Meeting recap: 2012 achievement overview

Another relatively light agenda, with the meatiest item being an overview of the district’s achievement results from the 2011-12 school year.  The highlights of our results on the California Standards Test were previously reported several weeks ago, so tonight’s presentation was intended to dig deeper into the results and brief the Board on how they will inform curriculum and instruction for the current school year.

Probably the most interesting results were the “matched student cohorts,” which compare individual students’ CST scores in 2011 with their scores in 2012, then counts the number of students who remained proficient or advanced or who moved up a level (say from Below Basic to Basic) between 2011 and 2012. According to the analysis, of 30,301 SFUSD students in grades 3-11 who took the English/Language Arts CST in 2011 and again in 2012, 70 percent (or 21,084) moved up at least one level or remained Proficient or Advanced.

Similarly, of 17,087 SFUSD students in grades 3 – 7  who took the CST in Mathematics, 173 percent (or 12,538) moved up at least one level or remained Proficient or Advanced.

Deputy Superintendent Guadalupe Guerrero also highlighted several groups of “celebration” schools,  from top-performing schools to schools that are closing the gap for specific student subgroups. There are 27 schools in the district where 75 percent or more of the student body is proficient or advanced on the CST:

  • John Yehall Chin ES
  • Grattan ES
  • Robert Louis Stevenson ES
  • George Peabody ES
  • Lafayette ES
  • Yick Wo ES
  • Rooftop K-8
  • Dianne Feinstein ES
  • A.P. Giannini MS
  • Alice Fong Yu K-8
  • Ulloa ES
  • Claire Lilienthal K-8
  • Sunset ES
  • Alamo ES
  • Francis Scott Key ES
  • McKinley ES
  • Argonne ES
  • Lowell HS
  • Clarendon ES
  • Chinese Immersion School at DeAvila (ES)
  • Sherman ES
  • Lawton K-8
  • Miraloma ES
  • West Portal ES
  • Jefferson ES
  • Presidio MS
  • Ruth Asawa HS for the Arts (SOTA)

Schools that are closing the gap for one specific subgroup, English Learners (meaning the rate of improvement for ELs at those schools was greater than the rate of improvement for all students at the school), are:

  • Argonne ES
  • Garfield ES
  • Gordon J. Lau ES
  • Sunset ES
  • Hoover MS
  • Lowell HS
  • Paul Revere K-8
  • Chinese Immersion School at DeAvila (ES)
  • Grattan ES
  • John Muir ES
  • E.R. Taylor ES
  • Roosevelt MS
  • Washington HS
  • Cleveland ES
  • Bret Harte ES
  • Rosa Parks ES
  • A.P. Giannini MS
  • Lincoln HS
  • Lawton K-8

It’s still important to recognize, however, that while we have made a modest dent in the achievement gap, it’s still very much apparent in our test results.  In 2012, 74 percent of White and Chinese students scored Proficient or above on the CST –compared to just 38 percent of Latino students and 36 percent of African-American students.  In 2008, 66 percent of White and Chinese students scored Proficient or above, compared to 28 percent of Latino students and 23 percent of African-American students.  The comparison shows a modest narrowing of the gap in achievement between groups, but 38 percent proficient is nothing to write home about. We need to do better, and at this rate, we won’t close the gap anytime soon.

So what is the district doing to accelerate our progress?  Implementation of a common core curriculum — a set of standards, milestones and assessments that helps teachers across the district teach to a common set of expectations so that my 5th grader in School A is being taught the same material as your 5th grader in School B–is proceeding. This should not mean “dumbing down” what is taught or holding back students who are ready to move ahead ; it should also not be a scripted curriculum.  Instead the “core curriculum” should foster a common understanding of what a 5th grader should be able to do, regardless of challenges or advantages outside of the classroom.  If your 5th grader needs to be challenged, teachers should still have the tools to guide him or her to a higher level. And if my 5th grader is struggling, supports should be in place to help him or her succeed. Nevertheless,  teachers in School A and School B should be using the same yardstick to determine which students are doing well and which students are not — in other words, I don’t want your “advanced” to be my “basic”.

