Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Assignment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFUSD staff narrows student‑assignment choices to two frameworks using a new 'CTIP' integration preference
Summary
District staff proposed two high‑level frameworks to the board: a variant of an academic‑diversity lottery and a local‑preference model that includes a Census Tract Integration Preference (CTIP) intended to encourage more integrated applicant pools while preserving some parent choice; staff outlined trade‑offs and next procedural steps.
San Francisco Unified School District staff presented a narrowed policy framework that reduces six earlier student‑assignment options to two high‑level approaches and introduced a new tool called the Census Tract Integration Preference, or CTIP.
Orla O'Keefe, senior staff leading the redesign, told the school board that CTIP would classify census tracts by average achievement and give preference in the choice process to students from demographically different tracts to encourage integrated applicant pools. "For tonight we're calling the Census Tract Integration Preference CTIP," O'Keefe said, explaining the intent to use simple inputs (home address and school choices) and to make the system adjustable each year.
Why it matters: the district faces racially isolated enrollment and achievement gaps. Staff said CTIP is one of two levers—along with a local‑preference (attendance‑area) priority—that can be combined and re‑weighted to balance predictability, equity and cost. O'Keefe emphasized that choice‑driven approaches require substantial outreach and possible transportation investments to produce more diverse applicant pools.
Details and trade‑offs: staff described two modified options: Option A (a mandatory‑choice/lottery variant) would weight CTIP ahead of local preference, increasing the share of students from lower‑scoring census tracts who gain seats at higher‑performing schools but would be less predictable and more costly to implement. Option B (a local‑preference model with choice) would prioritize attendance‑area assignments and rank local preference over CTIP, producing greater predictability and proximity but a smaller immediate increase in integration measures. O'Keefe said the frameworks are intentionally high level so the board can approve a policy direction and staff can return with administrative details and simulations.
Concerns and clarifications: board members asked whether high‑school assignments would use CTIP or an individual diversity index; O'Keefe said simulations have been run and that technical mechanics will be presented at an ad hoc meeting. Commissioners asked for cost estimates and transportation scenarios before deciding a direction.
Next steps: staff plans to present a first‑reading framework to the board on Feb. 9, to present technical mechanics at an ad hoc committee meeting on Feb. 17, and to return with implementation details and a recommended vote on March 9.
