Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Assignment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFUSD staff proposes five‑year phased feeder plan; parents press for guarantees on programs and transportation
Summary
District staff recommended a five‑year, phased approach to introduce middle‑school feeder patterns while keeping choice during the phase‑in; parents and commissioners raised concerns about resources for electives, language programs, transportation and whether the phase will actually produce quality schools.
San Francisco Unified School District staff presented a draft plan to phase in middle‑school feeder patterns over five years while continuing open choice during the phase‑in, a recommendation that drew sharp questions from both commissioners and members of the public.
Deputy Superintendent Richard Carranza and staff described the approach as a two‑part, five‑year plan that would add a feeder‑pattern tiebreaker as a priority in 2012–2016 and move to an initial middle‑school offer in the fifth year (2016–17). Under the proposal, tiebreakers would be applied in order of siblings, feeder assignment, CTIP (test score) areas, middle‑school attendance area and any additional board‑specified tiebreakers.
Why it matters: staff said feeder alignment helps middle schools plan for expected incoming students and supports continuity for programs such as English Learner development, special education and language pathways. Staff argued feeder patterns make it easier for middle‑school principals to coordinate with a manageable number of elementary feeders and to use limited resources more strategically.
What staff told the board: Carranza said the phased plan gives time for central office, principals and communities to plan for master schedules, transportation, finance and staffing. He framed the recommendation as a way to ‘‘build deeper engagement and commitment to the broader effort of building high quality middle schools.’’
Public response and board concerns: more than two dozen speakers told the board they supported quality‑school investments but many opposed moving toward feeder patterns without concrete guarantees. John Perry of Parents for Public Schools said, "Making feeder patterns a tie breaker is, for all intents and purposes, implementing feeder patterns now." Several parents warned that without added funding, expanding language pathways or creating feeder routes could dismantle existing visual and performing arts (VAPA) programs or require lengthy bus rides for students.
Board debate and next steps: commissioners pressed staff for operational detail and evidence the plan can be implemented. Chair (speaker identified in the transcript as Commissioner Wins) said he was "disinclined to support a feeder pattern" as presented and asked staff to bring back more concrete implementation steps. Commissioners suggested parallel workstreams—continue developing quality‑school programs, create demonstration projects or proof‑of‑concepts, and refine the maps and tiebreaker rules. Staff requested specific board input to finalize recommendations for the ad hoc student assignment meeting scheduled for May 31 and to prepare materials for the board vote on the assignment policy in mid‑June.
The outcome: no formal vote was taken at this meeting. Staff was directed to incorporate board feedback, clarify budget and transportation implications, and return with revised recommendations and implementation plans at upcoming ad hoc and board meetings.
