Placement results from the first round

Well, the first set of numbers are out and they’re interesting. I expect people will have different interpretations based on their particular take on the assignment debate, and remember these are preliminary first round results — we won’t be able to draw hard conclusions about school composition until we see who enrolls and actually attends come August 15.

Here’s the most interesting highlights, from my perspective:

  • The number of people applying to Kindergarten has increased by more than 20 percent since 2005;
  • Only 23 percent of K applicants listed the school closest to them as a first choice;
  • 39 percent of K applicants listed a language pathway (primarily Spanish/Cantonese/Mandarin immersion but some biliteracy pathways as well);
  • 50 percent of all K applicants listed one of 14 schools (see below) as a first choice;
  • 50 percent of all 6th grade applicants listed one of three schools (Giannini, Presidio or Aptos) as a first choice.
  • 53 percent of all 9th grade applicants listed one of three schools as a choice (Lowell, Lincoln or Washington).
  • Four out of five applicants received one of their choices (similar to previous years).  For K, 74 percent received a first, second or third choice (81 percent received a choice); 85 percent of 6th grade applicants received a first, second or third choice (86 percent received a choice), and for 9th grade applicants, 84 percent received a first, second or third choice (86 percent received a choice).
  • I was totally wrong about Clarendon demand from CTIP, and my commenter Wayne was right. Residents of the Clarendon attendance area, if they were not siblings of existing Clarendon students, were not very likely to get seats, due to a huge number of siblings (40) and a large number of CTIP requests (30).  Of the 14 high-demand elementary schools, demand from CTIP definitely affected attendance area residents at Clarendon more than others on the list that had high CTIP requests ( E.R. Taylor and Alvarado).  See the table below, taken from page 16 of the district’s report.

Here’s the breakdown for Kindergarten ( less detailed 6th and 9th grade tables appear on page 30 of the report):


84 responses to “Placement results from the first round

  1. @Very disappointed. I’m so sorry M is upset. For high school, Lincoln, Washington and Lowell received a huge number of requests. I’m not sure what was on your list of choices but if those three were on it, there just simply were not enough seats for everyone who wanted them. Often for high schools (not Lowell so much) there are significant changes between rounds so I would definitely submit your choices again.

  2. KWillets.

    Rachel can probably answer better but I think she was talking about the following type of situation:

    I live in grattan, and put Clarendon jbbp first with grattan second. Ms X lives in some nice ctip2 census tract and puts grattan first and Clarendon jbbp second. The lottery runs.

    I win grattan, Ms X wins Clarendon. The all knowing algorithm sees we both got our second choice and swaps us. As a result Ms X, a non sib, non ctip1 person gets grattan.

    Meanwhile, some of my neighbors want grattan yet don’t get it. It may seem that Ms X stole a local attendance spot. But what happened is that I won the grattan lottery and unknowingly traded my seat to Ms X.

    At least I think that could be how it works.

  3. I’d also like some info about this new system worked for folks seeking inclusion.

    It did not work for us — we didn’t get any of our 6 K choices.

  4. @KWillets and excuse me for my lack of clarity on the above point. What I meant was – does the algorithm allow people holding seats to transfer before it allows attendance area folks to take seats that are freed up by transfer? There is some allowance (I’ve been told, but don’t completely understand) in the algorithm to get people waiting for seats a spot before allowing folks already assigned to take higher choices. There was never (nor should there have been) this level of detail on the plan ahead of our vote on it in principle.

  5. @brian has a good point. If we remove siblings and CTIP1 applications from the data set, then what percentage of parents got into one of their top 3 schools? What percentage received at least one of their choices?

    I’m also curious to find out what future plans SFUSD has to address the demand issues for particular types of schools and programs that are so clear from the statistics published. It is easily apparent that there are too few immersion or K-8 programs for the level of interest. Are there plans to increase availability for future years to keep attracting parents into the SFUSD?

