tiebreakers, and i think it is important to remind everyone that the superintendent's recommendation is still a choice process, and it would be a choice process for the next number of years, and that gives an opportunity to roll out all of the initiatives that they are planning for the middle schools, so in march, the tiebreakers were assembling and then random, and the recommendation of the superintendent is to add a feeder tie-breaker and to put it immediately following siblings, and then at the last board meeting, based on some suggestions based on the community, to look at swaping the order, and that is what number three is, the simulation putting it above the feeders. when we did the simulations, we found, and also looking at march, the number of students assigned to each elementary school and middle school did not change. and this is for a number of reasons. the number of children involved in tiebreakers is really small, less than 20%. the highly ranked tiebreakers are highly likely to get their choices given the small number of students. the other thing is, are tiebreakers work in concert with each other. this is a factor. if you have a feeder and another, you will have a higher preference then someone who'd just as a feeder tie-breaker, because they work together. it looks at the combination of tiebreakers, so we are recommending that replace the middle school tie-breaker above the other because it supports changing enrollment patterns that facilitate the development of feeders through a choice process, so the choice process is actually encouraging families to choose the schools that would build the theater patterns of choice. the kindergarten through eight increase the productive and the need for families and schools, and they support strategic planning and a more efficient use of resources, so we really want to be committed to creating these feeder patterns, and this continues to be a strong preference in the us climate. it is ranked after sibling, and under the proposal, the point of entry becomes kindergarten, just as when a parent applies for rooftop. they continue in that of the way through eighth grade, pepper so as long as this is the highest rank under sibling at the point of entry, which is kindergarten, and actually all of the way through fifth grade, even if a child names in in fifth grade, then whenever affected has, it will be reflected in this, because that enrollment pattern will be created at elementary and will continue through middle. it is also important to remember that the middle school feeder is a one-time thing. it is just for children going from office into six. it does not exist for children coming into the district. it is actually designed to support children to all go to the same school together into a particular, and the students with the middle school feeder tie-breaker, i mention that, live in this will have a greater preference to get in, and it is such a small number of students with this, but so it is these reasons that the superintendent is continuing to recommend tiebreakers, and this is a review of what the superintendent is recommending, that from a transition period to 2016, we use a choice process that would have st. tiebreakers, including siblings and feeder. there would be an initial finding, and then in the choice process, if the child was aside, for example, to spanish immersion because they were at a spanish immersion program at the elementary school, but at that point, the child would rather or the parents would rather not be in that language pathway but they want to stay, that is what this tie-breaker is, and in the choice process, they would get that initial tie-breaker. then, after the initial assignment -- sorry, the initial assignment would be the tie- breaker, and then it would be siblings and then ctip. and then siblings would have priority. it is the same tie-breaker as initially, but if there is someone in a program pathway applying for a program pathway, then that would get preference. so that is the section of the presentation that is on the middle school feeders, and with the board likely to keep going and talk about the monitoring? commissioner: i have some questions about the middle school feeder, but we will come back. >> ok. prudence carter from stafford and another from uc-davis and one from stanford, a group of experts that the superintendent has convened to ups staff with identifying questions which should be explored, determining which data should be analyzed, and how it should be analyzed, reviewing the annual report in sharing observations with the superintendent, so that is the work that we have begun. in terms of the timeline compaq we're hoping to have finalize this. hopefully the board will let us know any specific questions they would like us to explore in the annual report. in october, we want to use that snapshot, an opportunity -- an assignment continues even though we have these rounds. it continues right through the beginning of the school, and then there is the process. " we will take a snapshot in october and then do the analysis in september, october, november, december, and to the report in january, so tonight in the discussion, if you want to suggest questions for us to export, you can also follow up with us after the meeting, and we can also finalize questions in august that we would analyze, and for future ad hoc committee meetings, the board is scheduled to meet in july, but i am just wondering if that is something we should consider cancelling and just meet again in august and in august looking abbey attendance area revisions and the key in roman date for 2012 to 2013, -- the key enrollment date. and then we would begin in september and later. commissioner: if we have some questions, we can have the meeting, but my tendency is to want to cancel it. >> on that note, i have also been revised the october 10 is indigenous peoples day, i am sorry, so it is a holiday, so we will come back to you to suggest a different date. commissioner: if you have any comments, we can do that and then go to public comment, and commissioner mendoza has to leave early. any clarify questions? anybody? no? i have some questions about the simulations, which are very interesting, and to refer back. so i asked some questions -- these questions give me some -- these simulations were done with the current year data, that being the only data we have, i presume, so it shows about 100 students, ctip