Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Assignment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFUSD board adopts CTIP-based student assignment plan, adds monitoring and contingency for benchmarks
Summary
After extensive public testimony and dozens of amendments, the San Francisco Unified School District board adopted a new student assignment policy that uses a Census Tract Integration Preference (CTIP) to prioritize students from the city's lowest-achieving census tracts, reshapes middle-school feeder boundaries, and establishes an expert monitoring group with triggers to revisit race-conscious options if benchmarks are not met.
The San Francisco Unified School District board voted to adopt a redesigned student assignment policy on March 9 that aims to increase school diversity by using neighborhood address plus ranked choices, a new Census Tract Integration Preference (CTIP) that prioritizes students living in the 20 percent of census tracts with the lowest average test scores, feeder-pattern changes for middle schools, and annual monitoring with specified benchmarks.
What the new plan does. Staff described the CTIP preference as a targeted way to use parental choice to increase diversity: CTIP 1 will include geographic areas comprising about 20 percent of students in the district with the lowest average standardized scores. At elementary schools the preference order will include siblings, SFUSD pre-K attendance-area students, CTIP 1 students, attendance-area students, students from densely populated attendance areas, and then all other students. Middle schools will use feeder patterns that may be noncontiguous to allow whole elementary attendance areas to feed into middle schools, and high schools will remain citywide with CTIP 1 preference but no local preference.
Public response and civil-rights concerns. The proposal drew large crowds. Parents from the Marina and other neighborhoods urged retention of neighborhood access and local preference, with one Marina speaker warning, "It feels like you're forgetting about the Marina in this school assignment process by keeping Claire Lilienthal as a citywide school." Civil-rights advocates including the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights urged the board to keep CTIP but warned of a risk "for exacerbating existing disparities between neighborhoods" and recommended a monitoring process and contingency plans that could include race-conscious measures if the plan fails to reduce racial isolation.
Board amendments and safeguards. The board adopted multiple amendments offered during the meeting. They authorized staff to investigate fraudulent address claims and take civil or criminal action while directing that such investigations not be used to determine immigration status. They also strengthened the monitoring framework: the superintendent will convene a group of technical experts and community representatives to help set goals and monitoring infrastructure; the group must produce specific goals and an infrastructure for monitoring by November 2010. If annual reports show the district is not making progress on the board's goals (reducing racial isolation, reducing concentration of underserved students, closing achievement gaps), the superintendent will recommend policy changes, potentially including race-conscious measures or a redesigned assignment process.
Board vote and next steps. After amendments, the board adopted the policy "as amended" by roll call; meeting minutes record the measure passed (board announced "7 ayes"). Staff will now draft administrative regulations (dates and appeals processes), design transportation policy, finalize capacity calculations and attendance-area boundaries, and conduct citywide outreach before the enrollment cycle.
Why it matters. The redesign attempts to balance choice, neighborhood access, and equity while preserving predictability for families. The monitoring and contingency language gives the board a pathway to reassess tools, including the possibility of race-conscious interventions, if metrics show the policy is not meeting its stated goals.
