+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1

    Revising CTIP1 areas for 2014-2015 SFUSD enrollment

    From Rachel Norton's blog:
    There will be some minor changes to the CTIP 1 areas for the 2014-15 enrollment season. Our demographers have incorporated changes to census tracts from the 2010 census, and based on that have been able to refine some of the CTIP 1 census tract areas. Several tracts in the Western Addition and one in the Bayview will be reclassified as non-CTIP1; another tract in the Tenderloin will become a CTIP 1 tract.

    I learned more about how we actually determine the “average test score” for each census tract. It’s an average of all scores posted over seven years. So let’s say Student A is enrolled in SFUSD and took the test five out of the seven years averaged, while Student B was enrolled in SFUSD and took the test three out of the seven years averaged. Student C was enrolled in SFUSD and took the test seven out of the seven years averaged. That gives us a total of 15 test scores out of seven years to average — as opposed to three or fewer scores in any given year to average. According to our demographers, they are confident this gives us a less random and more stable average test score figure to use.

    When we analyze the people who are using the CTIP preference, it appears that the vast majority are African American and Latino. Based on figures presented this evening, five percent of CTIP 1 applicants are white and nine percent are Chinese. 44 percent are Latino and 25 percent are African-American.

    Interestingly, there is one census tract – 230.3, in the Bayview neighborhood (again, look at the presentation — it gives you a detailed map) that has increased so high in achievement that it no longer qualifies as CTIP 1 (or CTIP 2 or 3 for that matter). Most of the students from that census tract are Chinese students who have chosen schools that are higher-performing than the school they would have been assigned in their neighborhood.

    The demographers have also updated their enrollment forecasts to take into account the building boom that San Francisco is currently experiencing. These forecasts predict that we will continue to experience enrollment growth in areas where affordable or below market rate housing is being built — a tiny bit in Mission Bay but mostly in Bayview, Hunters Point and other HOPE SF projects. This is a pattern that –according to our demographers–is visible in most urban areas and/or areas where there is a wide disparity in income –affordable housing yields much more public school enrollment than market rate housing. By contrast, areas (like suburban areas) that have more income-level homogeneity or uniformly high test scores regardless of income do not exhibit this pattern of public school enrollment. In other words, in areas where test scores are uniformly high, everyone goes to public school, regardless of income. But in areas where there are very affluent and very low-income people, and a corresponding disparity in test scores, people who cannot afford market rate housing go to public school; people who live in market rate housing either do not have children or do not send those children to public school. I’m curious to hear how families who are “on the bubble” interpret this phenomenon — it’s also important to note that even our demographers admit that their forecasts would be wildly inaccurate should this observed pattern — residents of market rate housing don’t send their children (if they have any) to public school — shift suddenly in San Francisco. And shouldn’t we want it to? How would we — San Franciscans — make such a shift come about?

    Finally, the demographers have uncovered a trend they say is “unprecedented” in their previous analyses of SFUSD data. More high school students are staying in school and fewer are being held back for lack of credits — this will greatly affect our forecasts for high school enrollment in future years. The demographers (and board members in attendance) urged the district to conduct an internal analysis to understand why our high school attendance/enrollment patterns have changed so dramatically in such a short time.

    Presenatation: revisingctip1_august-14-2013.pdf

  2. #2

    ctip1 vs ctip3

    hello - thanks for the update.

    i read through the presentation re: updates to the ctip1 areas for 2014-2015, and i am directly impacted by this change, as i will be going thru the application/enrollment process for my daughter next year. my block was shifted from ctip1 to ctip3; does this mean she will not be eligible for the tie-breaker at all, or will ctip1s get preference, then ctip2s and ctip3s?

    i also noticed that our districted school hasn't changed at all, so i don't quite understand how a block in a neighborhood that is districted to a certain school can move out of ctip status when it's still assigned to the same elementary school.

    any info you can provide is greatly appreciated!

    thanks!

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by mbg1973 View Post
    hello - thanks for the update.

    i read through the presentation re: updates to the ctip1 areas for 2014-2015, and i am directly impacted by this change, as i will be going thru the application/enrollment process for my daughter next year. my block was shifted from ctip1 to ctip3; does this mean she will not be eligible for the tie-breaker at all, or will ctip1s get preference, then ctip2s and ctip3s?

    i also noticed that our districted school hasn't changed at all, so i don't quite understand how a block in a neighborhood that is districted to a certain school can move out of ctip status when it's still assigned to the same elementary school.

    any info you can provide is greatly appreciated!

    thanks!

    mbg1973 - bummer to hear that you're negatively impacted by the CIP1 boundary change. Having the CTIP1 tiebreaker almost guarantees you a spot at any of your top choices. Now, your tiebreaker is only for your attendance area school, but after the siblings and CTIP1s have had their picks.

    Does that make sense?

  4. #4
    miamomsf - thanks for your response. this does make sense and is a total bummer, as we won't be putting our attendance area school on our application at all do you know/understand the rationale for the revised boundaries? i've re-read the initial post several times and am not really understanding how one block can shift status when i know there aren't many kids living on said block.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by mbg1973 View Post
    miamomsf - thanks for your response. this does make sense and is a total bummer, as we won't be putting our attendance area school on our application at all do you know/understand the rationale for the revised boundaries? i've re-read the initial post several times and am not really understanding how one block can shift status when i know there aren't many kids living on said block.
    From what I understand without reading the report itself, the district reviews the test scores every so often for the different attendance areas and move them up or down the CTIP scale accordingly. Unfortunately for you, the few kids on the block or surrounding blocks scored high enough that the area gets bumped up to CTIP3. The goal is to give CTIP1 kids access to better schools so this review process tries to prevent people from gaming the system too much.

  6. #6
    I think most of the boundaries are defined by the census maps. I have one friend whose house was on the boundary. He found out that his side of the street was not CTIP1, but the houses across the street are. It drove him nuts when his kids got none of the schools chosen. Yes, his kids are currently in private school...

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts