10 Day Count for SFUSD (edit this)

15 Responses to “10 Day Count for SFUSD”

1. PH Parent Says:
   October 17th, 2006 at 11:15 pm e

   What is the story behind these numbers? Are some popular schools deliberately reducing the number of incoming classes? Which of these schools are now significantly underenrolled?

2. KC Says:
   October 18th, 2006 at 10:15 am e

   What are your sources, Kim? There are specific errors in thiis data that are being discussed over on sfschools. The numbers for Balboa and McKinley have been contested by parents in those schools who know better. Plus, comparing ADA numbers with the 10-day count numbers is questionable, to say the least.

3. Kim Knox Says:
   October 18th, 2006 at 11:17 am e

   I’ll PDF the letter that I received from SFUSD’s Office of Equity when I am back at my computer

4. Caroline Says:
   October 18th, 2006 at 11:32 am e

   Kim, did someone at SFUSD tell you that it was sound to compare the yearlong average attendance to the 10-day count? Because it isn’t. Those are apples and oranges. It’s not credible and not happening that all the most sought-after schools in the district are losing enrollment. Plus (even if the basis for the comparison were sound and valid, which it absolutely is not) you have neglected to note that certain schools added a grade from one year to the next, among them June Jordan, Bessie Carmichael and Paul Revere. That completely changes the picture in regards to schools that gained enrollment.

   Even parents who lean Green and seemed inclined to support you are sending around e-mails about how misleading and wrongheaded this comparison is.

5. Kim Knox Says:
   October 18th, 2006 at 3:52 pm e

   Here is the link of the pdf file that the Office of Equity Assurance sent to me on Oct. 13 with their tally of the ten day count as of Sept. 12, 2006.

   http://leftinsf.com/pictures/tendaycount.pdf

6. Kim Knox Says:
   October 18th, 2006 at 3:55 pm e

   As noted by other posters earlier (as well as the Chronicle’s article on the District’s student assignment process), the Education Placement Center’s policy is not to place students into schools after the ten day count, except in limited circumstances.

7. Caroline Says:
   October 18th, 2006 at 7:32 pm e

   As discussed by now on sfschools, you misinterpreted the data, Kim. You read the wrong column on this document and failed to add in the excused absences. You need to remove this damaging misinformation from the website — it hurts kids.

8. kimknox Says:
   October 19th, 2006 at 7:32 am e

   Caroline, I am pointing out data that is available to San Francisco residents. I have provided a pdf of the file that the District provided to the State for its funding:
   a. Actual number of children at each school at the ten day count
   b. Absentees that day
   c. The schools’ 05-06 nrollment as reported by the District during the school closure discussions
   d. Difference in the 05-06 enrollment versus the ten day attendance count plus absentees shows that 46% of the schools had a decline in enrollment.

   The public has a right to know about our decline in enrollment-and we need as a community work to stem that decline or there will be more school closures.

9. Caroline Says:
   October 19th, 2006 at 7:53 am e

   It’s well known that enrollment is dropping and that families are leaving the city for various reasons.

   I’m one of many volunteers who have been working for years doing outreach to the community to draw more parents back into the schools. That’s not a new idea; it’s been a vigorous communitywide effort since the late ’90s, and it is having a positive effect.

   While we’re here on Leftinsf, I’ll remind progressives that sending their kids to public school is the most populist, progressive, community-building choice they can make. (And the converse is also true.)

   However, Kim — you posted misleading, erroneous figures, exaggerating the extent of the problem and implying that SFUSD is covering it up. That harms support for public schools and hurts kids. The ethical thing to do is acknowledge your error and apologize for it.

10. Lorraine Says:
    October 19th, 2006 at 8:48 am e

    Kim, a clarification/correction to note #6 above.

    The EPC eliminates the waiting lists pools after the 10 day count so that kids are not transferred from one school to another except in extreme circumstances.

    The EPC does indeed continue to place kids in schools after the 10 day count - kids are moving into the district all the time. Those kids are placed in schools and represent increasese to those schools enrollment. Many schools experience increases to their enrollment throughout the year (and, of course, losses as well due to families moving.)

