Sunday, August 24, 2014

Data: More Maps on Kindergarten Demand and Capacity

 As we wait for the end of the 10-day count/Round 5, here's a few more maps on kindergarten demand and capacity.









What AA schools are NOT wanted by their AA residents?

The next two maps show AAs where that people, include AA residents, overwhelmingly don't want to attend. They doesn't tell you anything about which schools that AA residents want to attend. That's because the maps include total requests, AA and non-AA, as a percentage of AA residents.  However, when the number of first choice requests is only a small percentage of AA residents, that means that few AA residents want their AA school.

A better map would have been the percentage of AA residents who listed their AA school in their top 3 choices. This was as close as I could get with the available data.


Total 1st choice requests from all applicants (AA and non-AA),as a percentage of AA applicants

Total top 3 choice requests from all applicants (AA and non-AA), as a percentage of AA residents






Monday, August 18, 2014

Openings at your child's school (Kindergarten or otherwise!)

As some parents are anxiously waiting to get calls from SFUSD and get off the waitlist for their dream school it seemed a good time to start a dialogue regarding any openings at your kids school.  Please feel free to post and share if there are openings at your school; what grade, what program, etc.

Good luck all!

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Data: Attendance Areas' Residents per Kindergarten Seat

The discussion about Clarendon AA got me thinking about attendance area schools and what their real capacity is.

I've always found SFUSD's map below to be an odd way of looking at AA capacity. To calculate AA capacity, it uses all kindergarten seats that are geographically in the AA, including citywide programs.   For Clarendon's AA, which contains Alice Fong Yu and Rooftop, this is clearly misleading. (Source: SFUSD's 3rd Annual Report on School Assignment, page 39)

Below is the capacity for each attendance area, based on AA seats alone, and an edited map. Who's the most screwed? Residents of Webster, Cleveland and Monroe AAs, each with over 100 residents and just 22 AA spots. None of these AAs are CTIP1, so they have no priority elsewhere.


Edited:  Kindergarten applicants living in each attendance area relative to
kindergarten capacity of attendance area seats
Do attendance areas have the capacity to accomodate Kindergarten residents? Map.

SCHOOLS WITH AA RESIDENTS  > 200% of AA SEATS, 2013-14

SCHOOL AA Resident
% of AA seats
AA residents  AA
seats
Citywide programs
in AA (seats)
Approx
how much
of the AA is CTIP1?
Webster 651% 143 22 ImmS (44), Carmichael (SB 22, FB 22, GE 44)
Cleveland 594% 131 22 SB (44)
Monroe 506% 111 22 CB (22), ImmS (44), SF Community (33),
Moscone 465% 102 22 CB (22), SB (22), Marshall (ImmS 44) All
Bryant 422% 93 22 SB (22) Almost all
Carver 402% 177 44
All
Serra 396% 87 22 SB (22)
Drew 364% 160 44
Under 1/4
Sutro 354% 78 22 CB (22),
Lilienthal (ImmK 22, GE 66)

Harte 354% 78 22 ImmS (22) Almost all
Starr King 324% 71 22 ImmM (44) Almost all
Flynn 293% 129 44 ImmS (44),
Revere (ImmS 40, GE 20), 

Visitacion Valley 284% 187 66 CB (22) Half
Malcolm X 270% 54 20
Almost all
Taylor 265% 117 44 CB (44), SB (22)
Alvarado 262% 115 44 ImmS (44) A few blocks
Clarendon 260% 114 44 JBBP (44), AFY (66), Rooftop (66)
Longfellow 260% 114 44 SB (22), FB (22?)
Hillcrest 244% 98 40 CB (20), SB (20)
Chavez 219% 96 44 SB (44), Buena Vista (60),  Almost all
Parks 208% 83 40 JBBP (40) Half
Muir 206% 41 20 SB (20) Half


SCHOOLS WITH AA APPLICANTS BETWEEN 120-199% of AA SEATS, 2013-14

SCHOOL AA
Resident
% of
AA seats
AA
 residents 
AA
seats
Citywide programs
in AA (seats)
Approx
how much
of the AA is
CTIP1?
Glen Park 198% 87 44 SB (22), Fairmount (66)
New Traditions 195% 86 44
a quarter
Sheridan 180% 79 44

Tenderloin 177% 117 66
Half
Sanchez 171% 75 44 SB (22) a quarter
Parker 164% 36 22 CB
Milk 161% 71 44
Under 1/4
Stevenson 158% 104 66/88* Lawton (66)
McCoppin 147% 65 44 CB (22)
Miraloma 144% 86 60

Argonne 141% 93 66/88*

El Dorado 141% 93 66

Sunnyside 135% 89 66

Ulloa 129% 85 66 CB (22)
Guadalupe 129% 85 66 SB (22)
Alamo 129% 114 88

Ortega 128% 56 44 ImmM (22)
Spring Valley 123% 27 22 CB (22), SB (22)
Lau 120% 53 44 CB (66)
Cobb 120% 53 44

* Argonne and Stevenson alternate between 66 students one year and 88 the next.
   In 2013, both schools had 66 students.


