is currently looking closely at all the various options available.  District officials have actually begun running simulations of potential new student assignment plans, using various combinations of socioeconomic status and native language identification along with the criteria currently in place (siblings; special programs; attendance area, zip code, and elementary proximity areas; public housing and Section 8), to determine which formula might promote the greatest diversity in district schools.  Other combinations that could be considered include parents' educational background and test score results.  We look forward to the results of these simulations, and to the public hearings that will be necessary before the district actually makes a decision here.

 

In Report #14 and again in Report #16, we document conversations within the community on the question of whether using socioeconomic status as a factor could effectively maximize diversity in a student assignment plan.[36]  While the Consent Decree is silent regarding issues of socioeconomic status, many SFUSD stakeholders have indicated to us their belief that more attention must be paid to the impact of any student assignment plan on low income families.  With respect to this issue, it is important to ascertain how race, LEP status, and socioeconomic status (SES) impact school performance.  Thus we have compiled a table comparing recent racial, language and socioeconomic data of low performing (II/USP/CSRD) schools with both the average for all SFUSD campuses and with schools that score best on the SAT-9 (API rankings):[37]

 

 

 

% Afr. Am. & Latino

% LEP Students

% Public Housing

% Free/ Red. Lunch

high schools

 

 

 

 

II/USP-CSRD avg.

45.1

27.3

10.1

27.54

all HS avg.

32.5

21.4

N/A

25.6

top API school avg

14.4

10.8

3.1

21.8

middle schools

 

 

 

 

II/USP-CSRD avg.

59.9

26.6

21.5

64.0

all MS avg.

47.0

26.1

N/A

51.4

top API school avg

18.6

18.4

6.6

44.6

elem. schools

 

 

 

 

II/USP-CSRD avg.

61.9

38.1

28.0

78.4

all ES avg.

41.1

42.2

N/A

66.5

top API school avg

24.1

29.1

1.9

42.35

 

 

This table provides graphic evidence of the fact that the top API schools all have a substantially smaller number of African American/Latino students, LEP students, and socio-economically disadvantaged students.  Such information must necessarily inform any effort to develop and implement a new student assignment plan.

 

Since Early 1999, our monitoring team has been examining the efforts to develop a new student assignment plan without using race as the primary or predominant factor.  While many issues generate disagreement, one thing is certainly clear:  the district begins this process in a position of relative strength.  On a school-by-school level, SFUSD remains substantially desegregated.  Unlike other major urban areas, San Francisco can point to a large student representation from a wide range of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status (SES) groups.  In addition, a growing number of neighborhood residential patterns reflect a significant level of diversity, and the combination of a small geographic area and a viable public transportation system facilitate transportation of students to schools in other parts of town.

 

On the other hand, there are several complicating factors which may serve to impede progress in this regard.  These include the growing gap between the city's "haves" and its "have-nots," the rising cost of housing in general, and the possibility that more parents of a higher socioeconomic status will desert the public schools if wholesale changes are made in the current student assignment plan.

 

Still, there is much that can be done.  Creative adjustment of geographic boundaries for the attendance area schools and a re-working of the priorities for alternative school admissions can further the interrelated goals of desegregation and academic achievement.  In addition -- consistent with patterns established under the Consent Decree -- more campuses can become alternative schools, some campuses can be added to the list of schools that serve both an attendance area and an alternative school function, and  existing schools can be reinvented so that their programs reflect an entirely new focus.

 

B. Key Desegregation Issues in San Francisco

 

As quoted above, high level district officials continue to affirm their commitment to desegregation.  In addition, several of the school site administrators whom we interviewed remarked that the district's efforts, during the past seventeen years, to work toward this goal have had a positive impact throughout the system.  For example, Burton High Principal Fredna Howell emphasized to us the historical importance of the decree in changing attitudes in the district toward formerly underachieving groups...and particularly in giving support and hope to populations that had formerly been underserved by the educational system.  More than anyone we interviewed, Ms. Howell expressed the hope that the end of the Consent Decree would not result in an end of the district's commitment to the goals of the decree.  She indicated that during the next few years she expects the district to restate these goals in order to facilitate the transition from the decree and keep its momentum going.  Further, Ms. Howell stated that even if Burton should lose all of its Consent Decree funding, this loss "would not affect the commitment of the teachers or administrators in this school to serve this population of students."[38]  Similarly, Christine Hiroshima, principal at E.R. Taylor Elementary School, agreed that the Consent Decree has served as a means for the community to acknowledge problems faced by some students by focusing attention on the inequalities that exist in society.[39]

 

In this context, our systematic monitoring efforts have revealed a range of key desegregation issues over the past four years.  Conversations with district officials, educators, and members of the larger community have invariably focused on one or more of the following topics:  (1) the efficacy of "neighborhood" schools, (2) the OER process and equal educational opportunity, (3) Lowell High School, (4) ongoing demographic changes within the City, (5) within-school segregation generally, and (6) the interface between desegregation and language acquisition.