11. kimknox Says:
    October 19th, 2006 at 9:21 am e

    Lorraine, thank you for your clarification that the ten-day count stops transfers but students moving in the district can be placed in any time. If that was not clear in my explanation, I apologize.

    But I will have to respectfully disagree with you on your other remarks. I had to request the information twice-once in a simple letter and then in a Public Documents request. And when the time lapsed on the 10 days that is specified in the Public Documents Request, I had to go to the Board to get the information.

    And I have provided the PDF of the file. I don’t see where this information is being provided by the District’s website.

    It is the right of the public to know which of their schools are being impacted by declining enrollment-in order to recruit more students into those schools to avoid school closures in the spring.

12. Caroline Says:
    October 19th, 2006 at 11:26 am e

    It is indeed “the right of the public to know which of their schools are being impacted by declining enrollment-in order to recruit more students into those schools to avoid school closures in the spring.”

    But enrollment figures are readily available on the SFUSD website — go to schools, then individual school, then profile. You can get that for previous years and compare. That also shows enrollment grade by grade. In addition, if you use those figures, they are not subject to the misinterpretion and apples-to-oranges comparison of non-parallel figures that you applied to the 10-day count list.

    The notion that SFUSD was trying to conceal that information is inaccurate, since you can get it in 30 seconds or so in the manner I just described. You requested one specific variation of those figures from SFUSD, but it was really not necessary to do that to get the information you wanted.

13. Lorraine Says:
    October 19th, 2006 at 3:15 pm e

    I’m not sure what remarks of mine you’re respectfully disagreeing with. I only clarified your vague statement about what the EPC says. I made no comment or implication about your information request.

14. Nestwife Says:
    October 21st, 2006 at 12:19 pm e

    Kim has created a great deal of confusion this week by posting a comparison of two different data sets which she says she obtained from district staff. One she identified as being “average attendance” at schools from last year, which she says was distributed during the school closures discussion last year. (I have no idea what this “average attendance” list is, as she does not provide a link to it.) The other data set she uses is this year’s 10 day count.
    http://tinyurl.com/yxyt5s

    A couple of points here – the 10 day count is a kind of census used by the district to get a snapshot of enrollment at the start of the school year. Schools can gain or lose teachers based on these numbers. It is not the same as the CBEDS, which is a census taken from the Student Information System file on the first Wednesday of October, and which becomes the “official” enrollment number for the schools, so far as the state is concerned. A true apples to apples comparison would be of last year’s CBEDS numbers to this year’s CBEDS numbers (or last year’s 10 day count numbers to this year’s 10 day count numbers.) Last year’s CBEDS numbers (as well as the previous several years) are available here:
    http://tinyurl.com/bgnp2

    This year’s CBEDS numbers have not been put online yet, but I am sure that with Kim’s connections at the school board level, she could successfully request those too.

    Different reports give different numbers for enrollment, depending on the day the report was created. That’s why a comparison of the 10 day count number from this year to ANY other number from last year besides the 2005 10 day count, is apples to oranges.

    For example, the enrollment data which the district gave out last year during the school closure discussion, is available here:
    http://tinyurl.com/yyyndp
    This data is supposed to be from October 2, 2005. It shows Balboa High School to have an enrollment of 1,043 students.
    The CBEDS data
    http://tinyurl.com/bgnp2
    was taken a few days later, on October 5, 2005. This shows Balboa’s enrollment as 1,035. Kim’s figures, which she says represent “average attendance” and which she claims are from the school closure discussion last year (but for which she does not provide a link) show Balboa’s 2005-06 enrollment to be 1,134. I assume that this is a typo on Kim’s part, because Balboa NEVER had that many students last year, or any year in recent memory, so it would be impossible for 1134 to be the “average attendance” figure. The 10-day count for 06-07 showed Balboa had 1112 students (and more students have enrolled since that time.) So Balboa has had an increase in enrollment of at least 77 students this year, and I think the actual number is closer to 100 by now. It is a mystery to me how Kim managed to compute an increase of just 22 students.

