Another breakdown would be what percentage of parents stay enrolled when assigned their 3rd choice? Or 5th? Or 7th? (These would also be interesting to see broken down by race/ethnicity.) If only 5% of parents enroll at a 7th choice school, is it a waste to encourage parents to sign up for 7? If only 1% of “Other White” parents have kids at schools they chose at #6 or #7, perhaps that shows where the frustration comes from.

I saw that “datasf.org” is offering some San Francisco data online. It would be interesting if an (anonymized) data set for kindergarten admissions could be released so folks who want to could understand the dynamics. Giving only the diversity factors, ethnic/racial identity, resident attendance area, 7 ordered choices, assigned school, and (when available) if the child is attending as of the 10-day count or not should keep the data anonymous. It’s a tricky question about what kinds of data should be released though.

I’m especially happy to see that more of a premium is being place on parent choice – something that I have been worried was being dismissed by some BOE and SFUSD staff in recent discussions. Interesting that it took an outsider to underscore it – research clearly shows that parental involvement is a key element in school improvement and valuing parents is the starting point.

Something that is missing in all this, and that was promised by Superintendent Garcia and, then, Deputy Superintendent Smith, was a hard look at what schools in SFUSD have made changes in recent years and are succeeding and why. Maybe it’s happening behind closed doors or in presentations I’m not aware of, but what are the schools that SFUSD considers ‘best practices’ at this point in time?

I’m very happy to see new options on the table – these make a lot of sense to me. I feel that SFUSD and the BOE are on the right track. I could see this eventually being a model for other urban areas, if implemented well.

One flaw in our outdated assignment system is the legacy of “alternative” schools, which essentially removes some neighborhood schools from all the options that were listed. Will these legacy designations survive the revamp, or does the assignment overhaul include tackling all the flaws? Isn’t it about time that we removed these archaic designations? Perhaps language immersion schools should become the new “alternative” schools, and Rooftop, Clarendon, et al. can go the way of Fat Elvis. In 5 years, fads will change, and the language immersion schools will give way to yet another concept of best practices for education. So be it.

Another flaw in the current assignment system is the use of language spoken at home to give a diversity point. The system should only consider target languages for assignment to immersion/bi-lingual programs. Check the box for child’s primary language: English, Cantonese, Mandarin, Spanish, Other (could include Korean for CL and Russian for Argonne if applicable). Check the box for child’s proficiency in English: Fluent, Bi-lingual, or ELL. Depending on the formula for a specific program, classes would be composed 50:50 or 33:33:33 with native, bi-lingual, and English-dominant speakers. Language would be tested during the 10-day count, and a child removed from the program and reassigned if their parent lied on the SFUSD application form AND if there was a waiting list. Vacancy would be filled from the waiting list. No diversity points for affluent European ex-Pats. Language would be irrelevant for assignment to GE programs and alternative schools (until abolished), with the exception of AFY, which I understand requires English as the primary language.

I have my doubts that a true neighborhood assignment system could actually accommodate all the children in the hood. I would be surprised in Options 2 or 6 could actually serve their assignment areas if they were popular schools. Is it possible to take the data from the recent 2009/2010 K lottery and map out the applicants to see the distribution of the lottery pool across the various school assignment zones? (Not the actual kids who eventually started school in the SFUSD, but the initial applicant pool before the mass exodus to private in March ‘09) Then, after subtracting sibling assignments from every school, perform a simulation to see how many neighborhood schools could have theoretically served their assignment areas if EVERY family chose their neighborhood school. Which neighborhood schools have capacity for their hood and which neighborhoods are going to be crying foul? And what if your neighborhood school is immersion (and you don’t want it) or underperforming (and you don’t want it) or alternative (and you cannot have it)????? Aren’t we running into all the same problems as the current lottery?

Finally, the use of race quotas for diversity or any other purpose would appear to be illegal.

Best of luck to you and the Board members.