Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
The civil grand jury report revives a long-standing debate about how to best assign students to schools. It suggests an overhaul that would redraw boundaries, resulting in neighborhood schools that pool from a larger area with students of different ethnicities, according to David Hartley, a juror who helped craft the report.
The current school-assignment process asks parents to fill out an application and list seven schools they’d like their child to attend. Through a lottery system based on socioeconomic factors, students are granted admission. Supporters of the system say that a large majority of families — this year 82 percent — get one of their choices. Critics point out that 18 percent received none of their choices for next school year during the first round of the assignments.
The district has struggled with how students should be assigned for decades. In 1983, a federal court ordered San Francisco to integrate the public schools, after the San Francisco chapter of the National Association of Colored People filed suit against the district and the state.
In 1991, a subsequent lawsuit claimed the district was discriminating against some parents when using race to assign schools. The result was a complex lottery system that places students based on a variety of factors, including a school’s academic performance, a student’s socioeconomic status and home language. The district is no longer bound by a federal court to have a system that integrates schools. The order was lifted in December 2005.
Many have been critical of the lottery system and parents find the process opaque and vexing — costing the district $2 million per year for a 29-person staff tasked to help parents apply for schools, according to Hartley. If the district removed its current lottery, it also could save $5 million per year busing students to schools across town, Hartley added.
However, changes to the system that everyone can agree upon have been difficult to find. Several student assignment task forces have been created in the last five years to study the problem and come up with solutions.
In addition to provoking the ire of parents, the existing assignment system is not succeeding in integrating schools.
By 2005, more than half of the SFUSD’s schools were “severely segregated,” according to a report from UCLA professor Stuart Biegel. Although district leaders and Board of Education members received the report Tuesday, most said they had not yet read it and wouldn’t comment on its contents.
“It seems to me they’re asking the district to take a serious look at the student-assignment system, and that’s what we’re already doing,” board President Mark Sanchez said.
Although the district has made no changes to its enrollment practices in two years, it will consider doing so this fall, after a new study on the existing system is completed, according to Sanchez.
By the numbers
For the 2008-2009 school year
55,000: Total number of students
7: Schools parents can list on their enrollment application
63%: Portion of families who received their first choice
82%: Portion of families who received one of their choices
18%: Portion of families who received none of their choices
Source: Parents for Public Schools
Timeline of events
A historical look at school enrollment within the San Francisco Unified School District: » 1978: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP, files a lawsuit against the San Francisco Unified School District and the California Department of Education on behalf of a group of black parents whose children had been assigned to racially segregated schools.
» 1983: The lawsuit is settled with a federal consent decree, or court order, which mandates reforms district must make to improve academic achievement and desegregate schools. District implements racial caps at schools that limit the number of students of one race to 45 percent.
» 1994: Families of several schoolchildren file a class-action lawsuit against the state, the school district and the NAACP challenging the consent decree as a denial of their rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
» 1999: The lawsuit is settled with an agreement that race will not be used in deciding school assignments.
» 2001: The consent decree is extended until Dec. 31, 2005, and a new assignment system is created that uses a “diversity index” which considers six socioeconomic factors — not including race — when assigning students to popular schools.
» 2005: A UC Los Angeles report on SFUSD’s assignment system concludes that there maintains “a pattern of continuing resegregation at close to half of the District schools since 1999.”
» 2005: Consent decree is closed on Dec. 31, by decision of a federal judge.
» 2007: In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-based public school enrollment plans in Seattle and Louisville, Ky.
» 2008: San Francisco civil grand jury recommends dismantling current enrollment-lottery system and reverting to offering families preference at neighborhood schools while redrawing school boundaries.