SCHOOLS WITH AA APPLICANTS  < 120% OF AA SEATS, 2013-14

SCHOOL AA
Resident
% of
AA seats
AA
 residents 
AA
seats
Citywide programs
in AA (seats)
Approx
how much
 of the AA is
CTIP1?
Lafayette 119% 105 88

West Portal 119% 78 66 ImmC (33)
Garfield 118% 26 22 ImmC (22)
Wo 116% 51 44

Grattan 115% 76 66

Sherman 113% 75 66 Montessori (44)
Jefferson 113% 99 88

Peabody 111% 49 44

Sloat 106% 70 66

Key 99% 87 88

Sunset 87% 57 66

Feinstein 85% 75 88

McKinley 82% 54 66 CIS (66)
Redding 82% 36 44
a quarter
Chin 76% 17 22 CB (22)
Lakeshore 69% 61 88


Total K seats
2666
AA seats
1826 
citywide seats

CB - Chinese biliteracy pathway, for native Chinese speakers
SB - Spanish biliteracy pathway, for native Spanish speakers
ImmC - Cantonese Immersion
ImmM - Mandarin Immersion
ImmS - Spanish Immersion
JBBP - Japanese Bilingual Bicultural Program
FB - Filipino FLES
How the numbers were calculated:
AA applicants =  % from the SFUSD map x the number of seats at all schools in the AA
AA Resident % of AA seats = AA applicants/AA seats



Sources: 
Five year Demand Comparison - 2005-2010 - for K-12 schools that used to be on PPSSF's Historical Demand page, enrollment  data from Dataquest, and the size and racial breakdown of schools' individual K classrooms from California Department of Education's Staff and course data.
CTIP1 area for AA:  Above map and the revised CTIP1 areas from the 8/2013 post of Rachel Norton's blog.


Why so many citywide seats and so few AA seats?

Language pathways account for 80% of these citywide seats and a third of all kindergarten seats. Of the citywide seats, only 40% are open to monolingual English speakers: about 340 general education seats at Montessori and K-8 schools, and 400 seats for JBBP, Filipino FLES, and English-only speakers in language immersion.

Why so many language pathway seats? 

Three words: Lau v. Nichols.

In 1974, in this landmark civil rights case, the Supreme Court ruled that SFUSD was violating the civil rights of 1,800 monolingual Chinese students by teaching only in English, without any special effort to help them learn English. SFUSD agreed to provide bilingual education as part of the Lau consent decree.  The effects of this ruling are still with us today in the Lau Action Plan

SFUSD still has many students whose first language is not English, and as of 2009, it was still being monitored by the Department of Justice to make sure it was in compliance with the Lau consent decree. 

Next up:  Racially homogeneous elementary schools. Looking at the latest K-2 data, the number of elementary schools with over 60% of their K-2 enrollment from a single ethnic/racial group has declined by 5 in the last 2 years. 

Monday, August 11, 2014

Last Call: Round 5 Best Bets

The August 8, 2014 wait pool list for SFUSD is out. Here are the schools sorted by the ratio of waitpool applicants to kindergarten seats.  The deadline to change your wait pool school is August 15.

The big news: the Argonne wait pool has cleared.  Clarendon and Miraloma AA residents, have hope! Last year both schools had enough spots for the AA residents left in the waitpool for Round 5, in part because of students not allowed to enroll because of address fraud. At Clarendon, one kindergarten seat didn't fill until January. Correction: Clarendon's AA waitpool did not clear, although there were quite a few AA applicants who were offered spots during the first 10 days of school.  But it did look like Miraloma's AA waitpool cleared. 

2014-15 WAIT POOLS as of 8/8/2014

The number of kindergarten seats per school/program are based on SFUSD's reported number of seats per school for Round 1 and enrollment by grade from DataQuest. For the language programs, I assumed a ratio of 9 English to 13 target language spots.

General Education

No waitpool/possible openings (bold indicates that the waitpool has cleared from Round 1): Argonne,  Bryant, Carver, Chavez, Cleveland, Drew, El Dorado, Flynn, Garfield, Harte, Lau, Malcolm X, McCoppin, Muir, Parker, Redding, Revere, Serra, Sheridan, Spring Valley, Starr King, Tenderloin, Webster, Vis Valley.

School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Seats
GUADALUPE GE 1 66 2%
CARMICHAEL GE 1 66? 2%
LONGFELLOW GE 2 44 5%
ALAMO GE 2 91 2%
PARKS GE 1 44 2%
LAKESHORE GE 3 88 3%
STEVENSON GE 3 88 3%
ORTEGA GE 2 44 5%
SANCHEZ GE 1 44 2%
LAFAYETTE GE 4 88 5%
MILK GE 3 44 7%
NEW TRADITIONS GE 3 44 7%
ULLOA GE 5 66 8%
FEINSTEIN GE 8 92 9%
SUTRO GE 2 22 9%
KEY GE 8 88 9%
SF COMMUNITY GE 3 33 9%
CHIN GE 2 22 9%
GLEN PARK GE 4 44 9%
JEFFERSON GE 9 90 10%
WEST PORTAL GE 7 69 10%
HILLCREST GE 5 40 13%
YICK WO GE 5 44 11%
LAWTON GE 9 67 13%
MCKINLEY GE 11 69 16%
MIRALOMA GE 10 60 17%
ROOFTOP GE 12 69 17%
MONROE GE 4 22 18%
MOSCONE GE 4 22 18%
PEABODY GE 8 44 18%
SUNSET GE 13 67 19%
SLOAT GE 13 66 20%
SUNNYSIDE GE 13 66 20%
LILIENTHAL GE 14 66 21%
SHERMAN GE 17 67 25%
ALVARADO GE 12 44 27%
MONTESSORI GE 6 44 14%
GRATTAN GE 19 67 28%
TAYLOR GE 15 44 34%
CLARENDON GE 21 44 48%


FLES (Foreign Language in Elementary School)

School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Seats
LONGFELLOW FB FB None 22 -
CARMICHAEL FB FB None 22? -
PARKS JBBP JB 2 40 5%
CLARENDON JBBP JB 12 44 27%
FB= Tagalog, JB=Japanese


Cantonese Immersion

English spots
School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Seats
GARFIELD CE None 9 of 22 -
WEST PORTAL CE 3 13 of 33 23%
YU CE - monolingual English* 13 44 of 66? 30%
CIS CE 9 27 of 66 33%
YU CT-not monolingual English 14 22 of 66? 64%
* For Alice Fong Yu, CE refers to students who only listed English as a home language on their application. Students who listed any language other than English on the application are considered "CT."

A glowing review of Garfield from an English speaking parent can be found at
http://www.greatschools.org/california/san-francisco/6370-Garfield-Elementary-School/

Cantonese spots
School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Seats
GARFIELD CN None 13 of 22 -
CIS CN None 39 of 66 3%
WEST PORTAL CN 7 20 of 33? 35%
CN=passed the Cantonese proficiency test.

CIS has no wait pool for Cantonese proficient spots, so more English spots may open up in Round 5.

Mandarin Immersion

English spots
School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Seats
STARR KING ME None 18 of 44 -%
ORTEGA ME 8 9 of 22 89%

Mandarin spots
School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Spots
STARR KING MN None 26 of 44 -
ORTEGA MN 3 13 of 22 23%


Korean Immersion

School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Seats
LILIENTHAL English (KE) 4 9 of 22 44%
LILIENTHAL Korean (KN) None 13 of 22 -


Spanish Immersion

English spots
School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Seats
HARTE SE None9 of 22 -
MARSHALL SE None 18 of 44 -
REVERE SE None 16 of 40 -
FLYNN SE 3 18 of 44 17%
MONROE SE 4 18 of 44 22%
FAIRMOUNT SE 6 27 of 66 22%
BUENA VISTA/MANN SE 10 24 of 60 42%
ALVARADO SE 9 18 of 44 50%
WEBSTER SE 10 18 of 44 56%

Harte, Revere and Webster have no wait pool for Spanish proficient spots, so more English spots may open up. For those considering Harte, a glowing parent review is at: http://phile.com/user/SweetMedicine

Spanish proficient spots
School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Seats
WEBSTER SN - 26 of 44 -
REVERE SN - 24 of 40 -
HARTE SN - 13 of 22 -
FAIRMOUNT SN 1 39 of 66 3%
FLYNN SN 2 26 of 44 8%
MONROE SN 2 26 of 44 8%
BUENA VISTA SN 5 36 of 60 14%
ALVARADO SN 4 26 of 44 15%
MARSHALL SN 8 26 of 44 31%

Never Say Die Strategies

For Round 5, the percentage of students who register but don't show up on the first 3 days of school varies by race/ethnicity. Of the kindergarteners who registered for a spot and did not show up on the first day of school, 40% were white.  Kindergarteners of "Other" race/ethnicity were the most likely not to show up to their kindergarten assignment (35%),  followed by White kindergarteners (25%), non-Chinese Asians (17%), and Latinos and African Americans  (13%). Chinese applicants are the least likely (11%).

This suggests that if you have the fortitude to hold out until the last day to get in off the wait pool, your chances will be higher at, say, Lilienthal than at Alice Fong Yu.
Source: SFUSD First Annual Report on Student Assignment for the 2011-12 School Year, 3/5/2012


Sunday, July 27, 2014

In Defense of CTIP1

In her blog, Rachel Norton discusses potential changes to tiebreaker rankings of attendance areas and CTIP1.

I don't have strong feelings about CTIP1, but I do think there are arguments for prioritizing CTIP1 that haven't been discussed. Here's a devil's argument for CTIP1.

Taking the long-view: CTIP1 vs Attendance Areas (AA) 

As we've seen, SF's residential neighborhoods tend to be racially and socioeconomically segregated, and this is one of the barriers to school integration.

Prioritizing CTIP1 over AA creates greater incentive for families to live in neighborhoods with less desired schools, typically poorer neighborhoods. This tends to increase real estate and rental costs in those neighborhoods. Long-term, this promotes more socioeconomically mixed neighborhoods, making school integration less difficult over the long term.

Placing AA before CTIP1 increases incentive for families to live in attendance areas of desired schools, typically more affluent neighborhoods. This tends to increase real-estate and rental costs in these neighborhoods.  Over a time frame of decades, this promotes socioeconomic and racial segregation of residential neighborhoods, making school integration more difficult. Oakland is an example of this.

Since the school board has to take the long view, it makes sense that they've chosen to give CTIP1 precedence over AA.

There are arguments against CTIP1 as an incentive for residential integration. It can work to gentrify neighborhoods, forcing out low-income and middle-income families. One can argue that using CTIP1 to promote residential integration is social engineering outside the purview of the school board.


Can we tease out the short-term effects of CTIP1 from cuts to school buses?

As KH has commented on Rachel Norton's blog, other factors such as the availability of school buses and late start times are also factors in  what schools low-income families choose

Because CTIP1 was implemented at the same time that SFUSD busing was cut dramatically, it's hard to assess the effect of CTIP1 at a district level. A more accurate picture would be to look at the combined effects of CTIP1 and busing cuts on enrollment. It's reasonable to think that the availability of school buses affects school choices for low-income CTIP1 residents more than for high-income CTIP1 residents.


The Case of Clarendon

Clarendon AA residents have been screwed in the SFUSD lottery for years. CTIP1 is only one of several reason for this. First, Clarendon used to be a citywide school. Even after it became an AA school, younger siblings of non-AA residents from its citywide days still trumped AA residents.

JBBP
JBBP is a citywide language program, and Clarendon 2nd Community (AA) siblings are not given a tiebreaker preference for it. However, the way I read the tiebreaker rules, JBBP siblings have sibling preference for both programs at Clarendon.

Swaps
Because Clarendon is so popular, AA applicants who get Clarendon can swap to a higher ranked school. The ratio of AA applicants who enroll at a higher-ranked school to those who enroll at Clarendon is about 4:1 (SFUSD 3rd Annual Report on School Assignment, p 39).  The younger siblings of the non-AA residents who swap into Clarendon also get precedence, trumping future AA applicants. This means that Clarendon will always have a significant group of non-AA students.

One could limit CTIP1 offers to a certain percentage at Clarendon. A short-term effect is that younger siblings in CTIP1 would take up all the allocated slots for the next few years, so essentially no one from CTIP1 would get into Clarendon unless they swapped in.

Giving more preference to AA residents over CTIP1 would keep Clarendon residents from getting screwed in the lottery. But because a minority of Clarendon AA applicants request Clarendon as a first choice, it might not significantly increase the percentage of AA students at Clarendon. Because of the swap, it might mostly increase the number of non-CTIP1 students who swap in from other areas.


A proposal

What if CTIP1 residents who enroll at a highly requested school as kindergarteners had to maintain a verified CTIP1 status for a set number of years, say 5 years (K-4), to maintain their enrollment at the school? Those who moved out of CTIP1 would have to re-apply for the next year without CTIP1 status. This would also discourage address fraud.

CTIP1 status would only needed to be verified for the most popular schools--as we know, most students with CTIP1 status choose to attend less popular schools within/near CTIP1 where capacity exceed demand. You could have the obvious exceptions for Ellis Act evictions, changing of CTIP1 boundaries, etc.

This would keep families from moving to a CTIP1 neighborhood for a year, then leaving, without any commitment to that neighborhood.  If a family is willing to move to a CTIP1 neighborhood and stay part of it for 5 years, I don't see that as gaming the system.