Vincent Matthews, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools

555 Franklin Street, Room 301 | San Francisco, CA 94102 PH: (415) 241-6121 | Email: matthewsv@sfusd.edu

  Date: November 14, 2017 To:  The SFUSD School Board of Commissioners From:  Vincent Matthews, Ed.D. Re:  Superintendent 90-Day Report Out   The First Ninety Days - Listening and Learning Report  Introduction  The San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) articulates its vision- Every student who attends SFUSD schools will discover his or her spark, along with a strong sense of self and purpose. Each and every student will graduate from high school ready for college and career and equipped with the skills, capacities and dispositions outlined in SFUSD’s Graduate Profile. SFUSD articulates its mission - Every day we provide each and every student the quality instruction and equitable support required to thrive in the 21st century.  How close is SFUSD to realizing that mission? What are the challenges that must be addressed to actualize the vision? Do all stakeholders share this desire? I must address these and many other questions to ensure that SFUSD continues to provide all students with the opportunity to excel.  The 90 day Listening and Learning plan was designed to ensure that the I engaged in a thoughtful, proactive, strategic beginning to lead SFUSD. Author Patrick Lencioni in his book entitled The Four Obsessions of an Extraordinary Executive makes the case leaders must work to minimize the potential for confusion by creating organizational clarity. Clarity regarding:  ● Why the institution exists ● What behavioral values are fundamental ● What it plans to achieve, and ● Who is responsible for what  The transition activities outlined in this plan reflected my strong desire to make a thoughtful and deliberate entry into this school district, and to take the necessary time to listen and learn about the San Francisco Unified School District. As high quality instruction and successful student learning are the keys to achieving our collective educational mission, this entry plan was organized to 

1 

 

provide me with a great deal of information, input, and ultimately insight into how best to strengthen and build upon the current and historical successes of the schools in the San Francisco Unified School District.  Goals  This entry plan sought to accomplish the following goals:  1. To ensure a smooth and orderly transition of leadership and to carefully structure this transition to best support and facilitate clear understanding of the district’s current state of instructional improvement and increases in student achievement.  2. To develop a clear, trusting, productive, collaborative relationship with the SFUSD Commissioners.  3. To create opportunities for the me to listen broadly and deeply to a multitude of stakeholders and gain a comprehensive understanding of SFUSD.  4. To proactively ensure that all voices, not just those who traditionally avail themselves to collaboration with the school system, are heard and engaged in the process of continuous improvement.  5. To build enthusiasm for SFUSD’s vision, mission, and strategic plan (Vision 2025, Transform Learning. Transform Lives.), while also establishing the commitment to engage in needed change to ensure a system of continuous improvement.  6. To identify and execute activities that would bring a successful end to the 2016-2017 school year and identify activities that must be implemented during the summer to ensure an outstanding opening of the 2017 – 2018 school year.   Outcomes/ Deliverables Expected results:  ● Superintendent visitation to 1/4 of the district schools by the end of 90 days 

and all of the schools by the end of the 2017-2018 school year. ● An energized district and community about the focus and direction of the 

organization. ● A 90- day report on observations, findings and an initial plan for the future. ● The outline of a process to review SFUSD’s current plans, and to establish how 

the School Board and I will address the “big question” – how to engage in systemic implementation to ensure the bar of academic rigor continues to rise for all students. 

     

2

 

Preamble   Our current 12th grade students entered kindergarten during the 2005-2006 school year. How has the world changed since they started school? Their first grade year was a pivotal one. September 26, 2006, Facebook, a social networking site was open to everyone. In 2007, a micro blogging company called Twitter was spun off, as its own separate platform. Change.org, the most popular social mobilization website, emerged in 2007. In late 2006, Google bought YouTube, and in 2007 it launched Android. In 2007, Amazon released something called the Kindle. In 2007, Airbnb was conceived in an apartment here in the city. In 2007, Intel introduced microchips for the first time and lastly January 9, 2007 Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone. Of course there have been thousands of other technological advances during the time our current seniors have spent in our schools. The advances listed above are a few examples of why it is critical that the SFUSD achieves it mission of Every day providing each and every student the quality instruction and equitable support required to thrive in the 21st century.  Achievement data shows that all ethnic subgroups have risen over time. This is the mark of a good district and the SFUSD has been a good district for decades. However, the gap between groups that have been achieving at lower levels and groups achieving at higher levels has not been significantly narrowed. Jim Collins in Good to Great points out that “Good is the enemy of Great.” Being good can assist institutions and organizations from having a sense of urgency regarding achieving its mission. In order for us to be a great district we need EVERY student receiving the instruction and support necessary to thrive in the 21st century.   What follows are the my initial impressions, observations and immediate recommendations after the initial 90 day listening and learning campaign.   The 90 Day Listening and Learning Report –   Structure of Entry Plan I engaged in a purposeful effort to listen, learn, discern and begin to develop plans for the future, in collaboration with the School Board and the San Francisco community. The following activities were the core components of the entry plan:  1. Develop the relationship with the Board of Education 2. Assess the organizational capacity and alignment: District Executive and 

Senior Staff 3. Data Analysis and Document Review 4. Community Engagement: Engaging Parents and Community Leaders 5. Operation and Finance: Understanding the current, strengths, strategies, and 

opportunities for improvement  6. 90th Day Actions   

3

 

The following persons from the SFUSD community were interviewed to gather information:  All SFUSD Board members Superintendent’s Executive Leadership Team Members All Chiefs and Assistant Superintendents Principals in 1-on-1 meetings UESF President and Vice President UASF President and leaders SEIU leaders Local 21 leaders SFUSD Parent Advisory Council (PAC) AAPAC leaders Special Education CAC DELAC and BCC Indian Ed PAC Migrant Ed PAC The SFUSD Student Advisory Committee Association of Asian American Administrators Mayor Ed Lee SF City Supervisors  Civic leaders Charter School leaders Parent Leaders NAACP Coleman Advocates SF City Department leaders State legislators   Chamber of Commerce officials District PTA and site PTA officials Key business and community leaders and advocates Faith-based leaders  Faculty and staff Teachers, Parents and Community members at Community meetings  These are impressions, observations and recommendations that I have made throughout the listening and learning campaign through the first 90 days:    I. Governance Team: SFUSD Board of Commissioners  In order to ensure that the district has an intense focus on meeting the needs of Each and Every student, the Board and I must develop a trusting, positive, collaborative, team-oriented relationship. These relationships must be established with each Board member and the Board as a whole. During this Plan of Entry, I will work with the Board to discuss issues and matters of governance, management, core values and beliefs and structures of their working relationships.  