tie-breaker schools will apply to presidio and another, and they did not get in. can you explain that? >> the total requests, or all requests, and whether they are rated number one or -- commissioner: this is the only data i have. but this is what you have given me. this is how many requests that were admitted under the current tiebreakers and would be under the two proposed tiebreakers. >> yes, so in the data from the last meeting, it shows all requests, so the reason that the numbers are so much smaller on the simulations is because there were only 600 -- exactly. it commissioner: can you give us on duplicated -- what i want to know, and this seems to tell mate that it does not matter in what order we put the c y-- ctip tie-breaker, but this is not enough data to tell me how effective this has been for the students that we want to give preference to, so, you know, in other words, if all of these students who have the ctip students actually got their first or second choice, then the question is, what are not more kids using it, or anybody that could, etc., and it does not tell us anything i asked. do we know if we can get more demographic data on these students? what i would really like to note -- to know, their socioeconomic status, we want to know, and also, and eventually, as something we want to know later, we actually want to note -- to know whether they are adding to the diversity of the school. >> we can do as part of the monitoring look to see what is the democratic profile of what they are requesting to help meet the board's goals of creating more diverse enrollments, and i will deftly make a note of that and include that in part of the work we are doing under monitoring. to answer the question about choice, like our children getting their choice, yes, they are. they are. there were only 622 children applying to sixth grade who lived in these areas, and the board deliberately did that. you divide it into quintiles. it would be less impactful. the number is always going to be a small, and i think your question about what schools that are requesting, we can get back to you on that, but in terms of if they are getting their choices, yes, they are getting their choices. commissioner: anyone? it does not look but there are very many people. >> hi, i have a public comment on the elementary attendance area. good afternoon, members of the board. my name is -- and i am the treasurer of a group. i am also a parent with children at of broader wrote -- at álvaro. it is 30 of streets, not 29 street. the current neighborhood school map does not reflect our neighborhood. it arbitrarily ships the boundaries by two blocks. we believe the neighborhood a sign the map were created by demographers who live outside of san francisco who may not understand the fondness and attachment people have towards the neighborhood. the members of the valley strongly identify with the valley in our community as the neighborhood. from the date of these school assignments, it appeals -- appears that it is not oversubscribed by neighborhood requests. there were 88 openings for kindergarten this year. there were eight requests for attendance and 30 request from -- from families with siblings. 38 from the neighborhood. given this data, we respectfully request that the attendance area should match the definition of the valley. we appreciate and respect the board of education, and we know that your job is very difficult and very complex. we think you for listening to our community members and including their voices in this process. thank you. >> hi, good evening. ad hoc committee on assignments and all of the diehard ad hoc committee attendees. my name is worth. i am here to represent the pac because of the members are out of town. oh, carol ann, yea. addressing the transportation issues, i think that has been something that we have recommended to the board and that people in the form spoke to a lot, the concern about some of the feeder school was being really much further away or difficult to get to on muni, and it is great to look at the data in terms of the time it takes and transfers and stuff. people do recognize the reality of the budget situation and the lack of predictability and an inability to guarantee the transportation services by just recognizing there are very specific schools that need them. i know that they will be looking at -- looking at that really a lot in the future. the pac really works hard when making recommendations to look at the overall goals, specifically supporting student achievement, apple jacks says, and accountability, so it is through that lens that we urge the board to prioritize the equitable access to opportunity in middle school and still recommend this or some other equity mechanism be placed higher in order as a tie- breaker so that it would be siblings, then the equity mechanism, and then the feeder patterns, and there are a couple of reasons for that, even though looking at this chart that the simulation does not show a difference. we think that there is a couple of really strong rationales for us thinking that equity should, above the feeder patterns appear -- feeder patterns. for those who do not have a middle school until a new one is build, that is someone apparently random, assigning a certain elementary schools to certain middle schools, some of which are very far away. some parents may decide that is not the school i want my kids to go to a and should get some sort of priority mechanism to have a higher probability of getting a choice of a different school rather than having to go 7 miles, even though a lot of people would love to get in there. parents choosing an elementary school now it, basically looking at your four-year-old and deciding what school is going to work. you only know so much about your for your role and how they aren't going to learn. when looking at fifth graders, you know a lot more, and people might change their mind. they may choose a school because they know that they have a feeder. but the time of this a great, they may have a very strong knowledge of their child's needs and believe that they will do better in a different middle school, and in any parents wanting to choose a school other than their feeder school, we believe that the equity mechanism should really kick in for families, whether it is ctip or another. that should be higher. i hope i am making sense. and then, finally, what we have not really seen addressed in