    I don’t understand her numbers for Burton, either. I know that school lost enrollment this year, as they have for the past several years. Their last year’s CBEDS enrollment number was 1,610.
    http://tinyurl.com/bgnp2
    This is echoed by the enrollment number listed on the district data distributed at the time of the school closures discussion – 1,611.
    http://tinyurl.com/yyyndp
    But Kim’s “average attendance” number – for which she does not provide a link – is 1706! Hmmm, 1611 students, but “average attendance” of 1706…what’s wrong with this picture? Kim gives this year’s 10 day count number for Burton as 1,345, which represents a loss of 266 students from last year’s CBEDS, but Kim uses her own “average attendance” figures to claim that the loss is actually 361 – nearly one hundred students more.

    Same thing with Thurgood Marshall – their October 05 CBEDS enrollment was 760,
    http://tinyurl.com/bgnp2
    which is confirmed by the number listed on the district school closure data, also 760.
    http://tinyurl.com/yyyndp
    But Kim’s secret list of “average attendance” claims 865. How can that possibly be accurate when the school had only 760 kids??? This year’s 10 day count for Marshall showed 649 students, a drop of only 111 students, not the 216 Kim claims.

    And John O’Connell – their October CBEDS enrollment was 814,
    http://tinyurl.com/bgnp2
    close to the number on the district school closure report – 817.
    http://tinyurl.com/yyyndp
    But Kim’s own “average attendance” list claims 882 – a pretty neat trick when less than 820 kids were enrolled. So this year’s 10 day count of 906 students represents an increase of about 89 kids, not the paltry 24 Kim states.

    And Mission – their October 05 CBEDS was 881,
    http://tinyurl.com/bgnp2
    their number on the district school closure report was 880,
    http://tinyurl.com/yyyndp
    but Kim’s “average attendance” list showed 916 students. Again, a pretty good trick, if there were only 880 students at the school. So this year’s 10 day count of 899 students represents an increase of about 18 students, not a loss of 17, as Kim claims.

    I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. I have to wonder about the accuracy of the “average attendance” numbers Kim is using, especially as she has not provided a link to them. I am certainly willing to believe that she does have some kind of list that shows the numbers she is claiming; what I would dispute is the accuracy of that list, since none of the other numbers which ARE available on the internet (on both the district’s and the CDE’s websites) confirm them.

15. Nestwife Says:
    October 22nd, 2006 at 8:52 am e

    Here are some more schools for which you have reported inaccurate figures. I don’t have time to go through the entire list of 100+ schools, but looking at just a few from the top of the elementary list, it is clear that the same errors in “average attendance” which I detailed yesterday in your high school list are also occurring in your elementary list.

    George Washington Carver – the October 2005 CBEDS and the enrollment data distributed by the district at the time of the school closure discussion last year (the links for which appear in my previous post, and which I will not repeat because apparently too many links cause the leftinsf spam filter to kick in) show that this school had an enrollment of about 280 students (one shows 279, the other 281); your secret “average attendance” list, for which you have never provided a link, claims 309 students. This year’s ten day count shows 275 students. That represents a drop of between 4 and 6 students, not 34 as you claimed.

    Charles Drew – October 2005 CBEDS and district data show enrollment last year of 294/295 students; your “average attendance” claims 315. This year’s ten day count shows 272 students – a drop of 23, not the 43 you claim.

    El Dorado – October 2005 data shows 272 students enrolled; your “average attendance” claims 317. The ten day count this year of 266 represents a drop of just 6 students, not the 51 you claimed.

    Bret Harte – October 2005 data shows between 274 and 278 students; your “average attendance” claims 304. The ten day count of 259 represents a loss of 19 students, not 45 as you claimed.

    These are just a FEW example; there are MANY more. Yes, it is true that some schools suffered a drop in enrollment, while others didn’t. Yes, it is good for schools to be aware of the drop so that they can take steps to market themselves to parents, although of course I am sure you are aware that you are not the sole source for schools to receive information about their enrollment. All Principals were told their enrollment immediately after the ten day count. At Balboa, our SSC meeting was on Sept. 13th, the day after the ten day count, and our Principal already had the enrollment figure to present to us.

    It does enormous damage to schools which are struggling to stay open when you mistakenly report that there have been huge drops of 40 or 50 students (at schools which enroll under 300 students total) when the actual decline is much smaller. And your refusal to admit that your numbers are wrong makes it look disturbingly like you are deliberately trying to hurt these vulnerable schools.

Leave a Reply