Superintendent Carranza did stress several times tonight that we are moving from “a confederation of independent schools” to a “unified school system,” which will definitely raise red flags in some quarters. I think the Board needs to know more about what that means at the classroom and school level, because I don’t like the idea of “wall walkers” coming through schools and demanding uniformity in everything from lesson plans to student work. On the other hand, if a “unified school system” means consistently and uniformly high expectations across the district, and a culture that stresses supporting the classroom with actual resources as opposed to “good luck, you’re on your own,” then I’m interested.

Tonight’s presentation also included some discussion of how to share the best practices we are discovering in our Superintendent’s Zone schools; these schools are accelerating students at twice the rate in English/Language Arts compared to the district as a whole and three times the rate in Mathematics compared to the district.  Part of the answer was (as I feared it would be) that the money we are spending in those schools has made a difference. I’m glad that we have made progress in the 14 Zone schools, but we can’t afford to duplicate our Zone spending in non-Zone schools. Our challenge this year is to figure out, now that we know some specific strategies that work in our schools, how to implement these strategies — common planning time, intensive job-embedded professional development and coaching for teachers — for little or no money if we aren’t able to develop/find/win (there’s a big election coming up) more money.

Broad-based support for my re-election

I’m honored to announce some great new endorsements for my re-election campaign: the San Francisco Young Democrats endorsed me this week, as did the District 11 Democratic Club and the Noe Valley Democratic Club. For a complete list of organizations, elected officials and individuals supporting my re-election, please visit my endorsements page

Recap: Sept. 11 Board Meeting

Several Board members had other commitments tonight so the meeting was unusually short, adjourning at 7:05 p.m.  However, there were a few items of note:

  • In his “thoughts for the evening,” Superintendent Carranza announced that he will be withdrawing the staff proposal to eliminate the middle school grades at International Studies Academy (ISA) on Potrero Hill (currently a 6-12 school). Originally introduced at the August 28 Board meeting, the proposal would have kept ISA a high school and fed students from Daniel Webster and Bryant MS to Everett MS instead of ISA as originally proposed .  However, the Webster community continues to advocate for a K-8 facility on Potrero Hill, and the Everett community has expressed concern about the capacity of the school to absorb students from two additional elementary schools. In addition, there are transportation issues and our demographic trends indicate a need for more middle school seats and fewer high school seats.  I suspect the withdrawal of this proposal will be a mixed bag for Webster families who have been watching this news closely — on the one hand it keeps the K-8 idea alive, but on the other hand means the issue will not be resolved until next spring. At the Sept. 18 Committee of the Whole, the staff will lay out some of the unresolved issues and questions around the Webster/Bryant/ISA/MS feeder/HS capacity issues and attempt to explain why this is a complex decision with a lot of moving parts. The plan is to return to the Board with a revised recommendation sometime in the spring.
  • Several families from New Traditions spoke during public comment to express dismay with the actions of a teacher at their school. These kinds of situations are so difficult because no one — staff or Board members alike — can explain what steps have or have not been taken and why or why not.  These are personnel matters and like all employees, teachers have due process and privacy rights.  As  I’m writing this, I’m watching an ABC-7 News report on alleged mistreatment of special education students in another district — and while the allegations make my blood boil, I feel some sympathy for the Board members because they cannot comment or take any kind of public action without opening up their school district to a serious liability. Hopefully, they are taking action behind the scenes, just as I’ll be following up on our own issue with staff.
  • We  also heard an update on a great partnership with UCSF that pairs interested high school students with working scientists and gives them experience working in research labs for the summer. Wallenberg HS  senior Chelsea Stewart wowed the Board and staff in presenting her research into an autoimmune disorder causing degeneration of the optic nerve. Ms. Stewart says the experience taught her a great deal and underscored her determination to go to college. One of my favorite parts was when UCSF administrator of the program, Katherine Nielsen, said that after participating in the program, students said they were surprised to find that there were UCSF scientists who were women and/or people of color, and that “scientists were nice.” Since I am surrounded by scientists in my immediate and extended family, I’m all in favor of a program that reminds us that scientists can actually be very nice people but I’m particularly glad to see that we are encouraging more girls and people of color to enter the field as well.
  • The Board approved a resolution in support of No Texting While Driving Pledge Day on Sept. 19. Apparently, 43 percent of teens admit they have sent text messages while driving even though 97 percent say they know it is dangerous and illegal. Students (and adults too!)  are asked to take the pledge not to text and drive.