the middle school part of this is something similar to what you were just talking about on in evaluating and monitoring of the elementary assignment patterns work. it might be there, we just have not seen it, the mechanisms to evaluate and modify how beefeater patterns are working as they start kicking in, and what are the criteria for revising them, because that is also going to be incredibly complicated. and finally, i think what we want, and i know what another group wants, and i sincerely believe that what everybody in this warm ones is to be talking about how to address really strengthening all of our middle schools for all of our students, and we cannot wait to start talking about that stuff instead of this, but in that context, we really want to see a very detailed action plan for addressing specific challenges at specific schools with a real, clear strategies for how to move forward with a timeline attached to it so we can also focus on that and support it and hold us all accountable for that. thank you. >> hi, my name is -- carter. i am here representing my 11- year-old for the third time. i still have a lot to learn about the figure patter and how it works, and i will do that, but in the meantime, i just reduce it for my son, he was placed in a school across town. i have to learn about this ctip thing, but i hear you talking about socioeconomic status. my husband is a carpenter, which is not really great news, but we live where there is one school, and he is placed across town, and i am thinking, where do we cut fall in this? i want to be sensitive, multi- cultural, but i in a minority as a white person, and i feel that i am very victimized right now. i cannot drive across town. keeping the kids. they are all going to get there. he is the only one going across town to a school where he does not know anybody. so i just wanted to come down and say hi and make my presence felt. commissioner: can you tell us what son, -- what school? thank you. ok, now, does anyone have any comments they want to make? >> continuing to bring to light and make things more clear for us. i just want to go back to the sibling, a feeder, ctip, and what was done, whether it really made a difference. it was the decision to put feeder over ctip. this is setting a pattern of what is to come, but there is something to be said if it is not going to make a difference, so if you can just expand a little bit on the and help me to understand that, thank you. >> we agree completely. the foundation about this is all about equity and access, which is why we are doing the feeders, because we think they provide more equity and access than what is existing in our system, and a lot of choices for those not contiguous, i know where it was talking about recommendations built on historical trends patterns, and the number of families who are actually choosing to and attending these schools, and we want to continue to support them. just to put some context behind this, we think it is equitable and will provide equitable access. why we are recommending the feeders above the ctip is that we want to encourage through a choice system the development of these feeder patterns. parents will only get beefeater tie-breaker if they have actually listed it as a choice. otherwise, the tie-breaker will not exist, so in the event that a parent lists as a choice a small that supports the kb amica 8 feeder that we are eventually going to, they would get this tie-breaker -- this kindergarten through eight tie-breaker feeder. i think is important. if they do not was the choice, there is no tie-breaker. they are not compelled to request schools that are part of the feeder tie-breaker, but if they are, we want the system to support bop what we are trying to achieve over time, and, again, we do believe the whole foundation of this is equitable. i hear and understand what the others are recommending, and we believe that this peter proposal is grounded in equity and access, and we want to structure it in such a way that it supports through a choice process the development of these feeder patterns, so by the time we get to an initial offer, we hope the entire system will be organized around creating this free choice, and that is why we are recommending it. does that answer your question? commissioner: do a follow-up on that. the simulations are quite startling. not only is there absolutely no difference between putting ctip above or feeder first, but the difference between that or not having the feeder pattern at all is pretty -- so that is quite stunning. however, this is only if they happen to choose or make a request for a score that will be a feeder, right, so that is a big weakness of the simulations. understanding that you have no other data. i understand that perfectly, but that means that we have to try to take, you know, analyze something and make some presumptions, lots of presumptions about what may happen in the future, so i just want to suggest that if there is no difference, and then i do not see why we should not " -- " put ctip above feeder. to change the choice patterns into change in attendance patterns. but since we do not know yet, having no data that takes into account feeders, it seems to me that a more important message is how we put what we value into the order in which we place these things, so i am with the let's put the equity issue above the feeder issue, because, actually, i have been kind of nervous about -- i think we have made a lot of presumptions about people wanting these proposed so-called things, but i am not sure. we made a judgment about what we thought people would value without actually having any data on which to do that, so i still think since there is absolutely no data with which to make such an analysis more than what we have here, and i appreciate that we have tried that here, that that is what we ought to do, because that would send the message that i am more interested in sending. also, and this is just an idea that came to me, the things we are talking about tonight, the elementary attendance patterns and feeder areas and monitoring make me think that one of the things we really ought to say is that particularly the order in which we put tiebreakers is the kind of thing that we may want to change over time during the transition period based on what the monitoring tells us and making sure that we ask the right questions, like how does this equity issue work? commissioner mendoza