Friday, March 18, 2011

SFUSD March Placement Highlights

SFUSD March Placement Highlights is posted on SFUSD's updated enrollment website.

Good luck everyone!

P.S. Also note the media advisory notice for 11:30am-12:15pm today re: 14,347 placement offers being sent out.


  1. The most notable thing about the report, to me, is on pages 28-29. There, you'll see, for each school, what percentage of choice offers went to (a) siblings (broken out into those in and out of the attendance area), (b) CTIP1 applicants, and (c) attendance area applicants.

    If these %ages add up to 100%, that means that there were no offers made to non-sibling, non-CTIP1, non-attendance area applicants.

    Conversely, if it adds up to less than 100%, that means if you ranked the school on your list, and you were a sibling, CTIP1 or in the attendance area, you got in (to that school or some place you ranked higher).

    And, here's the part I was surprised by: there is only ONE elementary school (Drew) where the numbers add up to 100% (actually, they add up to 101%, which is a rounding error). So it's likely that some people in the Drew attendance area ranked Drew but couldn't get in.

    But (drum roll) if you like your attendance area school and that school is NOT Drew, the new system will serve you well - at least for 2011, you would have gotten in.

  2. I don't think the results are that positive or assuring. You would need to look at page 16 (and even page 15) as well as pages 28-29.

    Let's take Clarendon's #'s.... The total % on page 28 times # of openings = 88:

    Clarendon's lottery was run on 1797 requests on page 15.

    34% sibling non-attendance area * 88 = 30 slots. Aligns with the 30 1st choice requests on page 16

    11% sibling attendance area * 88 = 10 slots. Aligns with the 10 1st choice requests on page 16.

    36% CTIP1 * 88 = 32 slots vs. the 30 on page 16. In my interpretation, at least 2 CTIP1'ers that didn't have Clarendon listed as 1st choice got in over attendance area folks.

    10% attendance area (non sibling) * 88 = 9 vs. the 62 attendance area 1st choice and who knows what portion of the 1700+ others

    9% other * 88 = 8 vs. the 160 other 1st choice and who knows what portion of the 1700+ others

  3. For many over subscribed schools the attendance area provided a significant advantage for getting into that school. Take Miraloma: 60 slots, 34 sibs + 4 CTIP1 requests. Leaving 22 slots for others, of those 22, 2 went to CTIP1, 18 went to attendance area (47 requests, 22/47 - nearly 50% odds, much better than the previous lottery), and 2 went to outside the attendance area (45 requests - longer odds than before). So in this instance, being in the attendance area was advantageous.

    But if your attendance area school was popular with CTIP1 folks, then attendance area really didn't help much - as for Clarendon or Alvarado

  4. oops - math mistake - blame it on the long day and anxiety about tomorrow

    for attendance area for Miraloma it should be 18/47 - about 40% odds. Still respectable

  5. @12:24/6 AM, thanks for the breakdown, especially Miraloma numbers since that is our attendance area school and 1st choice. That 40% chance made me feel better until I saw the "All Offers" grid where it lists the breakdown by ethnicity.

    For us, our chances were significantly less since my son's race was only offered 2 or 3 slots (depending on how they round). And, these %'s include sibling and CTIP1.

    UGH! Is 8am to early for a few stiff drinks? =P

  6. @myself. Ack! I made a math mistake too! My ethnicity was only given 1 or 2 slots, not 2/3. [Putting the bottle of Jack away now...]

  7. I'll post this on Rachel's blog too in response to another comment.

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

    I do not know if attendance area help odds of getting vs. prior lottery's diversity index.

    For Clarendon's 9% other - It may be because JBBP was a city-wide and thus did not have an attendance area, so the 9% other went to densely populated.

  8. I'm the 8:07 person and FYI, WE GOT MIRALOMA!!! Woo-hoo!

  9. Congratulations, 8:07!

  10. Welcome to Miraloma, 8:07! Looking forward to meeting you at morning circle next year.

  11. Actually, the map on page 9 shows that only 2% of Drew's attendance area students listed Drew as their first choice.

    There's a lot of data in this report. I'd also like to see the overall numbers for school requests (what was the average number of schools listed), how many requests each school got, and the number of requests for immersion program by home language.

    If I missed any of these stats, can someone point them out?