Inspire me: you have two minutes

I’ve been watching the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C, and it’s made me think a lot about campaign speeches.  Now, one big advantage the speechifiers in Charlotte seem to have is time – -for example, Bill Clinton was supposed to speak for 28 minutes but he spoke for almost 50 minutes. Did you notice anyone trying to get him to stop talking? I didn’t.

When you are speaking to an audience,  you want them to first of all pay attention. Have you ever spoken to a room of people that was more interested in talking to each other than they were interested in hearing what you had to say? I have, and it’s awful.

Once you (hopefully)have the audience’s attention,  you  want to inspire them — to make them feel something after hearing what you have to say. Finally, you want to spur them to action — to take the feelings you inspired and translate those feelings to donating money or time for the cause.

I’m a little jealous of the convention speakers because here in San Francisco — where local candidates make the rounds of more than two dozen political clubs and organizations– we usually get about two minutes. I challenge anyone to first capture the attention of a jaded group of political operatives who have heard 10,20 or 30 canddiates over the course of a day and then to inspire  said group of political operatives to remember what you said — and then like it enough to vote for you at the end of the day.

That’s the job of a candidate– incumbent or challenger. In 2008, when I was a challenger, I wrote about this two-minute speech. Now, since I’ve been on the Board for four years, I’ve updated the speech to read (more or less verbatim, though the version below takes three minutes to recite):

Hi, I’m Rachel Norton, and I’m running for re-election to the Board of Education.  Four years ago, I promised to hold the district accountable for:

  • Increasing the achievement of all children and narrowing the achievement gap
  • Increasing transparency in district decision-making and communication with all stakeholders
  • Transforming the district’s special education services.

I’m proud to say that I’ve kept those promises.

  • Expectations for students are higher than ever with the implementation of the new A-G graduation requirements. Test scores have risen every year I’ve been on the board, and the achievement gap is narrowing, despite a very painful and prolonged budget crisis.
  • I’ve used my web site, rachelnorton.com as a vehicle for communicating with constituents, explaining district decision-making and getting important information out to the public. In addition to writing about important issues facing the district, I post recaps of every Board meeting, and answer questions and comments from readers.
  • The district commissioned a top-to-bottom audit of special education in 2010, and has begun a complete redesign of the way we provide support and individualized instruction to students with disabilities. I’m very proud of the fact that full inclusion is now an option at every school in the district, rather than a select few.

As a parent of two middle schoolers, one with special needs, I’m pleased about the progress the district has made, but I’m not satisfied yet. Both my daughters will enter high school in the next few years, and I want to be sure there are challenging, engaging programs that will help support them and encourage them to reach their dreams. I want to continue to closely monitor the outcomes of our redesigned student assignment system and the ongoing work in special education. I want to support our new Superintendent and leadership team in meeting our strategic plan goals of Access and Equity, Student Achievement, and Accountability.

There’s lots of work to still to be done in our 14 Superintendent’s Zone schools, particularly those in the Bayview, which have long been the City’s most under-resourced and under-attended schools.  It’s time to stop talking and start improving our district’s student nutrition infrastructure, which will require money for updated facilities and staff to cook fresh meals for students, not reheat frozen food as we currently do. Finally, our budget will remain very thin for the foreseeable future – particularly if neither Prop. 30 or Prop. 38 on the ballot pass in November.  Steering the district through the “nuclear winter” that could result will require a Board that is cohesive and committed to doing what is best for students, even when it is difficult.

