Ad Hoc Committee on Student Assignment

September 14, 2020

1

Orla O’KeeffeChief Policy & Operations

Henry O’ConnellProject Manager

Tonight’s Agenda

1. Staff Presentation (45 mins)a. Introduction and Framingb. Draft Theory of Actionc. Narrowing Down the Concepts and

Discussion of Tradeoffsd. Key Questions Explore Further

2. Public Comment (25 mins)

3. Board Discussion (50 mins)

2

Desired Outcomes for Tonight’s Discussion By the end of this meeting, the Board will have provided

staff with concrete feedback on:

1. A draft theory of action for student assignment.

2. Whether the Board is willing to take Concept 1 (initial assignment) off the table.

3. Whether the Board would potentially approve non-contiguous or oddly shaped zones.

3

What does the Board think?

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Introduction and Framing

4

Each year, the Board’s Ad Hoc Committee on Student Assignment hosts a series of public working meetings with staff to monitor SFUSD’s student assignment policy.

The focus since 2019 has been Resolution 189-25A1: Developing a Community Based Student Assignment System for SFUSD (Approved 12/11/2018)

5

Current Policy● Video● Board Policy

Policy Development Materials● sfusd.edu/studentassignment ● sfusd.edu/adhoccommittee

Supporting MaterialsCommittee’s Purpose

● Predictability

● Proximity

● Diversity

Board Resolution 189-25A1 listed a number of potential policy goals

● Predictability

● Simplicity

● Transparency

● Access to a school where sibling(s) attend

● Accessibility to neighborhood options

● A strong commitment to integrated schools

● Access to a diverse school

● Equity

● Access to a high quality school

6

Synthesized Goals

Equity Lens

Stated in Resolution

Policy Design Principles What principles will help us choose between the

policy goals if confronted with conflicting issues?

1. Equity: The student assignment policy will work towards equity in SFUSD. 

2. Anti-racism: The student assignment policy will help produce a race equity culture.

3. Simplicity: The student assignment policy will be simple and easy to understand.

7

SFUSD’s Definition of Equity

Every learner receives what they need to develop to their full potential.

8

The work of eliminating oppression, ending biases, and ensuring equally high outcomes for all participants through the creation of multicultural, multilingual, multiethnic, gender equitable, multiracial, and inclusive practices and conditions; removing the predictability of success or failure that currently correlates with any social or cultural factor.

SFUSD’s Definition of Working Towards Equity

SFUSD’s Definition of Anti-Racism

9

A Race Equity Culture is one that is focused on

proactive counteraction of race inequities inside and

outside of an organization. Building a Race Equity

Culture is the foundational work when organizations

seek to advance race equity; it creates the conditions

that help us to adopt anti-racist mindsets and actions

as individuals, and to center race equity in our life and

in our work. A Race Equity Culture is the antithesis of

dominant culture, which promotes assimilation over

integration and dismisses opportunities to create a

more inclusive, equitable environment. The work of

creating a Race Equity Culture requires an adaptive

and transformational approach that impacts behaviors

and mindsets as well as practices, programs, and

processes.

Equity in the Center. https://www.equityinthecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Awake-to-Woke-to-Work-Glossary-of-Terms-.pdf

SFUSD’s Definition of Race Equity Culture

Anti-racism is the active, conscious, and

non-neutral process of identifying and

eliminating racism by changing systems,

organizational structures, policies, practices,

and attitudes, so that power is redistributed and

shared equitably.

The heart of an anti-racist system is personal,

professional, and system-wide accountability.- adapted from NAC International Perspectives: Women and Global Solidarity

10

Simplicity

It’s really complexto make somethingsimple.

- Jack Dorsey

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Draft Theory of ActionFor Student Assignment

11

Draft Theory of Action for Student Assignment

12

Does this accurately

capture what changes the

Board wants to make and why?

If… (implementation of change idea) then... (short-term impact) so that…. (long term impact)

If the Student Assignment Policy:1. Diversity: Creates assignment zones

that are racially, ethnically, socioeconomically, linguistically, and academically diverse; and

2. Diversity: Assigns students so that every school mirrors the diversity of its zone; and

3. Choice: Gives all students access to the range of programs in SFUSD;

4. Equity: Prioritizes younger siblings and historically underserved students; and

5. Predictability: Provides all students with certainty that they will be placed at an elementary school in their assignment zone; and

If the Educational Placement Center offers a simple process that makes it easy for families to enroll; and

IF transportation routes and schedules are aligned with and support assignment zones; and IF each and every elementary school facilitates positive interaction across difference, and provides equitable access to resources and opportunities that exist within the school;

● Simplicity: Families’ first experience with SFUSD will be a simple and predictable enrollment process; and

● Diversity: Zone enrollments will help create more diverse enrollment and will increase enrollment in currently under-enrolled schools; and

● Predictability: Increasing stability in enrollment patterns will reduce transportation costs and support multi-year planning and budgeting; and

● Equity: Resources will be more equitably allocated across elementary schools (students, programs, staff, funding); and

● Confidence: Community confidence in SFUSD will increase and there will be strong community connections to local schools; and

● Diversity: Every elementary school will be diverse and integrated

● Equity: Every learner will receive what they need to develop to their full potential.

Feedback on the theory of action will help refine the Board’s goals for a new student assignment policy, and the metrics to monitor and measure impact.

How will we know if a change led to improvement?

● What evidence of implementation will we collect?

● What evidence of immediate outcomes will we collect?

● What evidence of long-term outcomes will we collect?

Goals and Metrics

13

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Narrowing Down the Concepts and Discussion of Tradeoffs

14

15

Concept #1: Initial Assignment + Choice

Concept #2: Choice in Small Zones

Concept #3: Choice in Medium Zones

Goals Predictability, Diversity, Proximity Predictability, Diversity, Proximity Diversity, Predictability, Proximity

Student Assignment

Automatic assignment, then optional choice process

Choice Choice

Geographical Constraints

Attendance Areas (1 school) Zones (3 - 5 schools) Zones (8-12 schools)

Portfolio of Schools

1. Attendance Area Schools2. Citywide Schools

1. Zone Schools2. Citywide Schools

1. Zone Schools

3 Concepts for a New Elementary Assignment System

Summary of findings and tradeoffs

16

Community Input

Simulation Results

Diversity(Racial/ethnic, socioeconomic)

Predictability(Range of possible outcomes, # of different assignments in 10 simulations)

Proximity(Distance/ community cohesion)

Choice (Not a goal - measure of disruption to status quo)

Concept 1Initial assignment

3.3/5 MixedDepends on metric

Slightly better Slightly better MixedDepends on metric

Concept 2Small zones

3.5/5 Non-contiguousBetter (generally)

Slightly better Better

Slightly worseContiguous

Worse (always*)Much Better

Concept 3Medium zones

2.5/5 Better(generally)

Slightly better Worse(generally)

Slightly Worse

2019-20 Assignments (baseline)

*Simulations have not yet found a set of small contiguous zones that do better on measures of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic diversity than our current system.

Community Input

17

Policy

How well do options work in support of SFUSD’s goal of Access and Equity?

Data (demographics, choice, capacities, etc.)

Feedback from the Board of

Education

Community Input Research and

Case Studies

Simulations of Policy

Outcomes

How well do options achieve the Board’s policy goals of diversity, predictability, and proximity?

How SFUSD will develop a new policy for assigning students to elementary schools

18

Key Takeaways - Generally

Community Engagement Report

● Community members were conflicted on proximity -- people want to go to school close to home, but they want to be confident in the quality of their local schools first

● People also want to maintain some degree of choice. Most

people don’t want too much (overwhelming) or too little (restrictive) choice

● Choice was especially important to African American, Latinx,

and low-income families

● Boundary design will be very important; many found it

difficult to give feedback without knowing what the boundaries would look like

19

What did families think about the 3 concepts?

Community Engagement Report

● Concept 1 was only popular among higher income families, and families who live on the west side

● Concept 2 emerged as the most popular among almost every demographic group, including African American, Latinx, and low-income families

○ Despite this, African American, Latinx, and low-income families

were skeptical that any of the concepts would work for them,

including Concept 2

● Concept 3 was disliked by almost every demographic group

○ Some felt this was too restrictive (no choice outside of zones),

or had concerns about the feasibility of drawing equitable zones

or moving programs. Others thought this provided too much

choice (felt like the current system, on a slightly smaller scale).

