From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Admissions Policies Controversy

Shouldn't all the lawsuits on the Lowell page be on the San Francisco Unified School District page instead, since they're NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School District, Ho v. San Francisco Unified School District, and the Consent Decree applies to ALL schools in the San Francisco Unified School District, not just Lowell? I can understand leaving the bits about Lowell there, it just seems to me that most of the information on these lawsuits would be better suited on the SFUSD page. - 128.120.173.175 03:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

These lawsuits are unique to Lowell and the consent decrees and district policies only applied to Lowell and not any other school in the district. - Jck2000 20:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Are we talking about the same lawsuits and consent decree here?
NAACP v. SFUSD was brought by African-American parents and resulted in the consent decree that applied to all SFUSD schools. The consent decree mainly prohibited any one ethnic or racial group from composing more than 45% of a school (40% for "alternative" schools). The reason why Chinese-American parents were upset was because Lowell had way more than 40% Chinese-American students.
Ho v. SFUSD was brought by a Lowell applicant and some elementary students, later expanding into a class action that included all Chinese-American schoolchildren in SFUSD, and created the "diversity index" that also applied to all schools in SF. - 128.120.173.175 03:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Um sorry, I know I don't have an account or any standing, but I go to Lowell and I believe that they should saty seperate. Will expand soon, probably.

The Chinese parents lawsuit (Ho v SFUSD) certainly belongs on the Lowell page because it was all about who did or did not get into Lowell. The NAACP v SFUSD lawsuit was much more general and concerned the issue of racial segregation in the city's public schools as a whole (still a burning issue in 2006), so a detailed discussion of this suit would logically belong on the San Francisco Unified School District page. But readers would still need to know about it on the Lowell page since it was the background to the Chinese parents suit, and without understanding that suit you really can't understand the recent history of Lowell or its unique place in the SF public school system.

Well, **all** about who got into Lowell? A simple search for Ho v. SFUSD on Google shows it was initially brought "By their parents and next friends, Brian Ho, aged 5, Patrick Wong, aged 14, and Hilary Chen, aged 8 (collectively Ho)". Ho was trying to get into kindergarten, and Wong, the high school defendant, was just a friend of Ho's parents. It's certainly not all about Lowell to the /courts/ or someone who doesn't attend or know what Lowell might be, and most of the law documents on the case address school assignment policies at ALL SFUSD schools-- they certainly don't single out Lowell's admissions policies, which has the same 40% cap as any other school, that was the focus of the case.
I mean, read the following parts about Ho and Consent Decree on the article and try to spot anything relevant about Lowell:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ho v. San Francisco Unified School District ('90s)'
In 1994, a group of Chinese American community activists organized a lawsuit to challenge the 1983 Consent Decree race-based admissions policies used by SFUSD for its public schools.
In 1999, both parties agreed to a settlement which modified the 1983 Consent Decree to create a new "diversity index" system which substituted race as a factor for admissions for a variety of factors such as socioeconomic background, mother's educational level, academic achievement, language spoken at home, and English Learner Status.
Expiration of the Consent Decree
In November 15th, 2005, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a request to extend the expiration date of the Consent Decree, which was set to expire on December 31, 2005 after it had been extended once before to December 31, 2002. The ruling claimed "since the settlement of the Ho litigation [resulting in the institution of the "diversity index"], the consent decree has proven to be ineffective, if not counterproductive, in achieving diversity in San Francisco public schools" by making schools more racially segregated.
The expiration of the Consent Decree means that SFUSD's admissions policies, including the "diversity index" and the special admissions policies granted to Lowell, and many of its "Dream School" initiatives are no longer codified and mandated by the Consent Decree. As a result, these policies may be challenged at the community and local levels as well instead of just at the judicial level by filing a lawsuit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In addition, although you agree with me about NAACP v. SFUSD, all the material about Chinese-American segregation under NAACP v. SFUSD can also apply to other Chinese dominated schools (>40% of the population) like Lowell.)
I am definitely not against leaving some mention about these cases on the Lowell page, but it seems me that the bulk of NAACP v. SFUSD, the entirety of Ho v SFUSD, and the entirety of Expiration of Consent Decree should be on the SFUSD page since the text of the article doen't talk about Lowell at all or applies to all schoools in SFUSD. Plus, the SFUSD page is sparse and the Lowell page is kind of bloated-- and shouldn't you guys //want// all this stuff under the "Controversy" section off the Lowell page?
Lowell is a *part of* SFUSD---the majority of content under "Controversy" specific to Lowell either 1) is not specific to just Lowell but can apply to other Chinese dominated schools AND 2) technically is about SFUSD, too, since Lowell is a part of SFUSD. Why not move it to the SFUSD page, which is better for organization and proper categorization (IMO) AND looks better for Lowell since there's less about racial discrimination and all that negative controversy on the Lowell page?
128.120.173.175 22:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (edited 128.120.173.175 01:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)) reply

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I'm proud to have gone to a high school whose alumni actually care enough about it to write these wikis. My two cents: the Ho suit should be on both the SFUSD and the Lowell pages. FYI--it won't be the last lawsuit challenging race-based admissions at Lowell. When Ho was organized and filed, I'd just graduated from college. I'm a lawyer now and spoiling to use that degree. The next lawsuit will not result in a settlement. SFUSD racists, make my day.--Lee Cheng '89 (lchcheng@netzero.com)

I have no idea why anyone thought Ho vs SFUSD and NAACP vs SFUSD had nothing to do with both pages. Ho v SFUSD was initiated as a response to NAACP vs SFUSD, which Lowell played a major factor of, and both changed district wide policy. All you have to do is separate the effects and edit the text to fit how it affected both schools. Third Tower ( talk) 21:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Third Tower reply

Pacific Heights Elementary School on Jackson & Webster Sts in S. F.

want to locate student rolls from the late 1800's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.24.198.62 ( talk) 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC). reply

Stuff

http://sfportal.sfusd.edu/sites/translation/archive/default.aspx - Multilingual Information This housed multilingual documents WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply

School lists in Spanish and Chinese

WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Sources

WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Attendance boundary maps

WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on San Francisco Unified School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Only school district in the County?

Currently this says SFUSD is the only public school district in the city and county of SF.

My understanding is that all SBE Charters are technically their own school districts, and there are a number in SF, and additionally there's a separate San Francisco County office of education district for schools like the hilltop school (which is for pregnant teens and teenage parents), though they are run out of the same office.

I'm not an expert on school districts or wikipedia edits, I only noticed there might be an issue because of a pro publica project that lets you compare data by district, when I saw two of the separate districts when I clicked the nearby button. Should this be updated or revised? Is this distinction important or informative to wikipedia users (perhaps given district level reports and comparisons)? Is a change consistent with how other california districts are discussed?

(click nearby button) https://projects.propublica.org/miseducation/district/0634410

https://www.cde.ca.gov/SchoolDirectory/districtschool?allSearch=san%20francisco&simpleSearch=Y&page=0&tab=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryftir ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:San_Francisco_Unified_School_District&oldid=1210196520"