Over the past four years, I’ve proved myself to be a hard-working, well-informed and responsive member of the school board, and I’ve earned a second term. My endorsements include the Democratic Party, SF Parent Pac, Richmond District Democratic Club, President of the Board of Supervisors David Chiu and Supervisors Scott Wiener, Sean Elsbernd, Mark Farrell, Carmen Chu, and Eric Mar, School Board president Norman Yee and Commissioners Jill Wynns and Emily Murase, as well as District Attorney George Gascon and State Senator Mark Leno.  I would be honored to have your endorsement as well.

Sometimes, you show up at an endorsement meeting and you only have one minute to speak. Sometimes, you have three minutes, with two additional minutes for questions. (Surprisingly, I’m best at the question and answer part — you’d think I’d hate the uncertainty but I find answering constituent questions to be much more relaxing than the opening statement).  So, part of being a candidate is being able to adjust your stump speech on the fly.

SFUSD posts strong academic results for 2011-12

Last Friday, President Norman Yee and I were proud to stand alongside Superintendent Carranza and other district leaders to announce the district’s scores on the 2011-12 California Standards Test (CST or STAR test). The scores added another data point to the trend of gradual improvement for all SFUSD students in English/Language Arts and Math.

English/Language Arts:
Overall, 60.5 percent of all students in grades 2-11 scored proficient or above, up from 50.5 percent in 2008. In the Superintendent’s Zone, fewer students scored proficient (35.5 percent) but compared to just 19.4 percent proficient in these schools in 2008, the gains were impressive. The nine SIG schools (those receiving three-year Federal School Improvement Grants ending in 2013) increased to 36.6 percent proficient compared to 18.2 percent proficient just four years ago.

Mathematics
Overall, 67.6 percent of all students in grades 2-7 scored proficient or above, up from 59.4 percent in 2008. In the Superintendent’s Zone, fewer students scored proficient in Math (48.8 percent) but compared to just 25.1 percent proficient in these schools in 2008, the gains were impressive. The nine SIG schools (those receiving three-year Federal School Improvement Grants ending in 2013) increased to 50.4 percent proficient compared to 23.5 percent proficient just four years ago.

More data and charts are posted here, and at the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 18 the Board will receive an in-depth presentation on our 2011-12 achievement data. Stay tuned!

2012-13 Week 2: Here’s what’s happening

I don’t want this headline to mislead people into thinking that somehow I will find the time to blog what’s happening for every week of the 2012-13 school year — let’s be clear that even though I’d love to have the time to update this blog every day, that’s probably not going to happen. Still, I thought week two of the 2012-13 school year might be a good time to “catch up” readers on what’s happening at the moment, since many of you are just tuning back in after a blissful summer of forgetting about everything SFUSD.

School is in full swing, and the big event for the week is happening midday Friday–at long last, the test scores for the 2011-12 school year will be released. The numbers are under lock and key, but I can say that we think they’ll be good — for all subgroups and particularly for the 14 Superintendent’s Zone schools. One key question will be how many students from various subgroups (racial groups, low-income students, special education students) took the test compared to the previous year, and how many took the California Modified Assessment. If most of our students of color took the CST and still improved, that (in my view) will be a huge vindication of the work the district has done in recent years. We’ll see – tune back in on Friday.

As we celebrate schools that improved, and dissect those that did not, we should remember that the standardized tests measure a very narrow group of indicators. Remember the adage (attributed to everyone from Albert Einstein to sociologist William Bruce Cameron):  Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.  There are many thoughtful people across the state and the country urging states and the educational establishment to define school success more broadly, and indeed a recent article in Mother Jones (and a followup interview on KQED Forum) makes the case that one supposedly “failing” SFUSD school, Mission High, is proof that perhaps we are measuring “success” too narrowly.

There was also a Board meeting tonight — we discussed and adopted the Local Plan for Special Education (a document required by the state where the district attests to the services it is providing for students and provides a basic budget for those services); we heard public comment from some parents on resource and student assignment issues, including one charming grandmother and her grandson who came to praise EPC’s handling of their case — the family had wanted to enroll him in Marina MS for 6th grade but was offered Francisco MS instead — they weren’t thrilled at the prospect but accepted the spot and now, a week and two days in, came to tell the Board and Superintendent how happy they were. They had everyone in the room smiling by the time they finished.

