The San Francisco school board recently approved new admissions criteria for the premier Lowell High School and School of the Arts (SOTA).1 The new policies are complete with percentage set-asides and “benchmarks,” and operate as quotas. Although the San Francisco Unified School District (“SFUSD”) promises parents and students that its recently approved Lowell/SOTA admissions policies will not lower the academic rigor and high standards at the city’s premier high schools, that is but another promise that the district cannot keep.2

The recently approved Consent Decree³ modifications provided that Lowell and SOTA establish procedures for admission separate from all other SFUSD high schools. The Taskforce on Admissions to Lowell High School and the School of the Arts (the “Taskforce”) was charged with developing recommendations.⁴ The admissions process for these schools was devised independently from the other district high schools presumably because they are the only schools with merit-based admission policies in the entire district.⁵

The New Lowell High School Admissions Policy

Admission to Lowell will be based on the following three “bands” (see Figure 1).⁶ The Lowell admissions committee, in concert with SFUSD’s Education Placement Center, will identify students who are to receive admissions in Band One (70 percent of all seats) and review set-aside nominations made by middle school committees and principals in Bands Two and Three (each 15 percent).⁷

• A total of 70 percent of available seats are merit-based and consider only grade point average (GPA) and SAT-9/STAR achievement test results.

• A total of 15 percent of available seats are set aside. Participating school principals will establish a “School-Based Committee on Lowell Admissions” (the “committee”) composed of site administrators, counselors, and teachers.⁸ This committee will nominate students for Lowell admissions and forward those names to the SFUSD Education Placement Center (EPC).
• In addition to GPA, the committee will consider factors under the “Committee Assessment” criteria indicated in Figure 1.
• After reviewing the nominations, the District’s Lowell Admissions Committee will select the students admitted under Band Two.

• A total of 15 percent of available seats are set-aside to be allocated to public and private schools that were “underrepresented in the students admitted to Lowell the preceding year(s).”
• The principal, acting alone, must select nominees and submit those names to SFUSD’s Education Placement Center. The principal is then required to rank those nominees approved by the district.⁹

It should be noted that there are no separate criteria to guide the principals in initially selecting potential Lowell nominees. However, SFUSD’s Lowell Admissions Committee does reserve the right to challenge a principal’s recommendation. But, there are no criteria for those challenges either. The district does not explain why a committee would select nominees under Band Two, but a principal alone can select nominees under Band Three. This seems entirely arbitrary. Although neither should be allowed to stand, there should at least be some logic and method to the purely subjective criteria of Bands Two and Three.

SFUSD Avoids Competition

Lowell competes for the best students, and so should all SFUSD schools. Instead, the majority of district parents and students must settle for how much or how little the local government education monopoly will do for them. As a result, the district has not prepared the majority of its students for the rigor of Lowell. Moreover, the district continues to overlook the obvious solution to Lowell’s alleged underrepresentation of certain groups. To accomplish the “diversity” sought, the district must focus on raising student achievement at district primary schools, particularly those with disproportionately high numbers of at-risk and economically disadvantaged youth. By many estimates, more than one third of Lowell admission offers go to students from Bay Area private middle schools. Rather that fixing outcomes at Lowell, the district should improve the pool of public school applicants.

These percentage set-asides do not have any sunset provisions. Presumably, the district would continue them indefinitely. Moreover, the non-performance related factors of Bands Two and Three (Figure 1) are not accurate predictors of performance. These very subjective criteria, like “Demonstrated ability to overcome hardship,” are not exclusive to applicants under consideration for the 30 percent set-aside admission slots. The separate admissions standards of the “Bands” will result in reducing the rigor of Lowell’s high standards once lower performing students begin to matriculate through the program.

What remains uncertain is how prospective colleges around the state and the nation will judge the caliber of Lowell students after the new set-aside slots are filled in fall 2002. Policies for the School of the Arts are likewise troublesome.

The New SOTA Admissions Policy

Under the new SOTA admissions policy, the Taskforce has set aside 10 percent of the incoming-freshman slots for students who demonstrate “extraordinary potential, as opposed to refined skill, in their chosen artistic discipline.”¹⁰ This policy is entirely inconsistent with the idea of a performing-arts high school. SOTA admits students on the basis of competency in a specific artistic discipline. In the past, students were admitted on the basis of an audition where they were judged on their performance. Those days are over, and the program will suffer the slow death of receding standards.

District “Cop-out”

The set-aside is a cop-out and allows the district to skirt the real issue of alleged underrepresentation at SOTA. The district has chosen set-asides instead of reforms that would raise student achievement at some of its lowest performing schools. There are very few art and music programs in the district. That is the fault of the district, not the SOTA program or prospective qualified and talented students. If the district wants talented trumpeters, saxophonists, dancers, and sculptors applying to SOTA, then it must ensure that students have access to the necessary resources and instruments in district primary schools.

Finally, the Taskforce relies on an assumption heavily criticized in the education research community—that “each-one-teach-one” collaborative learning can prevent a “dumbing-down” of the standards and rigor of the SOTA program.¹² However, it stands to reason that the problems inherent in collaborative learning only become more acute in a purely performing arts setting where learning is largely predicated on competency in a specific artistic discipline—even taking potential and “natural ability” into consideration.

Says SOTA parent Merle Cutler, “I didn’t send my kid to SOTA to be a tutor. I sent her to receive instruction and improve her skills.”¹³ Many parents take exception to the Taskforce’s assumption because they too send their children to SOTA to receive professional instruction, not to be used as the catalysts for low performance-high potential students.

Prospects for Improvement

The remarks of school board member Eric Mar at the October 23 board meeting reveal how much worse the Lowell/SOTA plan could have been, and how much worse it can become. Mar admitted that he would prefer that 50 percent of Lowell/SOTA students be admitted for improving diversity, rather than the plan approved with set-aside percentages. Mar went even further by saying, “I wish that we could use race,” and he condemned the opposition to the Lowell/SOTA set-asides as “racist.”¹⁴ At a Thursday meeting addressing SOTA parents before the Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA), school board president Jill Wynns boasted of her ability to continue to use race as a “victory.”¹⁵

As for SOTA, if the school fails to show improvement in underrepresented groups offered admission, “a heightened recruitment effort will be undertaken to attract diverse candidates to apply during an extended audition period, up to and including an August 2002 audition.”¹⁶ Under the conflicting language of the Consent Decree, Lowell faces a similar fate.¹⁷ The recently approved language of replacement paragraph 13(m)—permitting reassignment—directly undermines the prohibition of paragraph 13(j)—barring the use of race as a factor for student assignment.¹⁸ Though race and ethnicity as factors for student assignment are prohibited, using race as a factor seems to be permissible for reassignment or “Adjustments.”¹⁹

A Better Way

Many SFUSD parents are interested in schools that mirror the rich diversity of the city’s population. But, in San Francisco and the Bay Area, parents are simply not willing to accept lower standards in the hopes that some narrowly defined definition of diversity is accomplished. Nor are parents willing to send their children to inadequate schools to accomplish social outcomes that they as parents can pursue on their own through activities outside of the classroom. In the end, what looks like a quota, complete with percentage set-asides and “benchmarks,” is indeed a quota.

Only by focusing on improving poorly performing schools can the district improve the pool of SFUSD student prospects for Lowell and SOTA. The only good outcome produced by the Taskforce was its focus on improving student recruitment efforts in areas not targeted in the past, particularly those with significant concentrations of qualified minority students. By failing to raise student achievement at many district schools and choosing not to support music and art programs at most of the district schools, SFUSD has pre-selected the future Lowell/SOTA prospects by excluding students at district-neglected schools. Educational opportunity is not a zero-sum game. Equity means a competitive education for all students, not for some at the expense of others.

The controversy over the Lowell/SOTA admissions is a confession of systemic failure and distress in SFUSD. The real tragedy here is that the SFUSD and some parents are willing to accept the fact that Lowell and SOTA are the only exceptional high schools in the district. Instead, there should be more Lowells and SOTAs. Parents and students in San Francisco deserve no less than a competitive school system that is committed to excellence.