  6. “What I don’t know is exactly how it deals with other residents of attendance area B who are still waiting for a seat in any of their choices. ”

    Please read the SFUSD web page:

    ” If placement could not be offered at your requested school(s), placement was offered to the school closest to home with openings. ”

    Excuse my frankness, but, school board members (and supervisor), please don’t vote for an algorithm if you don’t understand it.

  7. Hi Rachel

    The answer to Clarendon question is very simple. Over here we have CTIP 1 status and then Sanchez and then Everett as our choices. Almost no one from this neighborhood wanted the local school. Except we did want Spanish immersion. Look at how Alvarado and Buena Vista couldn’t keep up with CTIP1 demand. If you could expand Sanchez mission to include immersion program, to meet the needs of its local community, then you would have more locals staying in the neighborhood and fewer going to Clarendon.

  8. NoeValleyJim

    I think the dense population tie breaker should only be for people whose assignment district school had more local applicants than slots. A “tiebreaker” that 2/3 of the district gets is kind of pointless.

  9. stillwondering

    When will SFUSD post the detailed tables they have posted in the past with information about grade levels other than kindergarten (e.g., number of first grade requests)? When will detailed information be available for schools that have both citywide AND general programs? Thank you so much, Rachel. It’s so good to know we have someone to contact.

  10. Rachel,
    I’m just curious about the CTIP1 thing. Are families moving to these neighborhoods to get the school they want? Moving for a year to the mission or bayview seems like a small price to pay if you can guarantee 9 years at Lawton or Rooftop, or 6 years at Clarendon. This benefit is even stronger if you have multiple children. I also wonder how much more common address fraud will be for CTIP1 applicants?

  11. Very disappointed

    Hi Rachel,

    Very disappoint with the first round. Did not get any of my choices for high school and plus my daughter is being placed in a low test score school half way across town because she is in honor roll in her middle school. In the past I believe SFUSD but now I am disappointed, angry, shocked and dealing with a very sad crying child.

    A parent from Argonne ES and Roosevelt MS- AC

  12. @ Rachel Norton — Thanks again. I will brave the madness at ECP this week and not next. As always, I appreciate your advice.

  13. @ taylor — Hang in there. Through the years watching our friends go through this with their kids, I’ve seen a lot of heartbreaking disappointment on this first day followed by surprising good fortune in Round 2 and/or Round 3.

    Spots open up at even the best schools when parents opt to send their kids to private schools and not register their kids in the public schools.

    Those who were lucky enough to get what they wanted today have our (bitter) envy. But from my experience, there can be a good outcome to this in the coming rounds. I hope that will be the case for both of us.

  14. @htownjohn you might want to go to the placement office this week (sorry, it will be very crowded) just in case they will reassign your child on the spot (sometimes this happens if there was a mistake made in the results of the language testing).

  15. Thanks Rachel for your advice and for your willingness to address everyone’s questions as best you can. Its great to have this forum here to interact with you and get your insights. Keep up the hard work.

  16. @grumble grumble already on my list of things to request.

  17. Sorry, but I need to vent. I don’t see how the dense-population tie breakers are fair. Families living in an attendance area with a highly desired school will have both attendance area and dense-population tie breakers. A good chance to get their neighborhood school and a leg up with a city wide school. Families living on the outskirts (but not ctip1) with a less than desirable school have nothing in their favor. The bottom of the bottom. The only chance we have is city wide and it’s barely a chance. If a school is city wide, then let it be fair for everyone trying to get in. Remove the dense-population tiebreaker for the second round. I’m 0/15 and feeling pretty hopeless.

  18. grumble grumble

    Rachel –

    Any chance we can get some data regarding the inclusion spots and assignments for 2011 -2012?

    I am frustrated that SFUSD claims that this process is based on parent choice, when you don’t give us enough information to make an informed choice.

    Please let me know where I can find the information regarding how the process worked for inclusion designated students. Were there x number of spaces at at school/program and what was the demand?

    Thank you for your service on the BOE.

    ms grumble

  19. OK, go easy on me, folks — there are some complexities to all of this I still haven’t worked out. In general, I think the questions about the tension between neighborhood and CTIP1 are going to need further examination and analysis by the Board. In addition I think, though I can’t say for sure, that the “transfer” process which contributes to simplicity and non-wastefulness in the algorithm is where unpredictable things can also happen (note I said “unpredictable,” not “wrong.” I have NO evidence yet to indicate that the algorithm worked any way other than exactly how it was meant to be designed).
    The algorithm doesn’t take into account the ranking of choices until students are assigned to one or more schools, based on tiebreakers. Then it tries to maximize getting your highest choice, while also attempting to get everyone “a” choice. Where possible, it swaps people who are each occupying the higher choice of the other — SO, for example, let’s say you are assigned to citywide school A but have ranked attendance area school B higher. I live in attendance area B, but ranked citywide school A higher, and ended up assigned to the school for attendance area B. If the system can swap us, it does. What I don’t know is exactly how it deals with other residents of attendance area B who are still waiting for a seat in any of their choices. I do know that once an applicant has been assigned a seat in one of his or her choices, that applicant can’t be taken out of that seat, only swapped to a higher choice. I suppose that is where luck and demand come into play. Anyway, these competing priorities — getting my highest choice vs. everyone getting “a” choice — is I believe where the unpredictability and uncertainty of the system continues. Especially when, ahem, 50 percent of K applicants list one of just 15 (out of a total universe of 73 schools) as first choices. On to the answers to specific questions:
    @molsie – I don’t know when attendance boundaries will be redrawn — all of this has yet to be determined once the staff and the Board has had a chance to analyze the results of this and subsequent rounds — over the summer and into the fall, I expect. As far as the answer to your second question, see above. Ranking is not supposed to affect whether or not you GET a seat, only whether or not — once assigned to a seat — you can be swapped to a higher choice on your list.
    @Rick – I don’t know why you didn’t get both twins assigned to your attendance area school. Probably something to do with the system handling each sibling separately. I don’t know whether the algorithm worked correctly in your case or not, but I can tell you that it hasn’t been unheard of in past years for twins to be assigned to different schools, then reunited via sibling priority in later rounds. I would accept the assignment to the first choice school (unless it is a dual-language immersion school and your students are English-only speakers — those spots do not tend to open up in later rounds). Then reapply for the second sibling, making sure that his or her sibling priority for the other twin’s school is noted on the application. You should be OK. But double-check by talking to the placement office (don’t go this week — it will be crazy, and you have till mid-April to decide what to do).
    @htownjohn I would go see the placement office (see my advice to Rick, above, about when to go) and talk to them about whether spots exist for your bilingual son. Bilingual/target language seats in dual-language immersion programs often come available in later rounds.
    @Michelle Anyone can reapply in subsequent rounds, and the same tiebreakers apply. The deadline for the next round is April 15 or thereabouts, with notification in mid-May. I don’t think you lose your Hoover spot unless you are re-assigned to Aptos. Still, double check with EPC.
    @NoeValleyJim I believe you can hold onto your CACS spot while trying for an in-district spot. Double check with CACS and EPC however.
    @Eva We have no idea how many families didn’t apply to an SFUSD school. How would you suggest we gather this information?

  20. Hey, I didn’t see this in the numbers, but maybe I missed it — do we know what percentage of families with kindergartners failed to apply for public schools and went straight to the privates?

  21. NoeValleyJim

    We got Glen Park, which is our assignment school and last of our 10 choices. I am a little surprised that we did not get into any of the language immersion or K-8 citywide schools we listed, I figured that we would have a 10-20% chance at each one and at worst a .9^9 = 38% of missing them all. Oh well, there is always the next round.

    I am pretty hopeful looking at the Glen Park school population, this school is probably changing. My main concern there was that the student population is 75% free lunch and had only a 15% PTO participation rate. But it seemed like a decent place when I toured it. We are going to enter the second round and try for a language school.

    We also got into Creative Arts Charter school, which I liked a lot but is probably too far. Anyone know what the acceptance rate there was?

    Can I accept at CAC and still enter the May Placement round?