The Board conducted a public hearing on initial proposals to our Crafts unions — civil service plumbers, carpenters, and other building trades. Finally we also passed a resolution urging the district to provide whatever volunteer support it can to a Mission High event in support of the Obama Administration’s new “Deferred Deportation for Childhood Arrivals” policy for undocumented youth.

Probably the most contentious issue being discussed at the moment is a proposal from the Superintendent to eliminate the middle school (grades 6-8) at International Studies Academy (ISA) on Potrero Hill. Currently, ISA is a 6-12 school and is designated as the feeder school for Bryant and Daniel Webster Elementary. Instead, the Daniel Webster community has advocated for a Pre-K-8 school on Potrero Hill that would utilize the ISA site. There are some good arguments in favor of this plan: Daniel Webster is growing, ISA is currently under-enrolled and under-performing, and the latest enrollment data shows that demand for Daniel Webster may have slowed since the feeder plan was announced –the Daniel Webster community believes requests have slowed down because prospective families do not want to be fed into ISA for middle school. However, the current proposal would send Daniel Webster and Bryant 5th graders to Everett and keep the ISA open as a small high school.  There are arguments in favor of this approach as well – Everett has space to accommodate these students and is growing in popularity; ISA is one of the few small high schools in the district’s portfolio and represents an important option for students.

The proposal was introduced tonight for first reading but was actually discussed in depth at Monday’s Ad-Hod Committee on Student Assignment — there was a great deal of public comment from the Daniel Webster community and questioning from Board members on how staff arrived at this recommendation above other options.  Tonight, the Superintendent acknowledged that the proposal is affected by a complex mix of factors including transportation planning, enrollment projections and our middle school quality initiative — staff will be hashing out these factors and many others at an internal meeting later this week and after that will decide whether to withdraw the proposal, revise it, or bring the proposal and other possible options back for a deeper discussion at a Committee of the Whole in mid-September. I’ll post more information when I have it.

Recap: First meeting of the 2012-13 school year

Super short meeting to open the 2012-13 school year: the meeting started at 6:20 p.m. and was over by 7:30 p.m. There were a few contracts on the agenda, most notably a group of contracts valued at over $15 million for non-public school tuition or non-public agency fees paid to educate students with disabilities placed out of district (either as a result of lawsuits or mutual agreement between the district and the child’s parents/guardians). Other contracts of note:

  • Partners in School Innovation – $468,000 to provide professional development for teachers in the Bayview and Mission Superintendent’s Zone schools;
  • UCSF – $200,000 to provide doctors and athletic trainers for interscholastic athletic events;
  • Language Bank – $190,000 to provide translation and interpretation services at IEP meetings and parent trainings;
  • Stetson & Associates – $135,000 to provide professional development for teachers to increase their knowledge of inclusive practices for students.

In other news, Commissioner Fewer introduced a resolution calling for one early release day per week, where — starting this school year — students would be dismissed one hour early on Wednesdays in order to give teachers common planning and professional development time.  That one-hour loss of instructional time would be made up by “banking” 15 minutes per day — usually accomplished by shortening recess/lunch times or adding a few more minutes at the beginning or end of a day.  The proposal will be heard in committee early next month, then return to the full Board for a vote (assuming there are no additional changes or research required by district staff) in late September or early October. 

Many of the middle schools already have two “late start” days per month — students arrive at school one hour later, affording time for professional development or common planning by teachers.

Superintendent  Carranza gave upbeat opening remarks, discussing the successful Administrator Institute two weeks ago, his expectations that our district’s showing on the STAR (CST) test (results will be available August 31) will be very strong, and announcing his new Twitter handle: @SFUSD_Supe.

Are you ready for school to start? I am. School starts this coming Monday, August 20 — five days and counting!