20

21

Concept 1: Initial Assignment + Choice

Families in the Southeast had serious concerns about Concept 1.

Concept 1 was only popular among higher income families.

Participants noted that a proximity-based student assignment system “makes winners and losers. The winners are the ones who already have the money to live in the nicer neighborhoods.” [Starr King Elementary School]

African American and Latinx families rated Concept 1 as

the least likely to meet their needs.

22

Concept 2: Small Zones (3-5 schools)

There were questions about concept 2 in the Southeast, but there wasn’t intense opposition. This could be workable with some changes or creatively

drawn zones.

Most demographic groups rated Concept 2

as the most likely to meet their families needs.

Despite this, African American, Latinx, and low-income families were still skeptical that any of the concepts would work for them.How might we adjust Concept 2 to better meet the needs of African American and Latinx families?

Concept 3: Large Zones (8-12 schools)

Families throughout the city disliked Concept 3.

23

Most demographic

groups did not believe Concept

3 would meet their needs.

Simulations

24

Policy

How well do options work in support of SFUSD’s goal of Access and Equity?

Data (demographics, choice, capacities, etc.)

Feedback from the Board of

Education

Community Input Research and

Case Studies

Simulations of Policy

Outcomes

How well do options achieve the Board’s policy goals of diversity, predictability, and proximity?

How SFUSD will develop a new policy for assigning students to elementary schools

25

Background/expertise in matching markets & algorithm design

○ Itai Ashlagi, Associate Professor of Management Science and Engineering

○ Irene Lo, Assistant Professor of Management Science and Engineering

Student Researchers

● Adonis Pugh, Undergraduate student in

Chemistry

● Faidra Monachou, PhD student in

Management Science and Engineering

● Juliette Love, Masters student in Computer

Science

● Kaleigh Mentzer, PhD student in

Computational and Mathematical Engineering

● Lulabell Ruiz-Seitz, Undergraduate student in

Mathematics

● Max Allman, PhD student in Management

Science and Engineering

Stanford Research Team 26

How do the concepts trade off between SFUSD goals?

● Key Takeaways○ Concept 1 can have a small, positive effect on

district goals but doesn’t shift outcomes much from the status quo

○ Restricting choice within zones (Concepts 2 and 3) can improve diversity, but outcomes depend heavily on how the zone boundaries are drawn

○ When drawing zone boundaries there is a tradeoff between diversity and predictability/proximity

27

Policy Simulations28

Available Schools and Programs

Tiebreakers

Requests

Students

School Assignments

Simulations assume some things are fixed:● Students who apply to SFUSD will look similar to students who have

applied in past years

● The types of schools and programs families request won’t change under a new policy

And some things can be changed:● A new policy can change which schools and programs students can apply

to (e.g. zones, citywide schools)

● We can test different combinations of tiebreakers (e.g. sibling, CTIP, etc.)

● We can re-write the assignment algorithm to try to maximize for different goals (e.g. % of students getting their first choice vs. % of students getting one of their choices).

Assignment Algorithm

Simulating the concepts

1. DATA: The Stanford research team ran simulations for each of the concepts based on students who participated in kindergarten student assignment in 2018-2019, using the preference lists they submitted in their first round of participation in 2018-2019, the capacities from 2018-2019.

2. ALGORITHM. Simulations used the choice algorithm that was used for student assignment in 2019-2010 . The algorithm lets students rank schools in order of preference, and tries to assign them to their preferred schools, giving priority to students based on

tiebreakers for sibling, CTIP1, and zone priority.

3. POLICY LEVERS FOR SIMULATION.

29

INITIAL ASSIGNMENT TO ATTENDANCE AREA. Students are initially assigned to their attendance area school, and have the option to participate in choice.

ZONE BOUNDARIES WITH RESTRICTED CHOICE. Draw new zone boundaries and restrict students’ access to programs depending on the zone they live in.