4

 

Pre-Entry Actions (Before May 1)  

● Shared Entry Plan for feedback ● Engaged in one-on one meetings with Board members to deepen 

relationships and broaden perspectives ● Interviewed board members to ascertain perspectives on the district 

 Entry (After May 1)  

● Reviewed board calendar to assess continuity of governance ● Conducted breakfast/lunch/dinner meetings with all board members to 

continue to build positive, productive relationships ● Met with the board president and any and all board committee chairs to 

determine how they work in partnership with the me and my senior staff ● Collaborated on a board retreat to focus on shared values, initiate 

reflections on organizational structure, areas of improvement, and implementation of a systemic accountability system 

 Initial Impressions and Observations  

● The SFUSD Board is focused and places the well being of students as a first priority. 

● The SFUSD Board works well as a unit. ● The community perspective is that board is committed to student 

achievement and eliminating achievement gaps. ● The SFUSD Board uses Transform Learning. Transform Lives and Vision 

2025 to drive its decision making process.   Recommendations  

● Continue Semi-Annual Governance team meetings to ensure that the organization is continuing to move in the direction that is Board driven. 

● The Board should consider establishing exactly what types of data they will review periodically throughout the year and annually (ex. How many students from each school make a year’s growth? Which sub groups are making a year’s growth? etc.). 

● The Board should review the board generated resolution process to determine if this process moves the district forward in alignment with the strategic plan. 

          

5

 

II. Organizational Capacity and Alignment  To implement and execute the district’s strategic plan at maximum efficiency, it will be critical to support and hold accountable a high-performing, results-oriented district executive team. To make sure we operate as a highly effective cross-functional team, dedicated to a positive, professional culture, we must, as Good to Great author Jim Collins states, “Ensure we have the right people on the bus and in the right seats.” 

 Activities  

● Reviewed the current central office structure to determine focus on student achievement and maximizing operational efficiency 

● Conducted one-one-one interviews and reviewed resumes and briefing papers with all direct reports 

● Conducted a retreat with senior staff to review district’s strategic plan, most recent achievement data, reviewed current or anticipated vacancies in central office and principalships, and discussed leadership team structures and practices 

● Determined how communication and decision-making will occur with executive team, establishing meeting protocols and systems designed to focus on increased student achievement and continuous improvement 

● Conducted one-on-one interviews with all department heads in central services, focusing on alignment and execution of key strategies 

● Interviewed the structure of the communications department ● Met with IISJ Deputy Superintendent and Curriculum and Instruction (C&I) 

Chief to assess current data and performance of schools and determine quality of actions designed for continuous improvement 

● Explored the current state of strategic data monitoring in SFUSD to determine which students are performing at or above grade level and/or are receiving appropriate, targeted interventions 

● Ensured all necessary plans and preparations are in place for an outstanding opening of school 

  Initial Impressions and Observations  

● Since research and best practices stress that achievement gaps are closed through effective instruction it is important to acknowledge that the department of C&I has the division and sites focused on accelerating achievement for every child through the lens of powerful instruction through Transform Learning. Transform Lives. 

● The capacity in the finance department and operations department are definite strengths of the district. 

● The strategic plan is the main driver of district activities towards ensuring that all students receive 21st century skills. 

    

6

 

Recommendations  

● Continue the district’s focus on increasing rigor and instructional effectiveness in the classrooms. The district’s resources should continue to be allocated and aligned to support classroom efficacy. 

● The strategic plan should be reviewed and staff alignment should be modified as appropriate. 

● If we are truly to work to reduce the achievement gap, over the next 6 – 12 months staff must address how we will continue to support instructional rigor and site leadership by addressing the following questions generally in all areas but specifically in areas where the data indicates that the needs of students are not being met: 

● How are our leaders developed? ● How are our leaders held accountable? ● How are leaders supported when they fall short? ● What data are we using year over year to assist us in knowing 

whether we are succeeding in our goal of every child meeting or exceeding district and state standards? 

  III. Data Analysis and Document Review  Activities  

● The Superintendent and staff conducted analysis and examined a wide variety of data sources, particularly student achievement data, to discern trends, patterns, areas of accomplishments and areas for additional focus. Student outcomes on standardized tests, value added data, graduation rates, AP course taking and passing rates and other relevant indicators were disaggregated by program, race and geography and carefully studied. 

● In addition, resource and administrative indicators were closely reviewed. The current budget development process as well as the SMART process was assessed, as was the performance of central offices in meeting their key metrics and customer service goals. Departmental organization charts, job descriptions, resumes of current key personnel, and the current compensation matrix were also thoroughly examined. 

● Written reports and presentations on SFUSD resources use, personnel, organization, leadership and/or academic outcomes were read and considered. 

● Board Policies and Administrative Regulations were reviewed.  Initial Impressions and Observations  

● Overall student achievement has remained stable. ● The district states that eliminating the achievement gap is its top priority, 

yet the achievement gap between African American and White students and Asian students has remained at the same level for decades.  

● The district has a deep and rich source in our data warehouse. 

7

 

● Research, Planning and Assessment (RPA) is seen by sites very positively and supportive of site needs.. The information and support from RPA is seen as helpful in moving student achievement forward. 

● Transform Learning. Transform Lives targets professional growth, parent involvement, evaluation accountability, and fiscal alignment.  

● Principals and site staffs have come to expect a certain data set at the beginning of each year. 

● The data that we have used in community reports have painted an average picture which tends to mask where there is uneven performance. 

● It is not consistent from site to site how data is used to inform instruction or change practice at sites. 

  Recommendations  

● There should be increased district level strategic activities to aid Transform learning, Transform Lives specifically aimed at the outcomes for African-American Students. 

● The district/Board need to establish a very clear picture of what data the community can expect to see from the district every year. 

● There should be increased Equity focused professional development implemented at Board, district leadership and site level. 

● There should be a district level audit of interim benchmark practices to answer the following questions: 

 ● Are there effective processes for setting and communicating 

benchmarks? ● What is the quality of instructional assessment in the district? ● Are interim assessments used to provide feedback on a regular basis 

to inform instruction? ● How is assessment data disseminated and used at the student, 

classroom, school and district levels? ● Are effective assessment tools, processes, data systems, 

accountability mechanisms and training levels? ● Are we using the results of our benchmarks effectively?  

  

IV. Community Engagements and District Communications  Activities  

● During this time of initial entry, there was a focus on engaging and mobilizing parents and community leaders in the pursuit of making sure SFUSD is ensuring that each and every students has the skills to thrive in the 21st century. I reached out to meet as many partners as possible to make sure all voices have the opportunity to be heard.  

  

● Seven Community-wide forum were held. These meetings occurred throughout the city at seven school sites (Burton High School, Galileo High 

8

 

School, James Lick Middle School, Lincoln High School, Presidio Middle School, Wallenberg High School and Willie Brown Middle School). There was a proactive effort to meet with as many stakeholders as possible. A Strengths-Weaknesses analysis model was used and the following key questions were asked: 

● What are the strengths of SFUSD? ● What are areas of needed improvement for SFUSD? ● What are the opportunities that we are missing? 

  School Visits 

● I conducted visits to 57 schools in SFUSD to engage the principal, teachers, support staff, and parent volunteers to learn about their perceptions regarding who we are as a district and where we need to be to meet the needs of all children. 

  

Initial Impressions and Observations   The repeated strengths from the community meetings: 

● The district has consistently shown fiscal responsibility ● The district offers a rich variety of programs for students (Career Pathways, 

Arts Magnet, Immersion, etc.) ● The district offers and supports a variety of parent outreach programs ● The district is focused on student achievement ● The instructional staff is a definite strength ● The overall central data outcomes remain stable  ● The overall quality and accuracy of the data  ● Equity and social justice is a definite focus for the district ● The district is increasing its efforts at partnership outreach  ● The wellness programs are very responsive ● There is a district-wide focus on equity and social justice ● There are rich Arts and Athletics program 

 The repeated areas for growth: 

● The district struggles to meet the needs of African-American students ● The district does not do enough to remove poor performing teachers ● The district needs a well articulated strategy for attracting and retaining 

staff members due to the high cost of housing ● The school assignment process needs to meet the desires of the district ● The district needs to do a better job of communication with parents and a 

better job of including parents in the decision making process         

9

 

Recommendations  

● The district needs to develop specific strategies to address the outcomes for African-American students 

● The district needs to continue its administrative PD regarding instructional evaluation 

● The district needs to continue developing its strategy for attracting and retaining teachers  

● Educational Placement Center (EPC) should continue working with board committee to bring a well articulated policy recommendation to the board 

● District, sites the SFCSD’s Office of Family and Community Engagement, Office of Family Voice, Translation and Interpretation Unit and the Communication Division need to continue development of communication policies and practices  

   V. Operations and Finance 

 In order to meet the needs of all students in SFUSD, it is critical that Operations and Finance are effective. Understanding the current strengths, strategies, and opportunities for improvement in light of the current budget was a critical focus of mine. Each division was appraised to determine how they maximize support and services to schools using the continuous improvement model.  Activities  

● Reviewed key district financial materials, budget, most recent audit, and grants 

● Conducted one-on-one meetings with direct reports on budget, operations, and human resources 

● Conduct one-on-one meetings with all department and division heads, ensuring each division has fidelity to its core function and has a student-focused agenda 

● Reviewed district’s financial projections, resource allocation and budgeting processes; assessed how district’s budget and budgeting process is aligned to support student achievement 

● Conducted one-on-one meetings with legal team to review any current legal proceedings or outstanding judgments against the district and to provide a briefing on state education code with particular attention to statutes currently impacting or likely to impact the district 

● Reviewed employee group contracts and negotiation plans; find out what the role of the superintendent has been in negotiations 

● Received update on plans to further apply for federal funds ● Reviewed district’s safety and crisis communication plan ● Conducted a review of the district’s public information office and 

programs; review the history, services, and outreach to entire community 

10

 

● Assessed the degree to which all offices are cross-functional and begin to establish key metrics and customer service goals to ensure peak efficiency and support for student achievement 

● Examined the effectiveness of SFUSD’s information-data management system, especially around student achievement, budget, and human resources 

● Ensured all necessary plans and preparations are in place for an outstanding opening of school 

 Initial Impressions and Observations  

● There is a perception from sites that many central offices (including operations and program support departments) struggle to recognize and adequately address sites’ needs. 

● Customer service (responsiveness, helpfulness, etc) across the district is uneven and inconsistent. 

● Currently the management salary schedules are internally incoherent and are disconnected from transparent decision protocols 

● The District continues to develop effective recruitment and staffing operations for teachers, opening schools at 99% staffed for the 2017-18 school year in light of a national and statewide teacher shortage and the affordability crisis in San Francisco. However, there is work to do around retaining existing staff, particularly those who reflect our diverse student populations.   

● Fiscal Department is a district strength. ● The district has made fiscally sound decisions. ● The district has built up its reserve in preparation for difficult fiscal 

conditions.  Recommendations  

● Superintendent’s Leadership Team should develop plans to improve service to schools. 