 

            1. The Efficacy of "Neighborhood" Schools

 

We have found that a great majority of San Francisco residents continue to endorse the goals of the Consent Decree.  In addition, many of the same people begin by supporting the concept of neighborhood schools as a primary goal.  While such positions may appear to be inherently contradictory, an analysis of the issue leads to an interesting range of perspectives that can help inform future planning in this regard.

 

a. A "Return" to Neighborhood Schools.  Throughout the U.S., a debate has been raging for a long time regarding the efficacy of so-called neighborhood schools and the advantages of any alleged trade-offs in this regard.  In San Francisco, however, this is not the compelling issue that some would think.  If we define neighborhood schools as those schools that are open to and serve the residents of the surrounding neighborhood, then a great percentage of the schools in SFUSD -- and in particular most of the elementary schools -- do in fact qualify as neighborhood schools at the present time.  And the great majority of students who travel to other parts of this small geographic area either do not travel long distances, or -- if they do travel far -- choose to make this trip to attend certain schools of choice.[40] 

 

A review of current data regarding school designations in SFUSD reveals that all the schools that are not either alternative schools, charter schools, or continuation schools are in fact neighborhood schools under the above definition.  In addition, most of the alternative schools at the elementary level also serve as neighborhood schools for their contiguous areas.  And many of the alternative schools at the middle and high school levels operate, according to their principals, as akin to neighborhood schools...since they serve so many of the students in their surrounding communities.  This includes Gloria R. Davis Middle School (Bayview-Hunters Point), Horace Mann Middle School (Mission), Burton High (Bayview-Hunters Point), O'Connell High (Mission), and Thurgood Marshall High (Bayview-Hunters Point). 

 

Yet -- to complete this picture -- it must also be pointed out that a good number of these "neighborhood" schools also serve other neighborhoods...and that in fact under current attendance boundaries residents of certain locations do not currently have a neighborhood school option.  Thus, at the middle school level, for example, the 16 attendance area schools all serve their surrounding neighborhoods, but 9 of them also serve designated portions of other neighborhoods...where parents have no neighborhood school option.  And at the high school level, the six large attendance area schools (Balboa, Galileo, Lincoln, McAteer, Mission, and Washington) all serve their surrounding neighborhoods, but three of them also serve other bounded locations that have no neighborhood schools.  In addition, since the disestablishment of Wilson High School, the residents of Bayview-Hunters Point have had no neighborhood high school option, although...as mentioned above...Burton and Marshall have begun to serve that function.  All these realities must be considered in any future student assignment plan.

 

b. A Connection to the Community.  A related issue, of course, is whether and to what extent current district practices foster the building of bonds between school and community.  For example, Janette Hernandez, principal of Everett Middle School, remarked to us this past spring that she is not dismayed by the increasing representation of Latino students at Everett because she believes that having the student population mirror that of the surrounding Mission district may foster a stronger sense of connection between the school and the greater community.[41]  As noted below, Moscone Principal Patricia Martel concurs. 

 

Yet notwithstanding these comments, we have found that desegregation practices under the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree have in many cases also included fostering connection between the school and the home.  And in situations where this may not be the case, there are many creative options for both district officials and school site administrators to increase such connections without abandoning Consent Decree goals and principles.  As we have reported in the past, the Consent Decree contemplates active community and parent involvement in the education process.  For example, Paragraph 42 states that "[t]he parties acknowledge the value in the schools of parent, student, staff, and community representation which reflects the racial/ethnic diversity of a school district which is undergoing desegregation."  Moreover, in evaluating the success of the original Special Plan for Bayview-Hunters Point, it was recognized that  "[i]n practice,... parent involvement was found to be important to achieving the goal of academic excellence."  And the April 1995 Updated Special Plan both recommends that students participate in classes that "include community service experiences" and contemplates an "active" partnership between parents and schools.[42]

 

In addition, during the past few months, several school site administrators remarked to us that recent, focused outreach efforts have increased parent involvement at their school campuses.  These administrators include Christine Hiroshima of E.R. Taylor, Gil Archuleta of Monroe, and Kevin Truitt of  Junipero Serra.  And our past reports have been filled with evidence of other district outreach efforts and community partnerships in this regard.  Thus it has indeed proven possible to foster a connection with the community under past desegregation practices, and we urge the district to keep this Consent Decree imperative in the forefront of any future student assignment plan.