DIFFERENTIAL ACCESS TO CHOICE. Give targeted student groups more access to choice, e.g. CTIP1 students, redefined CTIP/target student groups, students in homeless/foster/public housing

GUARDRAILS. Give priority to students during the assignment to ensure that each elementary school’s student population, within an identified zone, reflects the diversity of the zone

OTHER ALGORITHMS. Examples include the transfer mechanism used until 2018-2019, as well as other parameters in the algorithm such as tiebreakers.

30

● Doesn’t dramatically change the status quo -- most students receive the same assignment ● There are improvements on predictability and proximity, mostly due to move students going to their

attendance area school. ● There are mixed diversity results, with small improvements in some diversity measures.● Up to 140 students are assigned to non-existent seats (some attendance areas have fewer seats

than the number of students in the attendance area who rank it highly)

Process: We first assigned all students who ranked a program their attendance area school in their top 1 (or top 3, top 5, top 10) to their most preferred program at their attendance area school. We then ran the choice algorithm for the remaining students at the remaining seats at all programs.

Finding: Providing an initial assignment can have small, positive effects on our goals

Concept 1: Initial Attendance Area Assignment + Choice

Concepts #2 & #3: Drawing Zone Boundaries

31

● Key Takeaways○ To best achieve the district’s goals, zone boundaries need

to be redrawn. Existing boundaries, such as the

attendance areas and middle school feeder zones, lack

socio-economic and ethnic diversity.

○ The size and shape of zones affect which of the district’s goal they are best able to achieve. There is a tradeoff

between small or contiguous zones, which improve

predictability/proximity, and large or non-contiguous

zones, which have the most effect on diversity.

○ There is significant scope for improving on the zone boundaries that we show today. However board and

community feedback is important for focusing the zones

we explore and appropriately balancing tradeoffs

between predictability, proximity ,and diversity.

32

Concept #2: Choice in Small

Zones

Concept #3: Choice in Medium

Zones

Predictability, Diversity, Proximity

Diversity, Predictability, Proximity

Choice Choice

Zones (3 - 5 schools) Zones (8-12 schools)

1. Zone Schools2. Citywide Schools

1. Zone Schools

Concepts 2 and 3 differ in (1) how zones are drawn (small vs medium), and(2) how much access students get to schools outside their zone.

Today’s simulations focus on the effects of how zones are drawn:1. Drew ~100 potential zone boundaries 2. Selected ~20 zone boundaries to simulate 3. Simulated choice algorithm where

students have access only to GE programs in their zone and all citywide and language programs.

Operationalizing Simulations for Concepts #2 and #3

33

Middle School Feeder Zones

Existing boundaries, such as the attendance areas and middle school feeder zones, lack diversity in socio-economic status and ethnicity, and don’t balance capacity with the student population.

Why draw new boundaries?

DESCRIPTIONS OF METRICS%FRL Students: Percentage of students living in zone receiving free or reduced lunchNeighborhood SES: Measure of SES combining median household income, poverty and adult educational attainment; averaged across students living in zone Ethnic Diversity: Distance between distribution of ethnicities of students living in zone and district distributionCapacity Deficit: #students in zone - #seats in zone, including citywide seats geographically located in zone

For student measures, darker blue areas are higher need and/or less diverse.

% FRL Students Neighborhood SES

Ethnic Diversity Capacity deficit

Metrics by MSF Zone

34

● Attendance areas were used as building blocks for zones

● The balance of students was considered to ensure that zones had roughly the same number of students

● Different types of contiguity were considered○ Contiguous zone = all blocks border each other○ Non-contiguous zone = some blocks do not border others

● Limited search to zones meeting criteria for socio-economic and ethnic diversity of the underlying student population:○ Average FRL compared to district average○ Average AALPI Score compared to district average○ Average Diversity Index compared to district average

● For different sets of criteria, minimized the capacity imbalance for medium zones (6-8 zones) and small zones (10-13 zones)

Maps are for illustrative purposes only

1. Drawing possible zone boundaries using optimization

Balance of students

Socioeconomic diversity

Ethnic diversity

35

Maps are for illustrative purposes only

Illustrative examples of how zones could be configured across various

criteria and considerations

Non-contiguous

Contiguous

Small Zones(12-13 zones: more colors)

Medium Zones (6-8 zones: fewer colors)

36

● For each set of criteria, used optimization tools to generate hundreds of zone boundaries that satisfy the criteria

● Considered measures of socio-economic diversity and ethnic diversity and selected 14 small zones, 12 medium zones on the frontier according to these measures

Max FRL percentage

2. Selecting Zone Boundaries to Simulate

Max distance vs Max FRL percentage (Each blue dot represents a zone map)Distance

Note: Today’s results are based on simulations where we chose zones based on diversity measures for the student populations living in the zones. We are now also able to choose zones based on diversity measures that capture the effects of choice.