● Create district wide customer service standards and plan to train employees. 

● Develop a plan to provide clarity and develop an equitable and sustainable management salary structure  

● Continue to use and present financial data in a transparent manner so that the district makes fiscally responsible decisions. 

● Communicate clarity regarding revenues slowing and expenses growing which means the district will have to make major expenditure cuts to meet current obligations made during recent negotiations. 

● Develop plan for increasing revenues at local level. ● The District should continue to build a cohesive recruitment and retention 

strategy, especially for teachers who reflect our diverse student populations 

● Continue to leverage alternative staffing programs like Pathway to Teaching and the San Francisco Teacher Residency and other teacher recruitment programs as innovative solutions to recruitment and retention issues. 

11

 

   Next Steps  As stated earlier, this report is designed to look at five specific areas and make recommendations for growth. Our strategic plan has activities, processes and programs that are working for a majority of our students. These activities have made the SFUSD a good district. If we are going to be a great district then it is critical that we engage in activities that close the opportunity gap and ensure that Each and Every student receives the instruction and support to thrive in the 21st century. This report shares my initial impressions, observations and recommendations for growth.    The next steps in the process are to work with staff to develop and present a detailed plan of improvement in January that outlines next steps regarding many of the areas of growth that have been identified.     

12

 

 Addendum - Rising to the Equity Challenge in SFUSD  

 

I. Race- and Class-Based Achievement Gap  1 

Historical Trends  1 

Depth of Achievement Gap  2 

Gaps Across Measures  3 

II. Defining Achievement Gap Schools: Historically Underserved Schools  5 

Racial Concentration and Outmigration  5 

Racial Concentration Combined with High Poverty  7 

Racial Concentration with High Poverty and Teacher Inexperience  7 

Identifying Historically Underserved Schools  8 

III. Defining Achievement Gap Schools: High Equity Gap Schools  10 

Is School Choice a Viable Option?  10 

Inequity as a Minority  10 

Instructional Gap  11 

Identifying High Equity Gap Schools  11 

IV. Other Schools with Equity Challenges  16 

Racial Isolation Within Schools  16 

Other Underserved Schools  17 

V. Strategy to Guide Our Work  18 

Predictive Power of Demographics  19 

Resource Allocation  20 

Deployment of Resources  20 

Analysis to Guide Strategies  21 

References  23 

  

13

 

   

I. Race- and Class-Based Achievement Gaps   As is true of many districts across the United States, the San Francisco Unified School District has long faced a persistent gap in student performance between demographic subgroups, based on both race/ethnicity and socioeconomic class. “Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in academic achievement remain a stubborn feature of U.S. schooling” (Reardon, Robinson-Cimpian, & Weathers, 2014). The district’s highest-priority goal is to close these gaps, which result from multiple opportunity gaps. We need to analyze more precisely where these gaps are and where they come from, so that the district can rectify them by providing the necessary supports to redress these inequities.   Historical Trends In the last three decades, SFUSD’s achievement gap based on race has fluctuated but not systematically decreased. Although the state assessment has gone through major changes, the gaps in student achievement have persisted. Our most underserved student subgroups come from African-American, Hispanic/Latino, or Pacific Islander backgrounds, and are also socioeconomically disadvantaged. Figure 1 shows the achievement gap in literacy between African-American and White students, which continues to be our largest racial achievement gap.  

 Figure 1: Historical Trends in Achievement Gap 

 Depth of Achievement Gap The extent of these inequities becomes clearer upon identifying the district’s lowest-performing students, defined here as those not meeting standards 

14

 

(Achievement level 1) in at least one subject area on the most recent (2016-2017) state assessments, which represent 29% of students across the district. These students are not evenly distributed across our demographic groups. First, our underserved racial and ethnic minorities are strikingly overrepresented in this group, including 74% of our African-American students, 61% of our Hispanic/Latino students, and 65% of our Pacific Islander students (see Figure 2).  

 Figure 2: SBAC Performance Levels by Race/Ethnicity 

 Second, 70% of these students are socioeconomically disadvantaged, compared to 54% of those tested in the district. Figure 3 shows the percentages of socioeconomically disadvantaged students in this group disaggregated by race/ethnicity.  

 Figure 3: SBAC Performance Levels by Race/Ethnicity and Class 

 Third, eight schools, located primarily in the city’s Bayview and Mission neighborhoods, have over 70% of their students in this group, as shown in Figure 4. Academic disadvantage is thus correlated with race and class and is particularly concentrated within a few schools in the same neighborhoods.  

15

 

 Figure 4: Percentage of Students Who Have Not Met the SBAC Standard in 

Either ELA or Math, or Both   Gaps across Measures The gap is not merely in terms of assessment performance. As shown in Table 1 below, these gaps appear across multiple domains of student outcomes, including perception of school culture/climate, attendance, suspension, social-emotional learning (SEL) skills, and high-school graduation.   

    

16

 

Table 1: District-Level Equity-at-a-Glance (2016-17)   District  AA  AS  HL  WH 

SBAC ELA Proficiency  54.5  19.3  70.2  28.2  77.8 

SBAC Math Proficiency  50.8  13.4  72.4  21.7  70.9 

Absenteeism  11.3  29  2.7  18.3  7.8 

Suspension  1.8  9  0.4  2.3  0.7 

Socioemotional Learning   

Growth Mindset  62  59  64  53  74 

Self-Efficacy  54  53  53  49  66 

Self-Management  75  61  78  68  81 

Social Awareness  64  59  63  61  71 

Culture-Climate (Elementary)   

Support for Learning  80  78  80  80  83 

Fairness of Discipline and Rules   75  66  76  75  78 

Safety  60  55  58  57  68 

Sense of Belonging  75  65  75  75  79 

Culture-Climate (Middle)   

Support for Learning  70  62  71  68  69 

Fairness of Discipline and Rules   60  51  62  58  59 

Safety  59  52  60  58  58 

Sense of Belonging  60  52  60  58  65 

Graduation Rate  86.5  71.1  94.7  74.9  83.8 

     

17

 

II. Defining Achievement Gap Schools: Historically Underserved Schools  These achievement gaps appear both between schools and within schools. Thus, this section outlines the between-schools gap which identifies these schools as Historically Underserved Schools, or those with large percentages of underserved students. This section presents the context, criteria, and identification of schools in the two sets.    The criteria for identifying Historically Underserved Schools was guided by an analysis of the following combination of factors: 

1. Racial Concentration and Outmigration 2. Racial Concentration Combined with High Poverty 3. Racial Concentration with High Poverty and High Teacher Turnover 

 Racial Concentration and Outmigration This persistence of the achievement gap occurs amidst broader demographic transformations in San Francisco. The number of African-American students in the district has continuously declined, from 16.0% (1998-1999) to 7.0% (2016-2017), as shown in Figure 4. Some relevant factors during this time period include the substantial increase in the cost of living in San Francisco, as well as the growth in the number of charter schools that opened.  

 Figure 4: Share of African American and Hispanic/Latino Student Enrollment 

 Meanwhile, racial and socioeconomic segregation between schools has increased. Figure 5 shows these trends, where a school with at least 60% of its students from the same race/ethnicity is defined as racially concentrated. This reflects the historical changes in schools’ student composition upon losing the desegregation clause of the consent decree (Ho v. SFUSD, 1999).  

18

 

 Figure 5: Schools with high racial/ethnic concentration (> 60% students from of 

the same race/ethnicity)  With this out-migration of African-American students from the district, 60% is no longer a reasonable threshold for determining racial concentration at schools. Accordingly, an alternative measure of racial concentration we used is whether African-American students constitute a plurality at their school.  During 2016-2017, 18% of grade K-5 African-American students attended three elementary schools where African-Americans were the majority ethnic group, all located in the Bayview neighborhood. To be more specific, Malcolm X Academy (59%), Drew Academy (52%), and Carver ES (51%) have the highest enrollment rates of African-American students. The only middle school where African American students are a plurality is Willie Brown MS (41%).  Even more extreme trends emerge for Latino students, with 34% attending racially-concentrated, predominantly-Latino (60%+) schools (n=12 as shown above in Figure 5) located in the Mission, the Excelsior, or the surrounding neighborhoods. For example, Chavez ES (88%), Bryant ES (85%), Marshall ES (85%), and Cleveland ES (80%) have the highest enrollment rates of Latino students.  Racial Concentration Combined with High Poverty These racially-concentrated schools are also among the district’s schools with higher concentrations of socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Schools with African-American majorities have an average 83% of students qualifying for Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL), while predominantly-Latino schools with Latino enrollments of 60%+ have an average 74% of students on FRL. Schools with 60%+ Chinese enrollment average 68% students on FRL. In contrast, the school with the majority being white students (55.5%) has 16% students on FRL. This 

19

 

pattern is especially concerning in light of research finding that the greatest predictor of the black-white achievement gap is the disparity in poverty rates at black and white students’ schools (Reardon, 2016).  Racial Concentration with High Poverty and Teacher Inexperience These challenges are further compounded by persistent trends where high-poverty, predominantly African-American and Latino schools face high staff turnover with relatively inexperienced teachers (5.6 years for majority African-American schools, and 6.2 years for 60%+ Latino schools). Although predominantly (60%+) Chinese schools have higher rates of poverty than the district average, these schools have more experienced teachers than average (8.4 years).   Recalling that our African-American, Latino, and Pacific Islander students are overrepresented among our students not meeting SBAC standards, this motivates focusing on those three racial/ethnic subgroups together. Schools with high concentrations of students from our focal subgroups (African-American, Latino, and Samoan) have higher rates of poverty, as shown by the large positive correlation between racial segregation and % FRL, and are also staffed by less-experienced teachers, as shown by the large negative correlation (r = -0.54) between racial segregation and average years of teacher experience.  All three factors of racial concentration, high poverty, and teacher inexperience predict low academic performance, as summarized in Table 2. The combination of them all together produces a form of academic segregation that can be especially hard to overcome. With lower-performing students thus isolated, not just in their own classes but in their own schools and neighborhoods, they miss out on opportunities to interact and learn with higher-performing peers. Teachers in such settings also have more difficulty maintaining high expectations (Kelly & Carbonaro, 2012). Together, these factors create challenging learning environments that fail to serve students’ needs adequately and that demand significantly improved conditions, supports, and strategies.  

Table 2: School-Level Averages for Schools with Racial Concentration (2016-17 data) 

  

# of Schools 

% of Students on 

Free or Reduced 

Lunch (FRL) 

Teachers’ Average Years of 

Experience 

% Proficient on 

SBAC ELA 

% Proficient on 

SBAC Math 

Majority African-American  3  82.7  5.6  17.4  9.4 

20

 

60%+ Latino  12  74.6  6.2  24.4  20.7 

60%+ Chinese  6  68.2  8.4  62  70.1 

Majority White  1  16.1  7.3  71.4  63.7 

 Identifying our Historically Underserved Schools The criteria to identify the historically underserved schools were based on the four critical factors discussed above: racial concentration, poverty, teacher experience, and academic performance. Cutoff points capture the bottom ten schools in the district.  These ten schools exhibit the following characteristics: 

● Over 75% of students in focal subgroups (African American, Hispanic/Latino or Samoan)  

● Over 70% of students on free or reduced lunch (FRL) ● Average teaching experience of less than 6 years ● Less than 30% proficiency rate in SBAC ELA or SBAC Math 

 Table 3 provides more detail on characteristics of the schools meeting these criteria: Bryant ES, Carver ES, Chavez ES, Drew ES, Harte ES, Malcolm X ES, Muir ES, Sanchez ES, Revere K-8, and Willie Brown MS.      