Notes:

1. San Francisco Board of Education (the “board” or “school board”). See full text of the Lowell/SOTA proposal approved on 10/23/2001 at www.sfusd.edu.
2. San Francisco Unified School District (“SFUSD” or the “district”).
3. “Amended Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Remodification and Termination of Consent Decree,” San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School District, Case No. C-78-1445-WHO (Related Case No. C-94-2418-WHO).
4. The Taskforce was asked to prepare recommendations that will address problems identified both in “Excellence for All: A Five-Year Comprehensive Plan to Achieve Educational Equity in the San Francisco Unified School District” (“Excellence for All”) and in the District’s April 10, 2001 Report to the Court.
5. Among other things, the Stipulation requires that student assignment methods must be consistent with paragraph 13(j) of the Consent Decree, which permits consideration of “many factors, including the desire to promote residential, geographic, economic, racial and ethnic diversity in all SFUSD schools, and the students’ language needs,” but also mandates that SFUSD not “use or include race or ethnicity as a criterion or factor to assign any student to any school, class, classroom, or program.” For full text of 13(j) and 13(m) see the “Amended Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Remodification and Termination of Consent Decree,” San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School District, Case No. C-78-1445-WHO (Related Case No. C-94-2418-WHO).
6. See full text of the Lowell High School proposal approved on 10/23/2001 at www.sfusd.edu.
7. At an October 23, 2001 school board meeting, board member Eric Mar complained, “I wish it were 50 percent.”
8. There are no criteria for assignments on the principal’s special committees. Principals have complete discretion.
9. Band Three students are ranked based on the criteria indicated in Figure 1.
10. See full text of the SOTA proposal approved on 10/23/2001 at www.sfusd.edu.
11. “To ensure that all students have an equal opportunity to enroll in SOTA regardless of access to prior training and resources, 10% of the slots for incoming freshmen will be reserved for students who demonstrate extraordinary potential, as opposed to refined skill, in their chosen artistic discipline.” See full text of the SOTA proposal approved on 10/23/2001 at www.sfusd.edu, #4.
12. Lance Izumi, Facing the Classroom Challenge: Teacher Quality and Teacher Training in California’s Schools of Education, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (April 2001): p. 14.
13. Interview with Merle Cutler, 10/30/2001.
14. Eric Mar made these remarks at a public board meeting on 10/23/2001. At no point did Mar call individual parents racists, particularly those speaking that night in opposition to the Lowell/SOTA admissions policies. He did condemn the opinions against the Lowell/SOTA set-asides as “racist.”
15. Based on the accounts of parents in attendance at the November 1, 2001 PTSA meeting.
16. See full text of the SOTA proposal approved on 10/23/2001 at www.sfusd.edu, #13.
17. The proposed language of replacement paragraph 13(m) directly undermines the prohibition of paragraph 13(j)—baring the use of race as a factor for student assignment. Though race and ethnicity as factors for assignment are prohibited, using race as a factor seems to be permissible for reassignment or “Adjustments.” “Paragraph 13(m) of the Consent Decree shall be modified to read as follows: (i) The parties acknowledge that notwithstanding paragraph 13(j) above, it is possible that there may be identifiable racial or ethnic concentration at a particular school or schools that a party or parties believe adversely affects the SFUSD’s educational goals or programs in that school or schools.... If the parties agree that the concentration and adverse effect, if any, warrant modifications in the SFUSD’s application of its Assignment Method to the school or schools in question that are inconsistent with paragraph 13(j) above (“Adjustments”), and the parties agree on the terms of the Adjustments, the proposed Adjustments shall be submitted to the Court for approval.” For full text of the proposed provision see the Amended Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Remodification and Termination of Consent Decree. San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School District, Case No. C-78-1445-WHO (Related Case No. C-94-2418-WHO), Items 4 and 6.
18. These and other Consent Decree issues are fully discussed in Consent Decree Revisited in San Francisco Unified, a PRI briefing paper by Diallo Dphrepaulezz (December 2001).
19. Ibid., Item 6.

Diallo Dphrepaulezz is assistant director of the Center for School Reform at the California-based Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. This Action Alert is based on research published in his briefing paper, Consent Decree Revisited in San Francisco Unified. He can be reached at diallod@pacificresearch.org.