Tradeoffs in Drawing Zones: Measures Without Choice

SMALL, CONTIGUOUS ZONES are likely to improve proximity and predictability and provide simplicity. However, they tend to be less diverse.

Non-contiguous

Contiguous

Small Zones(12-13 zones,

4-5 schools each)

EXAMPLEZONES

Medium Zones (6-8 zones,

10-12 schools each)

Ethnic Diversity

Hellinger: Distance between distribution of ethnicities of students living in zone and district distribution. Darker blue indicates larger distance.

%FRL: Percentage of students living in zone receiving free or reduced lunch. Darker blue indicates higher concentration of such students.

Socio-economic Diversity

MEDIUM, NON- CONTIGUOUS ZONES are best able to disrupt existing residential patterns of socioeconomic disparity between zones, and can improve diversity of the student population within zones (i.e. make the shades of blue lighter and more similar).

Maps are for illustrative purposes only

38

● Smaller zones improve predictability, reduce distance and improve community

cohesion and provide less choice

● Larger zone boundaries can potentially improve socio-economic diversity

● However the specific shape of the zones significantly affects diversity, and so

zones need to be drawn and evaluated very carefully.

Tradeoffs in Drawing Zones: Measures With Choice

39Tradeoffs in Drawing Zones: Predictability and Proximity With Choice

Predictability of assignment is better with small zones than medium zones.

Proximity is improved by small zones, especially contiguous, and can worsen with medium zones.

Predictability

%Assigned outside Top 3

# Distinct Assignments

Better predictability

Worse predictability METRICS

# Distinct Assignments from 10 runs of the algorithm

% Assigned outside Top 3 of the programs they ranked and have access to

Small (4-5 schools)- Student has on average 2.4 distinct assignments out of 10Medium: (10-12 schools)- Student has on average 2.7 distinct assignments out of 10

METRICS

Community Cohesion: % Students attending program with fewer than 3 students from their block group.

Distance (miles): Average travel distance for students from assigned program

DistanceBetter

proximity

ProximityCommunity Cohesion

2019-20 Algorithm

Small contiguous Small non-contiguousMedium non-contiguousMedium contiguous

40

Ethnic Diversity Measure 1

Ethnic DiversityMeasure

2

Ethnic Diversity

More Diverse

2019-20 Algorithm

Less Diverse

Socio-Economic Diversity

2019-20 Algorithm

SES Diversity Measure 1

SESDiversityMeasure

2

More Diverse

Less Diverse

Non-contiguous or medium zones can give more diverse outcomes.● Socio-economic diversity is generally improved by medium zones and

worsens with small zones● Ethnic diversity is generally improved by non-contiguous zones and

worsens with contiguous zones

The specific shape of the zones significantly affects diversity, and so zones need to be drawn and evaluated very carefully.

● Small non-contiguous zones can improve diversity● Medium zones do not necessarily improve diversity.● Socio-economic and ethnic diversity are not always aligned● Different zones are doing better on different measures of

socio-economic diversity and ethnic diversity

Choice can lead to re-segregation within the zone even if populations within the zones are diverse. In addition to drawing diverse zones we must

consider other levers such as guardrails and differential access to choice.

Tradeoffs in Drawing Zones: Diversity With Choice

Small contiguous Small non-contiguousMedium non-contiguousMedium contiguous

41All Concepts Reduce Student Choice

All concepts shown today reduce student choice. Assuming that students prefer some of the programs that would no longer be available to them, moving to one of the concepts would likely reduce:

● the number of students receiving their 1st choice by ~10%● the number of students receiving one of their top 3 choices by ~5%.

1st Choice

Top 3 Choice

Rank (all listed programs) In-Zone Rank (all listed accessible programs)

Less Choice

Less Choice

1st Choice

Top 3 Choice

2019-20 Algorithm 2019-20

Algorithm

42

● We now have a simulation engine to generate hundreds of zone boundaries that satisfy the criteria

● Can look at the tradeoffs between measures of socio-economic diversity and ethnic diversity capturing effects of choice and use this to narrow down on possible zone boundaries

Ethnic Diversity vs Socio-Economic Diversity(Each blue dot represents a zone map)

SES Diversity

Drawing Zone Boundaries: What next?

Ethnic Diversity

More Diverse

Less Diverse

43Other Considerations

Today’s focus:

1. INITIAL ASSIGNMENT TO ATTENDANCE AREA. Students are initially assigned to their attendance area school, and have the option to participate in choice.

2. ZONE BOUNDARIES WITH RESTRICTED CHOICE. Draw new zone boundaries and restrict students’ access to programs depending on the zone they live in.

There are other levers that can be explored, including:

1. BETTER ZONES. Zones can be improved, as we can consider finer-grained zones, perform more targeted search, and incorporate citywide schools.

2. DIFFERENTIAL ACCESS TO CHOICE. Give targeted student groups more access to choice, e.g. CTIP1 students, redefined CTIP/target student groups, students in homeless/foster/public housing

3. GUARDRAILS. Give priority to students during the assignment to ensure that each elementary school’s student population, within an identified zone, reflects the diversity of the zone

4. LANGUAGE PROGRAM ZONES. Our simulations gave students access to all language programs. Language program zones could be used with GE program zones to increase predictability and proximity, and may also help with diversity.

5. OTHER ALGORITHMS. There are other algorithms, such as the transfer mechanism used up until 2018-2019. Our simulations indicate that the tradeoff is typically between algorithms that increase choice versus algorithms that increase diversity.

● Given the priorities of diversity, predictability and proximity, we recommend taking Concept 1 off the table, and focusing on drawing zones that improve both diversity and some aspects of proximity.

● To focus the search for better zones, we need more clarity on how SFUSD is weighing these tradeoffs.E.g.: Small non-contiguous zones can do well on diversity, predictability, and some measures of proximity (cohesion).

Next Steps44

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Staff Reflections and Key Questions to Explore Further

45

Summary of findings and tradeoffs

46

Community Input

Simulation Results

Diversity(Racial/ethnic, socioeconomic)

Predictability(Range of possible outcomes, # of different assignments in 10 simulations)

Proximity(Distance/ community cohesion)

Choice (Not a goal - measure of disruption to status quo)

Concept 1Initial assignment

3.3/5 MixedDepends on metric

Slightly better Slightly better MixedDepends on metric

Concept 2Small zones

3.5/5 Non-contiguousBetter (generally)

Slightly better Better

Slightly worseContiguous

Worse (always*)Much Better

Concept 3Medium zones

2.5/5 Better(generally)

Slightly better Worse(generally)

Slightly Worse

2019-20 Assignments (baseline)

*Simulations have not yet found a set of small contiguous zones that do better on measures of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic diversity than our current system.

Key Questions to Explore Further

Tonight:

○ Are we ready to take Concept 1 off the table?

○ Zones are a powerful lever to increase all of our policy goals. However, the way zones are drawn matters a lot, and there are tradeoffs between proximity and diversity. Are we willing to draw non-contiguous, or oddly shaped zones?

Future Meetings:

○ Many families value proximity for its logistical benefits (easy pickup/dropoff) and community cohesion (kids go to school with their neighbors). How might we accomplish both via busing?

○ How might we improve on our goals by including K8 schools as part of a zone, and drawing service areas for language pathways and special education?

○ Even if the zone is diverse, choice can lead to re-segregation within the zone. How might we incorporate other levers (e.g., guardrails in the algorithm) to limit self-segregation?

○ Choice emerged as especially important to African American, Latinx, and low-income families. How might we prioritize choices for focal communities (e.g. by revising CTIP)?

47

Policy

How well do options work in support of SFUSD’s goal of Access and Equity?

Data (demographics, choice, capacities, etc.)

Feedback from the Board of

Education

Community Input Research and

Case Studies

Simulations of Policy

Outcomes

How well do options achieve the Board’s policy goals of diversity, predictability, and proximity?