 

c. Assisting Targeted Populations.  A more complex question that has arisen this past year relates to the allocation of resources that can directly assist targeted student populations.  As we have reported in the past, while the Consent Decree is designed to help all students in the district, additional efforts have been mandated for African American, Latino, and low-income Asian-Pacific American students.  And while the realities of the 1980's led to the identification of certain targeted schools where significant numbers of these student populations were represented, things have changed considerably since that time.  Yet Consent Decree reforms continue to be directed mainly at a few targeted schools that may now be enrolling only a limited percentage of the students from these historically underperforming groups.[43]  Thus, a large percentage of the extra resources and attention given to these schools does not directly aid these specific groups.[44] 

 

Furthermore, as we have reported in the past, some people have suggested that desegregation has moved targeted student populations out of targeted schools without providing the non-targeted schools the attention, resources, training or programs to address the needs of the populations of underperforming students that attend those schools in larger numbers.[45]  And the district has not reduced problems of within-school and within-program segregation that limit opportunities of African American, Latino, and low income Asian Pacific American students at non-targeted schools.  As a result, the achievement gap between some students and others is large and evident system-wide.[46]

 

While some have argued -- as we indicate below -- that a major remedy for this disparity would be a more equitable allocation of resources, others have suggested that if SFUSD's method of reform continues to be the targeting of individual, low-performing schools, it would be better to concentrate larger percentages of historically underperforming groups in a smaller number of schools...rather than spreading them out all over the City.  Yet while this too is the subject of an ongoing national debate, there is little or no concrete evidence that such an approach might work.  Indeed, the past history of segregation and exclusion in San Francisco and throughout the State of California indicates that concentrating large numbers of underperforming students in a small number of racially segregated campuses leads invariably to disastrous academic results.[47]  And as a practical matter, having a smaller number of underperforming students at a particular campus actually may facilitate the ability of local educators to provide extra programs and resources on an individual basis…if such programs and resources are linked to a plan with overarching goals. 

 

We urge the district, therefore, to work toward continuing to operate under the interrelated desegregation goals of the Consent Decree, even if the decree itself actually ends in December 2002.  As we have reported in the past, 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 but also a vehicle for maximizing equal educational opportunity, improving academic achievement, and increasing educational quality district-wide.  There is no evidence that a return to the segregated "neighborhood" schools of the pre-1983 variety is a recipe for anything other than an even wider gulf between the "haves" and the "have-nots."

 

2. The OER Process and Equal Educational Opportunity

 

Another important transition issue is the question of which families are not taking advantage of the OER and why.[48]  Paragraph 17-f of the Consent Decree requires the SFUSD to "actively recruit pupils residing in the Bayview Hunters Point area and in the neighborhood of magnet schools in such manner as to affirmatively acquaint the pupils and their parents with all of the educational options throughout the school district."[49]  In past reports, we highlighted several key questions that had been raised by members of the SFUSD community regarding these issues.  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:

 

[N]otwithstanding the fact that a significant amount of Consent Decree money is spent on outreach and a great deal of effort is expended to provide OER information to everyone, the fact remains that African American and Latino parents' participation is this process is far below that of other parents in the community. The EPC staff recognizes this, but they are at a loss to explain why this phenomenon continues year after year.[50]

 

The district appears to have pursued many avenues for disseminating information.  For example, all 5th and 8th graders receive a letter at the end of October that identifies the student's middle school or high school based on the student's home address.  The letter also explains how parents can use the OER process to have their children assigned to a school other than the one designated.  This letter is available in English, Chinese, Spanish, Russian, and Filipino translations.   Additionally, school district officials use a variety of means to notify parents of soon-to-be kindergartners of their rights and responsibilities under the OER guidelines.  Methods include (1) posters hung in stores, laundromats, and other areas throughout the community where they are likely to be seen; (2) advertisements taken out in English and foreign language newspapers throughout San Francisco; (3) district officials' visits to day care centers; (4) handouts sent home with students; (5) middle school and high school open; and (6) notices included with AFDC benefits.  EPC employees describe their outreach efforts as labor intensive.

 

Though SFUSD is aggressive about disseminating procedural information about OER, it is less clear what action is being taken with respect to making available substantive information (such as individual school profiles and transportation options) crucial to informing a parent's choice. [51]  The district does maintain a web page with statistical profiles of individual schools that can be helpful for a parent embarking on the school selection process.  However, web access is clearly not available to a significant portion of society and maintaining these profiles exclusively on the web may inadvertently further the inequitable utilization of choice that adequate communications intend to dispel.  Additionally, the statistical profiles, even if available in a different medium, may still be difficult to decipher – especially to less sophisticated and/or non-English speaking parents. While district officials are consistently sensitive to these concerns, we have not seen much progress in this area.  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, access to private networks, or the purchase of private publications that may be sold in bookstores.  These realities raise issues of equal access that cannot and should not be ignored.

 

The district may now have an opportunity to compile hard data, rather than rely on anecdotal evidence, to actually learn who does and does not use the OER process.  Though OER is available to any parents/guardians who wish to transfer their child to a different SFUSD school, it has historically been primarily used for new kindergarten students and for students who are new to the district.  Fifth and eighth graders have traditionally been promoted automatically to middle or high school "based on their home address."[52]  However, prior to the 1999-2000 school year, the SFUSD Educational Placement Center required all parents/guardians of fifth and eighth graders to fill out Optional Enrollment Applications pursuant to prospective changes in the student assignment plan.  In the end, the district did not employ the new method contemplated, and, as in past years, placed many students in middle or high school based on their home address.  Nevertheless, the Educational Placement Center did obtain approximately 7500 Optional Enrollment Applications from fifth and eighth grade parents, out of around 9000 total fifth and eighth grade students.[53]

 

Data indicating who did and who did not fill out OER forms during this recent aborted process could answer some important questions about the effectiveness of a student assignment plan in equalizing educational opportunity.  Information might be gleaned, for example, regarding which parents are uninformed about the OER process, whether the district's methods of disseminating information is effective and for whom, and whether the OER application period is adequate.  Other issues that need to be addressed include whether parents have sufficient information about school sites to make an educated choice about the merits of different schools in the district, whether parents who did not get their OER choices are aware that they can appeal the decision, and whether parents are aware that they can apply to transfer their child to another school in future years.  Researching these issues is important because the equity of school placement – and any conclusions made about the effectiveness of the student assignment process and about whether there is continued momentum favoring desegregation – is only assured as long as all parents/guardians not only have access to similar information but are also exercising their choices on an informed basis.[54]

 

A further area of inquiry can focus on what efforts, if any, school sites should be making to market themselves in order to attract students.  We found that principals seem uncertain about this area and, indeed, have very different views on recruitment.  Joan Hepperly, principal of O'Connell High School, told us that during the Spring of 2000 she has been making an effort to actively recruit students to the new facility.  For example, Ms. Hepperly visited Horace Mann Middle School to promote O'Connell's programs.  Her efforts appear to have been fruitful, as she expects next year to enroll 50 ninth graders in excess of the school's original cap.[55]  Yet other principals are not as quick to publicize their schools' many assets, seeking instead to maintain the "neighborhood" character of their institutions.[56] 

 

3. Lowell High School

 

As we reported in the past, Lowell is one of the best known high schools in the state, and consistently rated in the top ten of all high schools nationally.  In addition, it 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. 

 

One of the three plaintiffs in the Brian Ho case had allegedly been denied admission to Lowell, and as a result both the school's admissions policy and the resulting admissions numbers were the subject of very close scrutiny over the past five years.  In Report #16, we presented an extensive analysis of equity-related issues at Lowell.[57]  We found that in the aftermath of the Ho settlement agreement, based on data available to us in May 1999, the projected enrollment figures for the incoming ninth grade class at Lowell (Fall 1999) 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%.  Final enrollment figures after the start of school in August 1999 were a bit different, as the following table shows:

 

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 projected  1.9       45.6     3.5       1.5       2.2       5.4       0.2       12.6     26.9

99-00 actual      4.4       51.1     3.4       1.4       2.4       4.9       0          12.4     20.0

 

 

Entire Lowell Campus (Grades 9-12)

as of August 23, 1999

 

                        AA       C         F          J           K         L          NA      ONW  OW

99-00 actual      4.3       46.9     4.4       1.6       2.5       9.4       0.4       12.8     17.7

 

 

When we visited the Lowell campus on August 23, 1999, we found that the apparent reason for the increase in African American student numbers from 1.9% of the incoming class to 4.4% of the incoming class was the fact that one special ed class was added at Lowell, which included 16 African American students out of the original 25.  This class was comprised of students who did not actually apply to Lowell.  According to district policy, special ed students and classes are often distributed to various schools throughout the City, outside of the regular admissions process.[58]

 

Still, it must be emphasized that even with this change, the African American student numbers at Lowell continue to be extremely low, as they have been even before the Ho settlement. 

 

As we have reported before, the issues raised by the Lowell numbers reflect the ongoing challenges that the entire State of California has faced in the aftermath of Proposition 209.  Much has been written about this topic in recent years, and no simple solutions are on the horizon.  Yet it is apparent that much work needs to be done here. 

 

Too often, Lowell has been viewed as a separate problem, outside the scope of the typical equity and excellence-related issues that the SFUSD faces on a day-to-day level.  But Lowell must not continue to be viewed this way.  What happens at the middle school level impacts Lowell, and what happens in the Lowell admissions process impacts other high schools in the City.  Everything is interrelated here.  Thus we urge the district to address Lowell admissions issues within the context of the larger questions that include all the district-wide desegregation and academic achievement issues embodied in the Consent Decree.  Lowell is an integral part of SFUSD, and should not continue to be viewed as a separate matter.

 

4. Changing Demographics in San Francisco

 

In previous reports, we have documented the changing demographics of the City, and we look forward to the results of the 2000 Census for an entirely new database in this regard.  One thing is certain here...the San Francisco addressed by the original Consent Decree of 1983 is very different from the San Francisco we know today. 

 

We also note that the trend we identified in Reports #14 and #15 regarding the dramatic increase in bi-racial and multi-racial students has continued unabated.  As recently as Sunday, July 16, 2000 -- in a special issue focusing on race -- the New York Times Magazine reported that multi-racial ethnic births to American-born mothers in California increased from just over 11% in 1962 to 22% by 1997.  And San Francisco continues to be in the forefront in this regard.  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.  These demographic realities must necessarily inform district planning during this transition period.

 

In recent months, some people with whom we spoke suggested that because the demographics of the city have changed so dramatically since 1983, the district will in time self-desegregate.  For example, it was noted that the Bayview-Hunters Point area is no longer almost entirely African American but now has a large number of families of other ethnicities.[59]  Jim Green, Assistant Principal at Thurgood Marshall High School, stated that Marshall has been and continues to be a neighborhood school, and pointed out that as a result its racial and ethnic make-up has changed to reflect the presence of more Asians moving into the area.[60]  However, in general, we have not found that the district's neighborhoods are sufficiently desegregated that returning to neighborhood schools would presently prevent resegregation.  The Mission district remains 73.4% Latino, ten of the district's 21 neighborhoods have a single ethnicity comprising more than 45% of SFUSD students living in the neighborhood, and six of the district's neighborhoods have a single ethnicity comprising more than 50% of SFUSD students living in the neighborhood.[61]  Further, the three Phase One schools from Bayview-Hunters Point all have higher percentage of African American students than the neighborhood as a whole:  Carver 78%, Drew 74.1%, and Malcolm X 60.3%.

 

            5. Within-School Segregation Generally

 

The Consent Decree does not consider eliminating within-school segregation to be a subordinate issue.  It is not a problem to consider after first dealing with school-to-school segregation.  Rather, it is clear from the plain meaning of the language in Paragraph 12 that the desegregation contemplated by the Consent Decree can only be accomplished by focusing on three interrelated components:  "school, program, and classroom."  Indeed, even assuming the SFUSD could achieve lasting school-by-school desegregation, its failure to make sufficient efforts to eliminate within-school and within-program segregation would be tantamount to the failure to achieve both the overriding goals of the Consent Decree and the fundamental reasons for desegregating the district at all --maximizing equal educational opportunity, improving academic achievement and increasing educational quality district-wide.[62]  We have monitored this issue closely during the past few years, and in Reports #15, #16, and again below, we have noted that the district was not in compliance with the requirements of Paragraphs 12 and 13 regarding desegregation of programs and individual classrooms. 