  22. Michelle Smith

    We were lucky and got our second choice MS — Hoover. Our first choice was Aptos, because its location works MUCH better for us … 10-15 minutes on 1 bus vs 30 minutes on 2 buses.

    Is there a second round for us? Can I ask to be considered for Aptos again without giving up my daughter’s Hoover spot? I don’t mean to look a gift horse in the mouth, abs I’m certainly happy we got on of our choices, which suits our family well, but it would beuch better for my daughter not to have >1 hour commute daily.

    Thanks., and good luck to everyone!

  23. Looking at these posts and the ones on SF K Files, I’m surprised to see that so many people still don’t understand how the system works. Many people are saying , I didn’t get into school X and it was my first choice. Listing a school first doesn’t give you priority. Assuming you’re under the same tiebreaker, a kid listing a school #10 can bump a kid listing a school as #1. The statistics from SFUSD also put too much emphasis on first choices. The choice number only matters if you are selected for more than one school, and in that case you will be assigned to your lower choice. What I really want to know is how many neighborhood kids who requested their neighborhood got into a particular school. I also think is very deceiving for SFUSD to announce that 81% of applicants received one of their choices. How is this a helpful statistic? They fail to say that this includes siblings who have a 100% chance of getting their sibling’s school.

  24. @ helga thanks for your response.

    An update: We’ve been told by school principals (sp?) that there is a shortage of bilingual kids.

    Our child is bilingual — he tested fluent in spanish and english. The first six schools on our list were spanish immersion programs plus our neighborhood school.

    We did not get spanish immersion or our neighborhood school. We got our 9th choice. Sunnyside.

    If there is a shortage of bilingual kids, I don’t know why we didn’t get into a bilingual program.

    I’ll be curious to know if others had similar experiences. I posted this on SF K Files as well.

  25. I am the father of twins and we just got our assignments. Our kids got into different schools despite checking the ‘twins’ box on the application. What do we do now?

    It’s interesting to note that we got into our first choice and our sixth choice. Also, our neighborhood school was our 3rd choice and it didn’t get filled with siblings, CTIP or area kids (according to Sfusd data). So I’m not sure why we didn’t get placed there.

    Rachel, thanks for this blog. It’s been very helpful through this process.

  26. Thank you for posting this, Rachel.

    A couple of questions for you.

    1. Will the attendance areas be re-drawn next year based on the information about density from this year’s lottery? It would seem plausible that there will be even more applicants for 2012 given the 2007 SF baby boom.

    2. The data is so interesting, and it leads me to think that I did not fully understand how the new system works. For high-demand attendance area schools, would placements be offered first to students from outside the attendance area that listed the school as their top choice, or to students in the attendance area that listed the school as second choice (assuming they did not receive their first choice)?

    Thank you!

  27. GrattanHopeful

    @SFUSD Papa: Did not get Grattan even though it was our top choice and our area attendance school. Guess we were the unlucky ones. Onto Round 2…

  28. InnerSunsetD

    To GrattanHopeful, the Clarendon percentages actually add up to 99% (most likely 100% due to rounding.) I interpret that to mean that Clarendon seats were all comprised of CTP1, siblings & its neighborhood residents. It appears 10% went to the residents – with 88 seats available, I interpret that to mean it went to 8 or 9 neighborhood kids. With 62 neighborhood applicants, however, that means most of the neighborhood residents were shut out and received a high-density tiebreaker towards the other schools they may have listed on their application–at least that’s how I understand the system to work.

    The breakout by racial/ethnic composition was also very interesting. Grattan’s enrollment offers were 78% white and no Chinese, for example (I guess that means we didn’t get in!). I’m curious to hear how SFUSD may adjust the algorithm for the next round or for the process next year.

    Good luck to everyone waiting.

  29. GrattanHopeful2

    SFUSD Papa – Thanks for running the numbers for Grattan, very helpful to see that breakout. I want to point out, however, that I don’t believe the numbers look that good for locals (of which I am one!) The reason is that your analysis comes to the conclusion that only 6 kids will be shut out. Those are 6 that listed it as a first choice however. MANY people I know in the attendance listed Rooftop or AFY first b/c they wanted a K-8 (and there was no harm in going for it under this system) but fully did not expect to get those. They listed Grattan second and are wanting and hoping for it. So, the difference is really much closer to the 79 kids from the attendance area total (subtracting out those 8 siblings that live in attendance area) going for the 36 spaces that were left for attendance area kids. So, a shut out of closer to 43 kids, right? So, more people in the attendance area shut out of the school than are going to be let in. I actually hope I’m wrong on that – please tell me if I am – and I realize it is way oversimplified but, those numbers are not looking too good to me.

    What happened here? I thought the idea was supposed to be that if you wanted to go to your attendance area school you’d have a good shot at it. You would think if any of the attendance area boundaries could be drawn correctly it could be for this tiny neighborhood, for this tiny neighborhood school which is surrounded by no shortage of other great schools to keep others in the immediate area at bay in their own attendance areas. Grattan wasn’t even one of the top 14 most applied to schools.

  30. It seems like over time the effect of out-of-neighborhood siblings will diminish. Most families only have 2 children, 3 at the most, in San Francisco, usually 2 to 3 grade apart. The previous assignment system didn’t take into account where families lived, so it’s natural that there are a large number of out-of-neighborhood siblings at popular schools. If I’m interpreting the new assignment system and data correctly, within the next two to three years a lot of those slots should open up to neighbors.

    Doesn’t help you this year though, but neither would the previous system.

  31. @Wayne – Sorry I just read your post… after I responded to htownjohn:

    Looking at page 16 (and even page 15) as well as pages 28-29 for the % of offers.

    Clarendon’s lottery was run on 1797 requests on page 15 for 88 openings.

    34% sibling non-attendance area * 88 = 30 slots. Aligns with the 30 1st choice requests on page 16
    11% sibling attendance area * 88 = 10 slots. Aligns with the 10 1st choice requests on page 16.
    36% CTIP1 * 88 = 32 slots vs. the 30 on page 16. As I mentioned in my response to htownjohn, IMHO, at least 2 CTIP1’ers that didn’t have Clarendon listed as 1st choice got in over attendance area folks.
    10% attendance area (non sibling) * 88 = 9 vs. the 62 attendance area 1st choice and who knows what portion of the 1700+ others were Clarendon attendance area that listed Clarendon as a choice other than 1st.
    9% other * 88 = 8 vs. the 160 other 1st choice. Again I’m not sure why this group would have attendance area. Since Clarendon JBBP #’s are lumped in Clarendon GE and that JBBP does not have an attendance area… that the 8 slots were in JBBP for densely populated tie breaker. (Miraloma does not havea city-wide program so I don’t know how the 4 slots were selected over attendance area.)

  32. Htownjohn,

    I think the Miraloma numbers are slightly worse for local non sib residents. Although their were four CTIP1 applicants who put Miraloma as their first choice, 10% of the 60 spots or 6 CTIP1 kids ended up there. So those kids must have put down Miraloma as something other than first choice and been bumped from their own first choice.

    As NoeValleyJim noted – there were more CTIP1 kids who put BuenaVista first then got it. They had to go somewhere.

    Somehow I didn’t realize that I could be bumped from ‘my’ local attendance school that I put as my first choice by somebody that put it as their second (or lower choice) school. I assumed all CTIP1 kids would get their first choice, but I guess some schools didn’t have enough spots for them.

    However again the final offer percentages don’t make sense. Given how many neighborhood kids wanted Miraloma, why don’t the percentages add up to 100%? If you are not a sibling and not a ctip1 kid and not in the local attendance area, then you must be a non sibling ctip2 kid from out of area. So how can those kids get 6% of the seats?

    It is hard to parse the data without all of it so my assumptions could be wrong. Hopefully, the next few days will clear things up.

  33. @htownjohn:
    Miraloma’s lottery had 677 total requests (page 15)
    34 slots were indeed taken up by siblings (13 siblings attendance area + 21 siblings non attendance on page 16) and aligns with the 57% (22% + 35%) on page 29 * 60 slots.
    6 slots, however, were taken up by CTIP1 (10% from page 29 * 60 slots) vs. the 4 on page 16. (In my interpretation, at least 2 CTIP1’ers that didn’t have Miraloma listed as 1st choice got in over attendance area folks who did. The fact that priority of preference does not weigh in each school’s lottery has been called out by parents as an issue with the assignment process.)
    16 slots went to attendance area (27% * 60) vs. 47 attendance area folks that put Miraloma down as their first choice on page 16 and an unknown portion of the 677 total requests
    4 slots went to other (remaining 6% * 60). I do not know how these 4 slots went to a different group other than attendance area unless they were special ed?

  34. @ Abby Marks — I think you are vocalizing what many of us are wondering.

    I might be reading the data wrong, but here’s how I’m reading the data for my neighborhood school, Miraloma.

    * 34 of the 60 spots went to siblings
    * 4 of the 60 spots went to CTIP1 children
    * This left 22 spots for the remaining 47 neighborhood children who listed Miraloma first.

    Meaning: 25 children who wanted to go their neighborhood school and listed it first won’t get in.

  35. NoeValleyJim

    I figured it out SFUSD Papa. Some of the CTIP1 applicants listed other schools higher on their list and got in to them instead. I had the same problem looking at the BV numbers.

  36. Hi Rachel –

    Will SFUSD be publishing more detailed information for pages 28-30 including: breaking down the to the language programs; % of Attendance Area SFUSD Pre-K and % Densely Populated Areas?

    As an improvement idea for future years, SFUSD should consider surveying or even pre-registration of slots for siblings (and Pre-K) in the Mar/Apr time frame so that by fall tour seasons, parents can guage how many slots remain and what their chances are. For Clarendon’s 88 openings, 40 were taken up by siblings (attendance area & non attendance areas).

    I wonder how CTIP1 families are going to feel when they realize that busing is going to be cut to the popular GE K-5 attendance boundary schools like Sherman (vs. the city-wide schools & programs). It seems to me that the transportation policy should’ve been set BEFORE families (especially CTIP1s) applied.

    I’m not sure I can sleep until I get the assignment letter…

  37. NoeValleyJim

    Wow, CTIP1 students took 100% of the non-sibling spots at BV. There goes my first choice. Is that really correct though? The appendix says the following:

    Buena Vista 24% 0% 55% 0%

    With 24% being siblings and 55% being CTIP1 applicants getting their slots. This implies that 21% of other people got a spot.

    But the chart on this page says that of 63 openings, there were 15 sibling and 59 CTIP1 applicants and 69 other. How did they not all go to the first two categories?

  38. In the spirit of SFUSD’s new focus on special education, will they be publishing statistics on how many special education students received their choices? I think of particular interest would be inclusion, as there were also changes to the choices for inclusion students this year.

  39. ClarendonParent

    CTIP1 also did nothing to increase diversity at Clarendon–53% of students receiving offers for 2011-2012 are white and the current student population is 33% white.

  40. I’m confused by some of the numbers. If a school has more first choice applicants than the number of slots available, then there should never be more CTIP1 students offered a spot at that school than there were first choice CTIP1 applicants. From my understanding of the lottery, all available slots should be filled by those first choice applicants. But several oversubscribed schools had a higher percentage of CTIP1 students assigned than put that school down as their first choice. For example there were 116 first choice requests for 85 slots at Monroe, 7 of those were CTIP1. So the expected % of offers to CTIP1 should have been 8%, yet 13% of spots were offered to CTIP1. It may be that in the case of schools with immersion programs, offers are complicated by the requirement for native speakers (moving some CTIP1 applicants who listed that school second into the school). But that can’t be true for over subscribed schools that don’t have immersion programs. For example, Alamo had 114 first choice requests for 88 spots, with 0 CTIP1 first choice requests, yet has 1% CTIP1 offers. Miraloma, 130 requests for 60 spots, 4 CTIP1 first choice requests, and 10% of slots given to CTIP1, 2 more than expected. Maybe my understanding of how the lottery was run is incorrect?

  41. Hi Rachel,

    Here’s the statistic I’m interested in: Of the families who had no other priority placement (no siblings, no CTIP preference), how many of those who listed their assignment area school as one of their choices, got one of their choices?

    This is part of what the new assignment system was supposed to address, and it would be great to know if it worked. Also: it would be good to know what happened with the families who listed their assignment school, but didn’t get it (and didn’t get a choice above it), because it was popular. Did they in fact get preference for other schools on their list? How did this end up working in reality?

    And how many of the (kindergarten) families with no CTIP or sibling preference got K-8 and immersion pathways?

    My guess is that, for families who are applying for kindergarten for the first time next year, and don’t live in a CTIP1 area, these are the statistics that will interest them (and that will make the system more clear and transparent — one of the big goals of the new assignement system). As another goal was to make it accountable, it seems like this would be good information to have to see if the system worked as planned!

  42. So, out of the 62 non-sibling Clarendon attendance area 1st choice students,
    how many got in?

  43. GrattanHopeful

    Another observation: 33 schools/66% of applicants were given the density tiebreaker. Isn’t that a little pointless at that high rate?

    There should be a Super-high-density tiebreaker, be given to students who requested their area attendance school as a first choice but didn’t get selected.

  44. GrattanHopeful

    And I’m sorry but I cannot find any references to CTIP2 that you’re talking about. What is CTIP2 and how is it a priority?

  45. GrattanHopeful

    @Helga: According to the numbers on page 16, if you’re not a Sibling, CTIP1 or Attendance Area, there’s no way you’re in.

  46. Hi Grattan Hopeful & Rachel,

    I think the reason the numbers don’t appear to add up is that half of Clarendon is citywide, so the other 9% could be CTIP2.

    Regarding Grattan, I think the numbers look very good for locals, but the numbers don’t quite add up to me.

    Assume 66 K spots. Grattan area had 132% kids so total number of area K kids is 87. 57% of Grattan Area K kids listed Grattan as first choice so that means 50 local kids put Grattan first.

    10% of spots went to ctp 1 for 6
    12% of spots went to local siblings for 8
    18% of spots went to non local siblings for 12
    54% of spots went to locals for 36
    This must mean that 4 spots went to non sib Ctip2 kids.

    But since there were 50 grattan area kids, and 8 were siblings who got in, then 42 grattan area kids should have scooped up all 40 non ctip1, non sib spots. Which should have meant that only 2 kids should be bumped from grattan and that there should be no non sib ctip2 kids at all. But it looks like 6 kids were bumped.

    I realize that grattan has a CDC, but I figured those kids were captured under local area kids since the tiebreaker only works if you are local too.

    I also realize that if 36/42 non sib locals got a spot those numbers are probably much better than other areas, but either the numbers are wrong, or I don’t have all the data, or I interpreted it wrong.

    Good luck when the mail arrives.

  47. @GrattanHopeful: I’m guessing that the 9% is “non-sibling, non-attendance area.”

    @ onTheEdgeOfMySeat: On page 26 of the report shows that Clarendon got the Density Tiebreaker.

    Good luck everyone!

  48. GrattanHopeful

    These numbers don’t add up.

    From Appendix E:
    Sibling non-Atten. Area: 34%
    Sibling Attend. Area: 11%
    CTIP1: 36%
    Attend Area: 10%

    That adds up to 91% Where’s the other 9%?

  49. onTheEdgeOfMySeat

    the way clarendon is listed suggests that all of the seats (88) are available to the attendence area when only the GE half are (44) – so since there are 62 neighbor requests, I assume that means that the clarendon district will at least get the dense-population tie-breaker?

  50. How many applied for SF Public Montessori? If you are allowed to say? I had 3 families at our recent Open House, 2 that missed it but said they would apply anyway.