How SFUSD will develop a new policy for assigning students to elementary schools

48

1. Does the draft theory of action accurately capture what changes the Board wants to make and why?

2. Are the Board willing to take Concept 1 off the table?○ Board almost took Concept 1 off the table in December○ Southeast community has expressed opposition.○ Simulations showed small, positive effects, but the benefits were concentrated

among families who already liked their attendance area schools.○ Capacity constraints make this logistically difficult to implement

3. Would the Board potentially approve non-contiguous, or oddly shaped zones?

○ They seem to do well on metrics of diversity, predictability, and proximity. ○ However, diversity metrics are very sensitive to how the maps are drawn -- if

zones are too proximate, then diversity decreases

Prompts for Board Discussion

49

What does the Board think?

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Next Steps

50

● Use the Board’s feedback to advance the development a policy recommendation

● September 29, 2020, 5 pm Ad Hoc Committee○ Zones, pathways, and how we might incorporate

other levers e.g., CTIP, guardrails, priorities

● October 14, 2020, 5 pm Ad Hoc Committee○ Staff Recommendation○ Community engagement plan

Immediate Next Steps

51

SFUSD, Stanford and UC Berkeley hosting a series of online conversations about the history of SFUSD’s school desegregation efforts, the benefits of school integration, and the implications of school choice.

● Friday, September 11 from 3-4pm○ History of Student Assignment in SFUSD

● Thursday, September 17 from 4-5pm○ Research about School Integration

● Monday, September 21 from 3-4pm○ Research about School Choice

● To be scheduled○ Panel discussion on policy recommendation

Sign up at bit.ly/SFUSDresearch

Free Speaker Series Open to Public

52

Staff just launched a weekly Student Assignment Newsletter and Blog which will be active in September and October and the Board discusses the student assignment policy.

● First blog post: What’s Happening With Student Assignment

To read the blog and sign up for the newsletter, visit: www.sfusd.edu/studentassignment

Newsletter and Blog

53

2020-21 School Year 2021-22 SY 2022-23 SYFall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall

Start of School

● Boundaries & feeders● Transportation routes● Programmatic changes● Enrollment infrastructure● Marketing & communication

● 10/20/20 First Reading

● Community Engagement

● 12/1/202 3 pm Committee of the Whole

● 12/8/20 Second Reading and Action

Launch enrollment

2023-24 SYAug Sep Oct Nov Dec Spring

* Might require more time depending on the scale of change

Policy Development Timeline

Develop

Decide

Implement*

Enroll

● Aug 31 - 5 pm, Ad Hoc

● Sep 11 - 3 pm, Speaker Series - History

● Sep 14 - 5 pm, Ad Hoc

● Sep 17 - 4 pm, Speaker Series - Integration

● Sep 21 - 3 pm, Speaker Series, Choice

● Sep 29 - 5 pm, Ad Hoc

● Oct 14 - 5 pm, Ad Hoc - Recommendation

1. Does the draft theory of action accurately capture what changes the Board wants to make and why?

2. Are the Board willing to take Concept 1 off the table?○ Board almost took Concept 1 off the table in December○ Southeast community has expressed opposition.○ Simulations showed small, positive effects, but the benefits were concentrated

among families who already liked their attendance area schools.○ Capacity constraints make this logistically difficult to implement

3. Would the Board potentially approve non-contiguous, or oddly shaped zones?

○ They seem to do well on metrics of diversity, predictability, and proximity. ○ However, diversity metrics are very sensitive to how the maps are drawn -- if

zones are too proximate, then diversity decreases

Prompts for Board Discussion

55

What does the Board think?

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Questions

56

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Appendix

57

● Web page: www.sfusd.edu/studentassignment○ Community Engagement Report

● Class Action: Desegregation and Diversity in San Francisco Schools, by Rand Quinn (UPenn)

● Children of the Dream: Why School Integration Works, by Rucker Johnson (UC Berkeley)

● The Color of Law : A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, by Richard Rothstein

● How to Be an Antiracist, by Ibram X. Kendi

● Nice White Parents, New York Times Podcast

Suggested Reading and Podcasts

58