 

In Report #15, we presented extensive evidence regarding three types of within-school segregation in SFUSD:  (1) classrooms where LEP students are separated out for purposes of language acquisition; (2) 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; and (3) 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.[63]  In addition, as we have noted in previous reports and again below, there is a great disparity in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of African American students, and African American and Latino students are still significantly underrepresented in Gifted and Talented Education programs and overrepresented in special education classes.[64]  And 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.  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.[65]

 

In addition, as documented below in the Paragraph 12 section of this report, we have discovered that students in the district are kept separated out in bilingual classes even after they have been redesignated fully proficient in English.  We will be examining this component of the larger problem in more depth during the upcoming academic year.

 

While we have recognized in past reports that within-school segregation is an intractable national problem, we have also emphasized that there are reasonable steps that the district can take to build on its sensitivity to equity-related concerns.  In retrospect, over the past four years, we have found that in general not enough effort has been made -- either at the district-level or at most school sites -- to address this issue. 

 

In Report #15, at 47, 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.   We urge the district to take the lead on this important issue during the transition period to December 2002.

 

6. The Interface between Desegregation and Language Acquisition

 

We continue to find that it is not possible to separate out the LEP issues from any basic analysis of Consent Decree compliance.  Indeed, since approximately one third of all the students in SFUSD are limited-English proficient -- and thus know little or no English -- it is very rare when visiting a school in the City not to come across unresolved issues in this regard.  While we recognize that the Consent Decree is not about language acquisition per se, LEP issues -- as demonstrated below -- directly affect basic Consent Decree requirements pertaining to desegregation plans, academic achievement levels, and staff development programs in a multicultural context.

 

Yet the district continues to treat LEP-related issues as separate and apart from other Consent Decree issues and concerns.  In fact, in the Parties' Third Joint Report -- filed with this Court in response to Report #16 and the 1999 report of the Consent Decree Advisory Committee -- was completely unresponsive to our findings in this area.  Unlike other issues identified in these documents, the district did not set forth any plan of action to address these ongoing issues. 

 

Our recent findings since the beginning of the 1999-2000 academic year have only reinforced our concerns in this area.  As we have reported in the past, the placement and grouping of LEP students have an impact on school-by-school desegregation and on within-school desegregation.  In this context, both LEP and non-LEP students are affected.  In particular, we have found that African American, Latino, and low income Asian Pacific American students are most directly affected by these practices.  Yet, as the Consent Decree Advisory Committee's recent report has found, there is little or no coordination between the various district departments and agencies that are responsible for desegregation, educational placement, and language acquisition. To this end, the Consent Decree Advisory Committee -- in its January 1999 report -- recommended that SFUSD consider integrating these operations (at Pages 143-145).  We echoed this recommendation in Report #16, and we urge the district to take the important first step of moving forward here.  Such a change can then lead to further progress with regard to the assessment of LEP students and the implementation of appropriate staff development to increase the knowledge base and skill level of the district's educators and administrators in this regard.

 

II. The Goal of Academic Excellence for All Students

 

The Consent Decree Advisory Committee has described a basic theory of the decree as desegregation plus -- "that disadvantaged minority students will gain either by the upgrading and desegregation of their local school or by transferring to a better school." [66]  The "plus" is embodied in the Paragraph 39 language that mandates "continued and accelerated efforts to achieve academic efforts throughout the SFUSD."

 

There has been undeniable progress in this regard since the beginning of the Consent Decree, with particular progress -- as noted in other parts of this report -- during the years 1983-1985 and 1993-1997.   Academic achievement data has reflected increases in test scores for all students across the board, new quality schools were established in neighborhoods populated by significant numbers of low income families, and opportunities to attend successful schools anywhere in the City were maximized through both the redrawing of attendance boundaries and the substantial expansion of the OER/alternative school program to provide all SFUSD parents with a large number of viable choices.

 

In Report #14, for example, we documented the following gains that were evident by the Spring of 1997:

 

1.      Statistically Significant Achievement Gains District-Wide in 1997

A comparison of reading and math scores in 1996-1997 with scores in the

same area during 1995-1996 indicated statistically significant achievement

gains, both district-wide and by race/ethnicity.  SFUSD students as a whole

were now scoring above the national average in both Reading Comprehension

and Mathematics Concepts & Applications. 

