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.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Round 4 Best Bets for 2014-15

This is an updated version of 2013-14 Round 4 Best Bets posted last year. The deadline to change your waitpool school is 7/25/2014.

Here are the latest kindergarten waitpools, sorted by the ratio of waitpool applicants to kindergarten seats. The number of kindergarten seats per school/program are my best guess, 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.

Some interesting changes compared to last year. It looks like SFUSD increased the reported capacity of schools with 3 or more classes per grade for Round 1. For example, Alamo's capacity is 91, Feinstein's is 92, and Jefferson's is 90, compared to 86, 87 and 85 respectively for 2013-14. Rooftop, McKinley and West Portal all have 69 students. If these schools were filled to the reported capacity, class size would be 23 students, not 22.

What's going on? I speculate that SFUSD is overenrolling students in earlier rounds, counting on a few students not to show up on the first day of school. Will this mean less movement during the 10-day count?


2014-15 WAIT POOLS as of 7/18/2014

General Education

No waitpool/possible openings: Carmichael, Carver, Chavez, Cleveland, Drew, El Dorado, Garfield, Guadalupe, Harte, Lau, Malcolm X, McCoppin, Muir, Ortega, Parker, Parks, Redding, Revere, Sanchez, Serra, Sheridan, Spring Valley, Starr King, Tenderloin, Vis Valley.

School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Spots
ARGONNE GE 1 92 1%
FLYNN GE 1 44 2%
HILLCREST GE 1 44 2%
LONGFELLOW GE 2 88 2%
REDDING GE 1 44 2%
ALAMO GE 3 91 3%
LAKESHORE GE 3 88 3%
BRYANT GE 1 22 5%
WEBSTER GE 1 22 5%
LAFAYETTE GE 5 88 6%
STEVENSON GE 5 88 6%
ULLOA GE 4 66 6%
FEINSTEIN GE 7 92 8%
JEFFERSON GE 7 90 8%
MILK GE 4 44 9%
SUTRO GE 2 22 9%
KEY GE 9 88 10%
YICK WO GE 5 44 11%
WEST PORTAL GE 8 69 12%
SF COMMUNITY GE 4 33 12%
CHIN GE 3 22 14%
GLEN PARK GE 6 44 14%
NEW TRADITIONS GE 6 44 14%
MIRALOMA GE 9 60 15%
ROOFTOP GE 11 69 16%
LAWTON GE 11 67 16%
SUNSET GE 12 67 18%
ALVARADO GE 8 44 18%
MONROE GE 4 22 18%
MOSCONE GE 4 22 18%
PEABODY GE 8 44 18%
MCKINLEY GE 13 69 19%
LILIENTHAL GE 14 66 21%
SLOAT GE 14 66 21%
SUNNYSIDE GE 14 66 21%
MONTESSORI GE 5 22 23%
SHERMAN GE 17 67 25%
GRATTAN GE 18 67 27%
TAYLOR GE 15 44 34%
CLARENDON GE 27 44 61%


FLES (Foreign Language in Elementary School)

School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Spots
LONGFELLOW FB FB None 22 -
CARMICHAEL FB FB None 22? -
PARKS JBBP JB 2 44 5%
CLARENDON JBBP JB 11 44 25%
FB= Tagalog, JB=Japanese


Cantonese Immersion

English spots
School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Spots
GARFIELD CE None 9 of 22 -
YU CE - monolingual English* 13 44 of 66? 30%
WEST PORTAL CE 4 13 of 33 31%
CHINESE IMMERSION CE 10 27 of 66 37%
YU CT-not monolingual English 15 22 of 66? 68%
* 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."


Cantonese spots
School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Spots
GARFIELD CN 13 of 22 -
CHINESE IMMERSION CN 1 39 of 66 3%
WEST PORTAL CN 7 20 of 33? 35%
CN=passed the Cantonese proficiency test.


Mandarin Immersion

English spots
School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Spots
STARR KING ME 4 18 of 44 22%
ORTEGA ME 9 9 of 22 100%

Mandarin spots
School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Spots
STARR KING MN None 26 of 44 -
ORTEGA MN 5 13 of 22 38%


Korean Immersion

School Prg Wait
Pool
  Kindergarten
  Capacity 
Waitpool
as a %
  of K Spots
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 Spots
HARTE SE None9 of 22 -
MARSHALL SE 1 18 of 44 6%
REVERE SE 1 18 of 44 6%
FLYNN SE 3 18 of 44 17%
MONROE SE 4 18 of 44 22%
FAIRMOUNT SE 7 27 of 66 26%
BUENA VISTA/MANN SE 10 27 of 66 37%
ALVARADO SE 8 18 of 44 44%
WEBSTER SE 12 18 of 44  67%

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 Spots
WEBSTER SN - 26 of 44 -
REVERE SN - 26 of 44 -
HARTE SN - 13 of 22 -
FAIRMOUNT SN 3 39 of 66 8%
FLYNN SN 2 26 of 44 8%
MONROE SN 2 26 of 44 8%
BUENA VISTA SN 5 39 of 66 13%
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%), but there are not many of them. White kindergarteners are the next most likely (25%), followed by non-Chinese Asians (17%), then 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, 14 days after school starts, your chances would be higher at, say, Lilienthal than at Alice Fong Yu. McKinley and Lakeshore were mentioned in the 2011 report as two schools that had a high number of students not showing up on the first day of school.
Source: SFUSD First Annual Report on Student Assignment for the 2011-12 School Year, 3/5/2012


Monday, July 21, 2014

SFUSD Updated Wait Pools Available

A reader noted in the comments that SFUSD has released the most recent waitpool numbers for 2014-2015. If you're looking for that information, you can find it here:

http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/enroll/files/2014-15/2014-15_wait_pool_list_071814.pdf

We couldn't help but notice that Argonne is down to only one student in the Kindergarten waitpool. I am guessing that is because (as a reader noted in the comments) Argonne started the school year earlier than the other schools. I don't know exactly how it works, but if I recall, Argonne has 3 or 4 K classes and I wonder if kids ever start kindergarten at Argonne in the summer but shift in the fall to another school if a spot opens up--might be something to investigate if you're still without a spot for a kindergartner on August 18 or a couple of days after. I've heard great things about Argonne.

Another striking number that jumped out at us: the huge waitpools for middle school grades. Wow!

Anyone else notice anything interesting in the numbers?