Board reviews hybrid student‑assignment plan: CTIP priorities, new algorithm and fast implementation timeline

San Francisco — The Board of Education on Tuesday heard detailed staff and consultant briefings on a proposed overhaul of the district’s student‑assignment system that would redraw attendance boundaries, add a neighborhood‑level socioeconomic preference called Census Tract Integration Preference (CTIP), and use a single-step assignment algorithm designed to be nonwasteful and strategically simple.

Ms. O'Keefe, presenting the superintendent’s recommendations, said the policy would create three kinds of school catchments: contiguous attendance‑area (local) boundaries for most elementary schools, service‑area boundaries tied to specialized programs, and a set of citywide schools with no local preference. The policy would also formalize five ranked preferences — including siblings and SFUSD pre‑K — and explicitly incorporate CTIP 1 and CTIP 2 categories, which consultants told the board represent roughly 40% and 60% of the district’s census‑tract population in their analysis.

"Zones haven't worked in the city to diversify schools," Jean Gobelay, the demographic consultant, told the board as she explained why combined census tracts were chosen rather than ZIP codes or block groups. Gobelay said the team created 153 combined tracts from the city’s 176 census tracts to ensure a minimum student population in each analysis unit and to stabilize year‑to‑year measures.

Stanford consultant Muriel Niederle described the proposed assignment method, known as "assignment with transfers," which temporarily assigns students to seats based on a ranked preference structure and then performs computer‑driven transfer cycles to improve matches without leaving seats unused. Niederle said the algorithm is "not wasteful" and is designed so families cannot gain by misranking schools — a property consultants call strategic simplicity. The board heard three tailored variants: local assignment with transfers for elementary grades, an initial guaranteed assignment plus transfers for middle schools, and a high‑school model that splits seats internally into CTIP 1 and CTIP 2 segments (proposed at a 40/60 split).

Staff outlined a practical implementation timetable tied to the board’s approval schedule. If the board advances the policy in March, staff proposed finishing capacity confirmations, drawing boundaries and developing transportation rules by late August, using September for community engagement and final board action, and targeting a November launch. Staff warned there would likely be no first‑year cost savings; implementation over a 16‑month window would rely on a mix of district funding, a federal grant, private foundation support and in‑kind assistance (Stanford was named as a technical partner).

Public commenters delivered a mix of praise and sharp concerns. Mark Farrell of the group Plan C urged a robust neighborhood‑school option and said the draft’s exclusion of certain K–8 schools, such as Claire Lilienthal, would leave some neighborhoods with no practical neighborhood school. "The time for neighborhood schools has come," Farrell said, arguing that local schools reduce commute times and strengthen community ties.

By contrast, Peter Cohn of the San Francisco NAACP submitted a legal memo for the record and cautioned against locking in proximity preferences that could perpetuate inequities. "If access to a school is a mere accident of whether or not you can afford expensive real estate ... then the game's over," Cohn said, urging geographic and legal caution and continued oversight.

Board members pressed staff and consultants on tradeoffs: several asked for a written comparison and simulations that show outcomes if academic‑diversity (CTIP) preferences are ranked ahead of local preferences, and others pressed the district to strengthen address verification and fraud‑prevention measures. Commissioner comments emphasized that the proposed policy is a hybrid approach intended to balance predictability for families, program coherence and equity goals; several members asked staff to incorporate brief policy language committing to monitoring, outreach and an improved pre‑K alignment process.

Ms. O'Keefe told the board she would draft clarified policy language reflecting the meeting’s discussion and deliver it promptly for review before second reading. The board set a schedule of follow‑up work that includes additional ad‑hoc committee meetings, more data on the effects of changing preference ordering, and a public engagement phase on proposed boundaries and transportation rules.

Next steps: staff will circulate revised policy language and additional simulations comparing preference orderings; the board is scheduled to consider second‑reading action in March and, if approved, staff plan boundary and transportation work for community review in August with a target enrollment launch in November.