Monday, August 01, 2005

SFUSD resegregation & 10 'unresolved issues' from 2005 consent decree report

SFUSD's 10 Key Unresolved Issues under the Terms and Conditions of the Decree
From Consent Decree Monitor Stuart Biegel's 22nd Anual Monitoring Report
filed August 1, 2005

Biegel Report # 22 - August 1, 2005

1. Low academic achievement at certain chronically low performing schools.
2. The inability of certain other schools to sustain gains that were originally achieved under the Decree.
3. A pattern of continuing resegregation at close to half of the District schools since 1999, and an inability to identify and implement adjustments in the student assignment plan that could address this resegregation to the extent practicable.
4. A persistent gap between the academic performance of African American and Latino students overall and the performance of the District as a whole, and an inability to define a vision and reach goals that could address this gap to the extent practicable.
5. An inability to confront the crisis that is evident within the African American community in San Francisco, a crisis that is reflected in highly troubling numbers on a range of traditional objective indicators and shows little sign of dissipating.
6. An ongoing lack of compliance with the Paragraph 12 within-school desegregation mandate of the Decree, resulting in a persistently different, less challenging curriculum for students in certain racially identifiable and socioeconomic-status-identifiable programs and classrooms.
7. Continuing issues regarding inequitable distribution of Consent Decree funds, with many schools that evidence the greatest needs in this context still receiving significantly less money than other, higher performing schools. Also, continued evidence of inappropriate allocation of these funds by administrators at certain school sites.
8. An inability to develop and maintain District-wide professional development programs that address the basic requirements of Paragraph 36 and convey basic Consent Decree principles and Philosophical Tenets to teachers and school site administrators.
9. Substantially different approaches and ineffective efforts regarding school discipline from school site to school site, resulting in a continuing lack of compliance with the mandate of Paragraph 38.
10. Vestiges of segregation, present in the District prior to 1978, that are reflected in both the continuing existence of low expectations for low income students of color and in the segregative nature of many District programs, particularly in the area of special education.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Dr. Ackerman did a splendid job with the Dream Schools. These schools effectively addressed the achievement gap.

Eric Mar was hostile towards Dr. Ackerman because the goal of the Board has never been to level the playing field but rather to maintain the gap and allow Asian students to attend schools in their neighborhoods. He sponsored the parent picketers.