Overview of Desegregation Cases in SFUSD
   中文 | En Español

1983 to 2000: Optional Enrollment Process (17 years)

2001-2002 School Year: Random Computerized Process (1 year)

 中文 | En Español

OVERVIEW OF DESEGREGATION CASES IN SFUSD

BACK TO TOP

In 1978, the SFNAACP brought a case against SFUSD and the State of California.

• The certified class was all children of school age who were or may in the future attend public schools.
• The plaintiffs alleged that the District and the State engaged in discriminatory practices and maintained a segregated school system in violation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statues, and the State of California Constitution.

In 1983, the U.S. District Court approved a Consent Decree.

• The two goals of the SFNAACP Consent Decree were:
  1. Continued and accelerated efforts to achieve academic excellence for all students, with a particular focus on African American and Latino students; and
  2. Elimination of racial/ethnic segregation or identifiability in any school, program, or classroom to the extent practicable.

• Features of the SFNAACP Consent Decree included:

- A special plan for schools in the Bayview-Hunters Point
- Faculty assignment and desegregation goals
- Professional development geared to the goals of the Consent Decree - Fair and consistent discipline practices
- Additional resources for selected schools, programs, and classrooms - Racial/ethnic guidelines for student assignment:

• no school could have fewer than four racial/ethnic groups; and

• no racial/ethnic group could constitute more than 45% of the student enrollment at any regular school (or 40% at alternative schools.

In 1994, the Ho plaintiffs brought a suit against the District and the State on behalf of children of Chinese descent of school age who were current residents of San Francisco and who were eligible to attend public school. The plaintiffs alleged that the racial/ethnic guidelines for student assignment violated the U.S. Equal Protection Clause because it discriminated based on race.

In 2001, the District Court approved a settlement agreement that called for the District to:

1. Implement a five year educational plan (Excellence for All) to improve the academic achievement of all students; and
2. Take all practicable actions to eliminate existing segregation and vestiges and past segregation.

The 2001 settlement agreement modified the student assignment process and prohibited SFUSD from using race. The student assignment process developed as part of the 2001 settlement was designed to:

1. Give parents choice;
2. Ensure equitable access; and
3. Promote diversity without using race/ethnicity.

On December 31, 2005 the Consent Decree expired, and for the first time in 22 years the SFUSD student assignment process was no longer regulated by a federal judge.

1983 TO 2000: OPTIONAL ENROLLMENT PROCESS (17 YEARS)

 BACK TO TOP

All students new to SFUSD had to submit an application and could list three to five choices. Assignments were made using the Optional Enrollment Process (OER) described below.

All 5th and 8th grade SFUSD students were accommodated by their attendance area school.

• Students were automatically assigned to their attendance area school, regardless of capacity and racial/ethnic composition, unless they requested other schools through an OER form.
• Non-SFUSD students exiting 5th and 8th grade were processed through the OER procedure and there was no guarantee they could get assigned to their attendance area school.

OER assignments were made using a Computer Random Selection Process -- a method of reviewing and evaluating applications randomly by computer.

• School assignments were determined by space availability in the requested grade level, and the racial/ethnic balance of the requested school.
• The computer determined which race/ethnicity was appropriate to fill any openings.
• The computer evaluated each request randomly looking to fill the openings with students who would not adversely impact the racial/ethnic percentages at the school.

The maximum percentage of students for any racial/ethnic group was 45% for non-alternative schools and 40% for alternative schools.

• These caps were based on the entire student population, not the grade level.
• The same caps (45% and 40%) were applied to all schools.

• In cases where the automatic assignment of attendance area students through promoting current 5th and 8th grade students exceeded the racial/ethnic caps, the school would become balanced through the OER process i.e., through requests to attend non-attendance area schools and through students new to SFUSD.

Attempts for placements were made in the following order:

• Siblings;
• Designated students (students who were not assigned to their attendance area school received a priority the following year);
• Bayview/Hunter’s Point students (Zip Code 94124);
• Hispanic and African American students;
• All other requests.

Note: The priority groups were not static during the 17 year period. For example, at one point 94110 was a priority zip code. At one point, there was also a priority for students attending SFSUD children centers.

2001-2002 SCHOOL YEAR: RANDOM COMPUTERIZED PROCESS
(1 YEAR)

BACK TO TOP

5th and 8th grade SFUSD students who were currently attending an SFUSD school were no longer automatically assigned to their attendance area school. It was the first time that 5th and 8th grade SFUSD students were required to complete an enrollment application form.

The 40%/45% caps were abolished.

Assignments were made through a random computerized process that did not use race as a factor.

All first choice requests were reviewed and processed.

If students were not assigned to their first choice, the lottery attempted to assign students to their second choice. The lottery then moved to the third choice, and so forth until it had reviewed all choices and assigned as many students as possible to one of their choices.

Siblings and attendance area students received a priority in the lottery.

Students who did not get one of their choices were designated to the school that was closest to them that still had space.

Current Student Assignment System

BACK TO TOP