21

 

Table 3: Characteristics of Historically Underserved Schools (2016-17 data) 

  # of 

African- American Students 

% of Students in 

All Focal Groups 

% of Students on Free/ Reduced 

Lunch (FRL) 

Teachers’ Average Years of 

Experience 

% Proficient on 

SBAC ELA 

% Proficient on 

SBAC Math 

Brown MS  104  77.9  70.9  3.8  21  10 

Bryant ES  10  92.5  94.3  5.9  33  23 

Carver ES  99  91.7  74.2  5.6  13  10 

Chavez ES  5  90.6  82.5  5.9  12  17 

Drew ES  112  83.2  84.5  5.4  12  9 

Harte ES  53  90.6  75.8  5.8  8  11 

Malcolm X ES  52  87.5  89.5  5.7  27  40 

Muir ES  69  89.6  73.2  5.3  23  35 

Revere K-8  53  83.4  71.2  4.3  19/24  14/8 

Sanchez ES  10  85  72.0  4.7  15  15 

 All of the elementary schools in this list have shown up among the district’s lowest 15 schools at least 75% of the time for every year that the California Standardized Test (CST) or Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) ELA exam has been administered (2001-2013 and 2014-2016). This illustrates the continued history over which students at these schools have not been adequately served.  Together, these ten historically underserved schools represent 22% (N = 567) of the district’s African-American K-8 population. In order to substantively narrow the achievement gap and reach more equitable outcomes, we need to understand where the rest of our African-American students attend school and how those schools’ conditions affect their performance. The following sections examine this. 

    

22

 

III. Defining Achievement Gap Schools: High Equity Gap Schools  The achievement gaps also appear within schools. This section focuses on the second type of achievement gaps, ones that occur within a school between student groups. These High Equity Gap Schools exhibit the largest gaps in achievement between student groups. This section presents the context, criteria, and identification of schools in this set.    The historically underserved schools noted above represent one particularly glaring example of how inequities in race, class, and place of residence are perpetuated in the persistent achievement gap between schools. Yet there is also an achievement gap that exists within schools, when individual students are underserved relative to schoolmates of a different race or class, despite the school demonstrating success with other groups of students (Carter, 2010). These students may constitute a racial or ethnic minority in a school where schoolwide average performance masks systemic weaknesses.   Is School Choice a Viable Option? The presence of large black-white achievement gaps within schools raises the question of whether these schools are truly a desirable option for families of African-American students to choose. Although such a school’s average performance may seem appealing, its low success rate with African-American students reveals a cautionary tale for future African-American students who might consider it.  In some schools, the appearance of overall diversity may actually mask within-school segregation along racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and academic lines, whether through tracking, language pathways, or other program differences. These schools-within-schools merely replicate rather than solve the problems of segregation and achievement gaps in the district.  Inequity as a Minority The psychological experience of extreme inequity can also be harmful in itself, with damaging consequences for physical and mental health, happiness, and social cohesion (e.g., Buttrick & Oishi, 2017). While historically underserved schools highlight the challenges that accumulate from the concentration of multiple disadvantages in a single school community, schools with large achievement gaps become a microcosm for the inequity across the district. These schools bring into even starker relief the gaps in resources and opportunities available to different groups of people.  This becomes especially pernicious when combined with the experience of being a minority, through stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995), in which 

23

 

awareness of negative stereotypes attached to one’s identity or demographic group depresses performance. Continued implicit reminders of one’s minority and underperforming status can make progress even more challenging, in the absence of strong supports to explicitly counteract the stereotypes.  Instruction Gap In schools with high equity gaps, the experiences of underserved students illustrate not merely an achievement gap but rather an instruction gap, wherein otherwise effective instruction is not adequately targeted to reach all students. Some gaps become apparent when comparing the scores of the highest-performing and lowest-performing racial groups. These differential outcomes at high-equity-gap schools highlight the need for a more targeted approach, one that explicitly examines the influence of demographics in order to develop strategies to interrupt that influence.   Identifying High Equity Gap Schools These are schools that might excel with a certain group of students, but exhibit large disparities in outcomes between the highest- and lowest-performing racial groups. Based on the average of subgroups of student performance on the SBAC assessment over the last three years, the district identified sites with a difference of 50 percentage points or more in the proficiency rates between the highest- and lowest-performing racial group, which typically consisted of African-American students, in both ELA and Math.  Figure 6 depicts the achievement gaps at the schools meeting these criteria: Flynn ES, Ortega ES, Parks ES, Rooftop K-8, Aptos MS, Everett MS, King MS, Lick MS, Presidio MS, and Roosevelt MS. Together, these schools represent 23% (N = 579) of the district’s African-American K-8 population.   

24

 

  

 Figure 6: Gaps in SBAC Proficiency at High-Equity-Gap Schools 

 The graphs in Figure 7 show the students in the highest-performing and lowest-performing groups as two separate distributions, depicting the difference between their SBAC ELA scaled scores and the minimum proficiency score, along with the numbers of students at different score bands. All of them reveal a clear distinction in the two populations, with the exception of Presidio 

25

 

MS, where there is more overlap but still large numbers of African-American students across a wider range of lower scores. 

Figure 7: Distributions of Students' Performance on SBAC ELA for Students in Lowest-Performing (LPRG) and Highest-Performing Racial Group (HPRG) 

 Table 4 provides more detail on characteristics of the schools meeting these criteria. 

