Meanwhile, Over in San Francisco Unified School District (Part 2)

Here's how SFUSD is handling their "resources" and schools plan. 

First, they call it the "Resource Alignment Initiative" or RAI. Here's what they say it is:

SFUSD began the Resource Alignment Initiative in August 2023 in response to declining student enrollment, declining revenue, staffing challenges, and deteriorating buildings.

The District’s resources are simply stretched too thin, and this is impacting the ability to achieve SFUSD’s ambitious five-year student outcome goals.

The Resource Alignment Initiative is our roadmap for the critical work we must do as a school district to move us toward a future where every student attends a strong school, our educators have the resources and support to excel, and our community grows stronger.

The initiative has five focus areas to address our challenges in multiple ways. None of them alone will help us achieve our goals. Learn more about each focus area below. Under the direction of Superintendent Wayne, the Resource Alignment Initiative is underway and will continue through school year 2025-26.

Those five focus areas are:

- Create a new school staffing model

- Reorganize the central office

- Explore generating revenue from properties

- Invest in Priority Districtwide programs

- Create a new portfolio of schools

I'll start with the last one first because that's where they discuss school closures. 

One big idea to note on the SFUSD side - they are not just looking at closures and consolidations but "co-locations" because they have room at some schools for other schools. Hmm.

Create a New Portfolio of Schools

Recommend changes to SFUSD's portfolio of schools to concentrate and equitably distribute resources for strong and supportive learning environments.

To concentrate and more equitably distribute resources to support strong and supportive learning environments across the school district, SFUSD has begun a process to recommend changes to its school portfolio. These recommendations will include the potential for school closures, mergers, and co-locations in school year 2025-26. 

As was reported by Seattle Hall Pass, here's their community engagement:

Phase One of community engagement included:

• 2 Virtual Town Halls with 1,000 participants
• 16 in-person community sessions with 1,070 participants
• 12,206 complete surveys submitted
• 3,000+ community feedback comments received
• 6 Community sessions about language pathways
• Outreach to 295 community-based organizations
• 291 attendees at 6 CBO information sessions
• 175+ materials translated into 6 languages
• 1,000 translated flyers delivered to CBOs
• 7 meetings with Community Advisory Committees

 

Here's their June 25, 2024 document from their Superintendent on criteria. This could be a useful guide to what SPS might (or should look for).

To point out, their Superintendent has a timeline from June 25, 2024 to August 2025.  And, they will have "at least TWO engagements with each school community affected..." SPS has promised only the legally required one hearing.

Composite score for each K-12 school in current portfolio. 

Equity score based on: (out of 12 points for each)

- school access

- program access

- historical inequities

Excellence Criteria (out of 12 points for each)

- school culture and climate

- SEL development

- Academic

 Effective use of Resources Criteria (out of 12 points for each)

- family choice and demand

- teacher turnover

- student enrollment

- building condition

Then their District Advisory Committee's recommendation is that Equity will be 50% of the composite score, while Excellence and Effective use of resources each get 25%. They added to Equity two other metrics - in School Access (adjusted for population density of the zipcode of the school) and in Program Access (percentage of students in each school identified as low socio-economic status or participating in programs that support them.)

I see that for School Culture and Climate they are only using survey results which I think could be skewed towards those who actually participate. 

For Academic performance, straight-up test scores. 

SEL is also based on survey findings. 

For Family Choice & Demand, percentage of families ranking a school in their top 3 on district application. 

Student Enrollment comes from this year's enrollment "compared to its ideal enrollment." 

 Building condition comes from their facility condition score. 

Teacher turnover is "the percentage of teachers who leave a school." I guess for any reason but I think if teachers are leaving because of a principal, there is a school problem that no amount of enrollment can fix. 

Thoughts?

On the other parts of their resource realignment:

- if they have fewer classrooms, they have "a better chance" of making sure every class has a qualified teacher and every elementary schools has an instructional coach.

- Teacher collaboration is critical for quality instruction, yet nearly half of SFUSD’s K-5 and K-8 schools have only one teacher per grade level 

I would have to deep dive to see what that ratio is in SPS. The point being if you have fully enrolled schools, you'd have more than one grade level teacher and they can collaborate. 

- Ditto for dual language teachers - fully enrolled schools will mean a better chance for qualified teachers.

- They say that realigning resources will allow for the elements they believe will make the best and equitable schools: 

- robust and inspiring programs

- High quality and engaging instructions

- Nurturing and welcoming environments

- Prepared and collaborative staff

- Relatable and predictable resources

New staffing model

They use WSF (weighted student formula) and say it creates uncertainty for schools around staff and supplies. But they don't clearly explain what will replace it except for "foundational staffing allocations" and "focal population funds based on student enrollment."

If any district writes phrases like the above, they are trying to hedge. 

They also use MTSS (Multi-Tiered System of Support) which SPS uses as well. Somehow that has quietly gone off the radar in SPS. But SFUSD says they worked with Stanford to analyze MTSS and that MTSS did not get the gains they sought.

Program allocations determined by Central Office department will change to "consistent allocations based on our program commitments and student enrollment." 

Reorganize the Central Office

SFUSD has cut quite a few jobs at Central but they have 12 Central Office buildings! I don't love the JSCEE building but at least nearly everyone is in one place. 

Align Central Office staff and services to our Vision, Values, Goals, and Guardrails (VVGGs)

One of the things they will do that I'm impressed with is - Strategically pausing or abandoning strategies

They also talk about "Eliminating redundancies, streamlining processes, standardizing, and abandoning practices that hinder the ability of the Central Office to address needs at school sites efficiently." That "standardizing" worries me because it's one more step to cookie-cutter schools.

Also,

• Shift away from creating systems and programs from scratch (EMPowerSF, curricula) and toward tailoring industry-leading solutions for our schools, teachers, and students.
• Support improving instruction rather than creating curricula by supporting the VVGGs
• Focus on building capacity and providing support
• Abandon what is not working and keeping what has proven to be successful

 

 I agree that curriculum adoption is expensive  but I don't see SPS abandoning that one. I do like the last one except that what works for one school may not work for another.

    

Focus Area 3 - Exploring Generating Revenue from Properities

Well, look here! 

The Facilities Master Plan (FMP )is our road map of how the department will invest limited resources to improve school spaces to serve the whole child, respond to school community priorities, and align with the SFUSD mission and values. Educator Housing is one part of the policy directives in the FMP.

The District has made progress toward its housing goals by constructing Shirley Chisholm Village, the District’s first affordable rental housing project with a preference for District educators and employees. Located at 1360 43rd Avenue, Shirley Chisholm Village will include 135 units of affordable rental housing. The project is currently under construction, with an estimated completion date in Fall 2024. 

This could be a game changer for SPS because, like San Francisco, Seattle is an expensive place to live. 

But don't get all excited because I don't see this anywhere on the horizon in SPS but good for San Francisco USD for getting there.

Focus Area 4 - Invest in Priority Districtwide Programs

 

For this focus area of the Resource Alignment Initiative, the District is exploring how to best resource programs at schools that have demonstrated success toward positive student outcomes.

Things like:

DAC discussed the vision and key shifts for Middle School portfolio and developed shared takeaways about the key information from the Middle School Fact Base.

 

They are also redesigning their middle school "experience."

DAC discussed the current high school portfolio and supporting resources, so they can understand and articulate differences between what families want and the current portfolio of high schools DAC discussed the current high school portfolio and supporting resources, so they can understand and articulate differences between what families want and the current portfolio of high schools. 

Actually talk to families about what they want? Get outta town.