SFUSD presentation: most seniors in Plan 1 graduated after interventions, board asks for finer breakdowns

San Francisco Unified School District staff told the Board of Education the district’s year‑end review of twelfth graders from 2013–14 showed substantial gains after targeted interventions and data corrections.

Interim Executive Director for Curriculum and Instruction Steven Kaufman said the presentation reviewed a Plan 1 (A‑G) year‑end status and the updated Synergy data run of Oct. 10, 2014. He said the district’s February on‑track snapshot showed roughly 70.4 percent of Plan 1 students were identified as on track earlier in the year; after entering summer session, credit‑recovery and updated scores into Synergy, Kaufman reported that about 92.2 percent of those identified twelfth graders graduated under Plan 1.

Julie Chan, educational policy analyst in the office of college and career readiness, walked the board through subgroup breakdowns. She reported district‑level graduation rates for Plan 1 that were about 84 percent for African American students and about 85 percent for Latino students, and she noted English learners’ Plan 1 graduation rate was roughly 60 percent with about 15 percent listed as dropouts and 16 percent retained for a fifth year.

Assistant Superintendent Bill Sanderson and staff emphasized that this presentation is a year‑end status of students who were seniors on May 30, 2014, and that the district’s figure differs from the state cohort rate published through CALPADS. Sanderson explained the five plan categories used by the district: Plan 1 (A‑G graduation requirement generally for all students), Plan 2 (foreign‑born students), Plan 3 (foster care students), Plan 4 (county/court students), and Plan 5 (continuation school waivers approved for the last two graduating classes).

Kaufman and Chan described interventions that contributed to the gains: expanded credit‑recovery options, online learning, evening and senior summer school, Saturday school programs at Mission and Burton high schools and targeted Sprout‑funded microgrants distributed by the Office of Extended Learning and Support. Kaufman said, “we have a new vetting process that includes formative and summative assessments of the programs” and that the district designed intervention‑specific curriculum for credit‑recovery students.

Board members pressed staff for more granular information. Multiple commissioners asked for a 1‑page primer on the five plans and for breakdowns by race, grade point averages, native language and which English learners used world‑language accommodations. Kaufman and Chan agreed to provide written follow‑up and more detailed reports to curriculum and committee meetings. The board also requested clearer alignment of the D/F (on‑track/off‑track) lists used for counselor outreach and for summer‑school prioritization.

The presentation noted a non‑Plan 1 group totaling 466 students (about 11.4 percent) who were assigned to Plans 2–5; staff said these assignments reflect differences in students’ circumstances and in some cases state‑mandated approaches for foster youth or court‑involved students.

What’s next: staff said they will post school‑site D/F lists, continue work on early‑warning indicators and report back with the requested demographic and grade‑level detail, as well as a one‑page summary of the five plans and the summer‑school prioritization methodology.

Sources: Presentation and Q&A by Steven Kaufman, Julie Chan and Bill Sanderson to the Board of Education (SFUSD).