Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Graduation Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFUSD presents year‑end graduation data and intervention plan; trustees press for more disaggregated results
Summary
District staff told the board that targeted interventions and updated data increased A‑G graduations for the twelfth‑grade snapshot; trustees pressed for more breakdowns by race, English‑learner status and grades and requested follow‑up documentation.
Interim Executive Director Steven Kaufman told the San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education that a year‑end status review of last year’s seniors found a substantial increase in students graduating under the A‑G (Plan 1) requirement after the district updated Synergy records to include summer‑school and late entries.
"This is a, graduation, plan 1 year end status and interventions update," Kaufman said as he introduced the results and the district’s year‑round interventions. Presenters later reported that, after the data run, 92.2 percent of the twelfth‑grade subset classified in Plan 1 were recorded as on track and graduated under the A‑G policy, and that 466 students (about 11.4 percent) were identified as belonging to Plans 2–5 and thus excluded from Plan 1 counts.
The presentation described a suite of supports the district credited with the gains: evening school, online courses, senior summer school, school‑based Sprout micro‑grants and new, intervention‑specific curricula developed for credit recovery. Kaufman said 102 students were currently enrolled in two newly launched Saturday programs at Mission and Balboa high schools.
Julie Chan, educational policy analyst, walked trustees through subgroup results and cautioned that some groups—English learners and certain special‑education students—remain less likely to complete A‑G requirements on schedule. Chan said roughly 60 percent of English learners in the reviewed group graduated under the A‑G policy; about 15 percent were classified as dropouts and roughly 16 percent were retained for a fifth year to complete requirements.
Board members asked for more granular information on several points. Commissioners requested a concise one‑page summary that lists the five graduation plans and the exact interventions associated with each cohort. Trustees also pressed for disaggregation by race, native language and the distribution of grades earned in A‑G courses (to determine how many students are graduating with mostly D‑level passing marks versus C or better).
Assistant Superintendent Bill Sanderson reminded the board that the district’s presented figures were a May‑30 snapshot updated with summer results and are not the same as the state’s four‑year cohort rate published through CALPADS (California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System).
At least one phrasing in the presentation appeared inconsistent on the record about a 70.4 percent figure; presenters and trustees agreed to provide written clarifications and follow‑up data to resolve that inconsistency. The superintendent and staff told the board they would deliver the requested one‑pager and additional demographic breakdowns in writing, and would bring further detail to curriculum and committee meetings.
Next steps: trustees asked staff to supply the one‑page plan summary, demographic breaks for summer‑school and intervention participants, grade‑level and GPA breakdowns for A‑G completers and a status update on county, court and continuation schools before the next curriculum committee meeting.