 

2.      Higher Percentage of Elementary Students Scoring in the 75th Percentile or Higher on CTBS

During the years of 1986-1988, the percentage of elementary students district-wide who scored in the 75th percentile or higher on combined reading and math tests dropped below 10% (9.5% in 1986-1987 and 8.8% in 1987-1988).  By the mid-1990's, however, this figure had doubled to almost 20% in reading and more than tripled to over 35% in math.

 

3.      Across-the-Board Decreases in the Lowest Quartile and Increases in the Highest Quartile

Examining 1997 district-wide reading and math scores at the 5th, 8th, and 11th grades, it was clear that the number of students at the 25th percentile or below had decreased, while the number of students in the 75th percentile or above had increased…across the board.

 

4.      Longitudinal Studies of Matched Scores at 'Phase One' Schools Generally

Students at the original 'Phase One' Consent Decree schools had begun to score consistently at or above the national average on the CTBS.

 

5.      Increases in Primary Level Reading Scores Generally District-Wide

From 1992 through 1996, matched reading scores of second grade elementary

students district-wide were 3-4 NCE points higher than their scores had been

during the previous year in first grade.  Reading scores of African American

and Latino students at this level also increased.

 

6.      Dramatic Increases in Primary Level Reading and Math Scores in 1997

According to CTBS data released in the Spring of 1997, the average reading scores for all first graders in the district jumped from 39.2 NCE to 46.2 NCE, while the average math scores jumped from 49.2 NCE to 55.0 NCE.

 

7.      Consistent Increases in Primary Level Reading and Math Scores Across All Races and Ethnicities from 1993-1997

Analysis of CTBS scores in the primary grades from 1993 through 1997 revealed consistent improvement across all races and ethnicities in reading and math scores.

 

8.      Increased Number of Students Completing High School District-Wide

According to a state report released in April 1997, the percentage of students district-wide who completed high school in SFUSD rose in 1996 to 89.4, well above the state average of 83.1.[67]

 

9.      Large Percentage of SFUSD Students Entering UC, CSU, or Community Colleges

According to the same state report, 63.6% of SFUSD's graduates entered UC, CSU, or the state's community colleges in 1996, compared with 51.5% statewide.  San Francisco's percentage was higher than any other district in the Bay Area.[68]

 

Indeed, by 1998, SFUSD was recognized nationally as a district that had established models of exemplary practice which might be replicated in other urban school systems statewide and nationwide.[69]  And in addition to the range of positive numbers, new and viable educational options were created for parents through the opening of Consent Decree schools in low income areas.  These included the establishment of two quality high schools -- Phillip & Sala Burton High School and Thurgood Marshall High School -- in the Bayview-Hunters Point area.  Both schools have established reputations for high standards, and as OER schools continue to draw diverse student populations from all over the city.  Indeed, many believe that the creation of Burton and Marshall has been one of the most notable achievements of the Consent Decree, and it is hoped that the opening of the new campus for O'Connell in the Mission District will yield similarly positive results.

 

But while undeniable positive results were apparent and while the educational options for disadvantaged students were significantly increased by the dual thrust of the Consent Decree, major challenges continued to be reported by both the monitoring team and the Consent Decree Advisory Committee.  These include the range of equity-related issues that have arisen on every SFUSD campus, the realities faced by children of poverty in a district that has such a large percentage of low income families attending its public schools, [70] and the specific problems faced by African Americans, Latinos, and low income Asian Pacific Americans.

 

For example, we have noted in our previous reports -- and again in this section -- that low income families seeking to enroll their children in schools other than those in their own attendance boundaries have often faced challenges attempting to obtain substantive information regarding the options available to them.  Transportation can be a challenge, both in general and with regard to specific bus routes...a challenge that includes a dearth of efficient public transportation from Bayview Hunters-Point to the West and Southwest.  At the new schools, students may be faced with lower expectations, and may be grouped in such a way that they continue to receive a dumbed-down curriculum.  The range of within-school segregation issues highlighted in previous reports are directly applicable in this context.  And the attendance issues that can develop as a result of this combination of factors only serves to exacerbate an already difficult situation.

 

In addition, the challenges faced by low income families in gener