 Table 4: Characteristics of Schools with High Equity Gaps for SBAC ELA 

School  Enrollment  Subject Highest 

Performing Racial Group 

HPRG Count 

3-Year Average 

SBAC Proficiency 

Lowest Performing Racial Group 

LPRG Count 

3-Year Average 

SBAC Proficiency 

Aptos MS  988 ELA  White  133  73.7  African American  75  17.9 

Math  Asian  383  71.9  African American  74  13.4 

Everett MS  614 ELA  White  124  85.2  African American  40  21.3 

Math  White  126  78  African American  40  12.8 

Flynn ES  448 ELA  White  22  72  African American  23  9.1 

Math  White  22  56.5  African American  23  4 

King MS  503 ELA  Asian  214  60.2  African American  50  6.3 

Math  Asian  214  53.6  African American  49  1.8 

Lick MS  658 ELA  White  66  76.8  African American  43  10 

Math  White  66  63.8  African American  45  5.3 

Ortega ES  412 ELA  White  34  76.3  African American  27  17.4 

Math  Asian  90  74.4  African American  27  11.6 

26

 

Parks ES  486 ELA  White  32  82  African American  43  16.3 

Math  Asian  56  77.6  African American  43  7.1 

Presidio MS  1138 ELA  White  225  83.1  African American  48  28.8 

Math  Asian  535  77.4  African American  45  26.5 

Rooftop K8  593 ELA  White  60  86.2  Hispanic/Latino  41  27 

Math  White  60  86  Hispanic/Latino  41  27.7 

Roosevelt MS  703 ELA  White  126  80.4  African American  35  19.9 

Math  Asian  331  72.2  African American  35  10.8 

 Figure 8 shows the complete racial/ethnic breakdown for each of these schools. 

 Figure 8: Racial Composition of the High Equity-Gap Schools 

 The diversity at these schools, not just in students’ test score distributions and racial/ethnic backgrounds, but also in the schools’ structures, systems, and historical trajectories, provides a representative cross-section of different school conditions across the district. Examining the practices and outcomes at these schools gives us the opportunity to study the effects of a variety of conditions and strategies in action.  

    

27

 

IV. Other Schools with Equity Challenges  This section explores the distribution of students and their experiences at schools that do not fall into either of the above two sets (historically underserved schools or high equity-gap schools), namely: 

● students who are racially isolated at their schools and thus do not constitute a large enough racial group to appear on state reports, and 

● students at schools where racial minorities’ performance is reported but equity gaps are not as large. 

 Racial Isolation within Schools In some cases, minority groups may be too small for such differences to be reported. This is particularly relevant to elementary schools, due to their smaller student populations. For example, among students in elementary schools, 13% of African-American students, 0.5% of Latino students, and 72% of Pacific Islander students attend schools where they are racially isolated within their school, with fewer than 20 same-race peers, and are thus invisible from the state score reports. While our Latino students are becoming more racially concentrated at the same schools, our African-American students are increasingly experiencing racial isolation at their schools. As Figure 9 shows, 40 (or 63%) of our elementary schools have 20 or fewer African-American students, while only 5 (or 8%) of our elementary schools have 20 or fewer Latino students.  

 Figure 9: Elementary Schools by the Size of African-American and Latino 

Population   

Just as the experience of inequity becomes even more acute at the high equity-gap schools than at the historically underserved schools, the experience of minority status becomes more acute when students are racially isolated within their schools than at the high equity-gap schools. This exacerbates the issues that can result from stereotype threat, reduced feelings of belonging, and other differential experiences with the school culture.   

28

 

Other Underserved Schools Noting that the above three sets of schools represent in total 58% of the African-American student population, we still need to consider the experiences of the remaining 42% (N = 1,058) of students if we intend to close the achievement gap. The schools not yet counted have at least 20 African-American students, where the achievement gap is less than 50% but may still be large.  While these schools may not require the same level of concentrated attention merited by our historically underserved schools, high-equity-gap schools, and schools where students are racially isolated, many of the same strategies that are relevant elsewhere may be worth applying here as well. 

     

29

 

IV. Strategy to Guide Our Work  While many of the conditions leading to these enduring achievement gaps may come from broader society and historical context, the district still has considerable opportunity to rectify these inequities, as shown in the diagram below. 

 Figure 10. 

 Some possible approaches may include exploring policy changes, such as through modifying student assignment policies or teacher/leader assignment policies, in order to interrupt the systemic inequities that handicap our historically underserved schools.  Where the district may have more immediate leverage to redress inequities in the near term is in its deployment of resources and strategies at its schools. These efforts are based on a theory of improvement that builds on the “five essential supports” framework by Bryk et al. (2010) and the district’s strategic plan, as elaborated below.   

● Professional Capacity ○ Professional development, coaching ○ Additional support staff 

● Instructional Guidance ○ Differentiated instruction and services ○ Instructional time and engagement 

● Transforming Mindsets ○ Staff: Sense of belonging and safety; culturally responsive curriculum 

and pedagogy; high expectations ○ Students: Sense of belonging and safety; growth mindset 

● Collaborative Culture ○ Wraparound supports (school-community collaboration) 

30

 

○ Inclusive family and community engagement (school-family collaboration) 

○ Collaborative inquiry and planning structure (within-school collaboration) 

● High-Quality Staff ○ More experienced leadership ○ More experienced teachers 

 Analyzing the three paths of influence depicted in Figure 10 (above) according to this framework allows us to more closely examine inequities impacting student outcomes and the district’s role in offsetting them.   Predictive power of demographics Ample research has demonstrated that societal context influences student outcomes through family resources, language exposure, household stress, economic unpredictability, and numerous direct and indirect impacts on physical, emotional, and mental health (e.g., Evans & Schamberg, 2009; Son & Morrison, 2010; Ananat, Gassman-Pines, Francis, & Gibson-Pines, 2017). Systemic barriers to equity include historical deficits due to redlining, combined with disconnected services in the present. Such barriers leave many of our African-American families with unmet needs in financial and housing stability, health, and wellness. These challenges are further hindered by implicit bias and the accumulation of unfulfilled promises eroding community trust. The district’s school choice system presents another barrier, by concentrating poverty and maintaining racial segregation in schools that reflects residential segregation patterns.  As possible levers for change, the district may compensate for these societal inequities through additional supports. This may include providing more coordinated wraparound services to supplement resources available from the community, as well as building stronger trust and partnerships with the African-American community. The district may also strive to interrupt inequities in societal resource distribution by developing policies to stop concentrating poverty in our historically underserved schools and to promote greater racial/ethnic integration. To take advantage of the cognitive, social, and emotional benefits of racially and ethnically diverse schools for all students, SFUSD can learn from the efforts of over 90 districts and charter networks nationwide that utilize socioeconomic status in their student assignment policies (Potter, Quick, and Davies, 2016; Wells, Fox, & Cordova-Cobo, 2016).     

31

 

Resource allocation Societal context leads to inequitable allocation of resources when staff choose not to teach in high-poverty, minority schools. The lack of a stable, high-quality workforce has been clearly articulated as a major challenge for our historically underserved schools. Barriers include low perceptions of safety and belonging by staff at these schools, coupled with feeling isolated from the local community and from colleagues elsewhere in the district, and lack of perceived self-efficacy and professional supports for their success.  Here, the district may seek to compensate for inequities in its staff allocation, such as by providing additional professional development or support staff at historically underserved schools with less-experienced teachers or leaders. Related opportunities include deepening structures for teachers to engage in collaborative inquiry and planning together, and strengthening the instructional guidance system, both of which can be more difficult to establish in schools with high turnover and less-experienced staff. Deliberately building collegiality and community with other teachers both within and beyond their schools may also contribute to stronger ties and longer tenures. As previously noted, another route may be to interrupt the inequitable distribution of staff directly by allocating better prepared teachers and leaders to our historically underserved schools.  Deployment of resources Previous investigations have revealed other inequities in how resources get deployed. These are particularly relevant in schools with large equity gaps, where some subgroups of students remain underserved despite those schools generally having greater professional capacity, more experienced staff, and a stronger overall instructional guidance system, relative to our historically underserved schools.  Yet these cases reveal that there are still gaps in the instructional guidance system. Sometimes, students with individualized education plans (IEPs) may receive services from a novice special-education teacher with an emergency credential rather than a more experienced general-education teacher. Alternately, the classroom instruction may not correspond to the level of targeted support some students need, if the instruction is designed for the majority of the class without also providing additional supports for those few individuals. This may occur due to a lack of differentiation or a lack of available support staff for providing individual or small-group services. Another circumstance is that students may be physically present in class but not engaged in the classroom activities, effectively missing out on the instruction. Some students may be additionally handicapped by reduced access to out-of-school learning opportunities. 

32

 

 These gaps may be further exacerbated by barriers arising from implicit bias, as manifested through differential expectations for students and disproportionalities in referrals for discipline and special education.  This becomes particularly problematic when some students may lose instructional time due to absence, behavioral referrals, or other interruptions that remove them from class, but do not have systematic opportunities to gain access to the missed instruction.  Here again, one lever for change may be for the district to compensate for inequities in its instructional system, such as by developing more reliable systems for monitoring students’ learning needs and instructional services, improving differentiation of targeted and intensive supports, and increasing access to high-quality extended learning opportunities. Critical levers to interrupt inequities in deployment of resources include transforming mindsets to mitigate the effects of implicit bias, so that all staff demonstrate growth mindsets and high expectations (as “warm demanders”) for rigor, empowering student voice through active leadership of their learning. Directly combating stereotypes is another potential avenue, whether through curricula such as ethnic studies courses or through more informal interactions. An additional key opportunity is to equip all educators with the resources and skills to effectively utilize culturally responsive curriculum and pedagogy for all students.   Analyses to Guide Strategies Recognizing that our past resource allocation for our historically underserved schools has not closed the achievement gap, we should analyze those allocations and outcomes to determine what actual allocations would be needed to reach our desired outcomes. To this end, we would want to quantify the total resource allocation combined across multiple sources, from the district, from family contributions, and from community support. This information would guide the district in determining the level of resource allocation necessary to produce desired equitable outcomes at underserved schools, and comparing that to our actual current allocations.  By identifying schools that have demonstrated success for our focal groups of interest and the specific strategies they have implemented, the district can build on its own local successes and spread them more broadly. This can mirror the analysis identifying schools with high equity gaps. The district could potentially partner complementary schools to examine, adapt, and adopt each other’s successful strategies, or develop other collaborative models of improvement to learn from our own and others’ successes.  

 

33

 

   

34

 

References  Ananat, E.O., Gassman-Pines, A., Francis, D.V., & Gibson-Pines, C.M. (2017). 

Linking job loss, inequality, mental health, and education. Science, 356(6343), 1127-1128. doi: 10.1126/science.aam5347. 

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Buttrick, N. R., & Oishi, S. (2017). The psychological consequences of income inequality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(3). doi:10.1111/spc3.12304 

Carter, P. L. (2010). Race and cultural flexibility among students in different multiracial schools. Teachers College Record, 112(6), 1529-1574. 

Evans, G. W., & Schamberg, M. A. (2009). Childhood poverty, chronic stress, and adult working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(16), 6545-6549. 

Kelly, S., & Carbonaro, W. (2012). Curriculum tracking and teacher expectations: Evidence from discrepant course taking models. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 15(3), 271-294. 

Potter, H., Quick, K., & Davies, E. (2016). A new wave of school integration: Districts and charters pursuing socioeconomic diversity. The Century Foundation. 

Reardon, S.F., Robinson-Cimpian, J.P., and Weathers, E.S. (2015). Patterns and Trends in Racial/Ethnic and Socioeconomic Academic Achievement Gaps. In Helen A. Ladd & Margaret E. Goertz (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. 

Reardon, S.F. (2016). School Segregation and Racial Academic Achievement Gaps. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(5), 34–57. 

Son, S. H., & Morrison, F. J. (2010). The nature and impact of changes in home learning environment on development of language and academic skills in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1103. 

Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811. 

Wells, A. S., Fox, L., & Cordova-Cobo, D. (2016). How racially diverse schools and classrooms can benefit all students. The Education Digest, 82(1), 17. 

35