Comments from Examiner Readers
2:20 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 25, 2008 re: "Lottery for school assignment comes under fire"
Report as inappropriate
1:11 PM MST on Sat., Jun. 28, 2008
re: "Funds sinking alongside enrollment"
Report as inappropriate
12:30 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 26, 2008
re: "Lottery for school assignment comes under fire"
Report as inappropriate
12:30 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 26, 2008
re: "Lottery for school assignment comes under fire"
Report as inappropriate
7:37 AM MST on Thu., Jun. 26, 2008
re: "Lottery for school assignment comes under fire"
Report as inappropriate
11:17 AM MST on Tue., May. 20, 2008
re: "Lowell High named among nation’s best"
Report as inappropriate
miyoko said:
I just recieved a letter from SFUSD that they made an error and need to re assign my child to different school. This is only one month left before school starts. So outrageous. We already got involved with the school that we thought our daughe was going to. We met principle, teachers and all the parents and kids that involves in school. We paid non refundable tuition for afterschool program that the bus goes from there. We are sooo upset about SFUSD unproffesionalizm and poor organization skill. It is a big change for kids to attend a new school. We visited the school many times and organized play dates with new comers. We made a difficult decision picking a right afterschool program that bus goes to. Finally we are feeling comfortable for our child to start a new life at this new school. I hope that we can raise our voice.
3 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I think the writer may have missed a more interesting angle. According to the public data from the California Department of Education, San Francisco’s public high schools continue to be an entry point to the public school system rather than an exit point. To illustrate this point, here is the SFUSD’s enrollment data for the past several years, taken from the CDE website (www.cde.ca.gov): 2007-2008: 5,529 9th graders 2006-07: 6,030 9th graders and 3,982 8th graders 2005-06: 6,050 9th and 4,273 8th 2004-05: 5,438 9th and 4,196 8th Comparing any given year’s 8th grade SFUSD enrollment to the following year’s 9th grade SFUSD enrollment, it becomes clear than several hundred students ENTER the public school system for high school, presumably from private or parochial middle schools. The fact that, for each of the last three years, over 1,500 students ENTERED the SFUSD for 9th grade is a very significant and positive message about the quality of the public high schools
2 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Neighborhood Schools = Segregation said:
Odd that a city that prides itself on progressivism and projects itself as a paragon of diversity is so severely Balkanized. Calls emanating from some communities demanding "neighborhood schools" are thinly-veiled appeals for ethnic and class segregation. I attended hearings at the SFUSD a few years back and was shocked when some Chinese-American parents (frequently thru interpreters) insisted that they did not want their kids, described as model scholars who respected their parents and teachers and were hungry to learn, to study alongside black and Latino/Chicano children, characterized as brutal thugs with a profound aversion to discipline and education. I was shocked by their ignorance and racism, but perhaps not terribly surprised. Such scenarios once more expose San Francisco as a provincial little town rife with racialized tensions, despite its veneer of sophistication, urbanism and tolerance.
5 agree | 9 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Neighborhood Schools = Segregation said:
Odd that a city that prides itself on progressivism and projects itself as a paragon of diversity is so severely Balkanized. Calls emanating from some communities demanding "neighborhood schools" are thinly-veiled appeals for ethnic and class segregation. I attended hearings at the SFUSD a few years back and was shocked when some Chinese-American parents (frequently thru interpreters) insisted that they did not want their kids, described as model scholars who respected their parents and teachers and were hungry to learn, to study alongside black and Latino/Chicano children, characterized as brutal thugs with a profound aversion to discipline and education. I was shocked by their ignorance and racism, but perhaps not terribly surprised. Such scenarios once more expose San Francisco as a provincial little town rife with racialized tensions, despite its veneer of sophistication, urbanism and tolerance.
6 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The lottery system is not the answer. Maybe instead of busing children in order to integrate schools, we could reapply the $7 million saved to improve the low performing schools. ($5 million busing + $2 million staffing). Both my children were in the 37% that did not get into their first choice for school. That makes me less inclined to contribute any money to their school's requests for donations of $250 - $500/year.
5 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Lowell has always been the best high school the City has to offer. It's too bad the Stupid Board of Education looks at Lowell as the ugly step sister (e.g., no funding for improvements, always trying to canabalize the admission process, trying to fix things that aren't broken etc.).
13 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree