S. F. Board of Education candidate Kim Knox has created a great deal of confusion this week by posting a
of two different data sets which she says she obtained from district staff. One she identified as being “average attendance” at schools from 05-06, 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
she uses is this year’s 10 day count.
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
, 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
to this year’s CBEDS numbers (or last year’s 10 day count numbers to this year’s 10 day count numbers.)
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 supposed to be from October 2, 2005. It shows
Balboa High School to have an enrollment of 1,043 students. The
CBEDS data was taken a few days later, on October 5, 2005, and 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 "average attendance" 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 higher 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 High, 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. This is echoed by the enrollment number listed on the district
data distributed at the time of the school closures discussion – 1,611. 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 361 – nearly one hundred students more.
Same thing with
Thurgood Marshall – their October 05
CBEDS enrollment was 760, which is confirmed by the number listed on the district school closure
data, also 760. 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, close to the number on the district school closure
report – 817. 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.
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.
Elementary schools are probably the most vulnerable when it comes to school closings - there are more of them, and those which are underenrolled may serve less than 300 students, making them more likely to be closed than a middle or high school, which usually serve far greater numbers of kids. This is why parents of elementary students are particularly touchy when it comes to people making claims that their school is losing enrollment, especially when those claims turn out to be exaggerated or downright wrong. It doesn't take much for a nasty rumor to start about a school, and schools can quickly go into a death spiral, in which parents are afraid to enroll their children for the next school year, since they have heard the school might close, and when enrollment then plummets, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I have looked at just a few of the elementary schools on Kim's list, but I am seeing the same pattern - her faulty data is creating the appearance of huge "drops" in enrollment at school which have not, in fact, suffered such declines.
Dr. George Washington Carver Elementary – the October 2005
CBEDS and the enrollment
data distributed by the district at the time of the school closure discussion last year show that this school had an enrollment of about 280 students;
Kim's secret “average attendance” list claims 309 students. This year’s
ten day count shows 275 students. That represents a drop of about 5 students, not 34 as Kim claimed.
El Dorado Elementary – October 2005
data shows 272 students enrolled;
Kim's “average attendance” shows 317. The
ten day count this year of 266 represents a drop of just 6 students, not the 51 Kim claimed.
Dr. Charles R. Drew Elementary – October 2005
CBEDS and district
data show enrollment last year of 294/295 students;
Kim's “average attendance” claims 315. This year’s
ten day count shows 272 students – a drop of 23, not the 43 Kim 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 Kim is not the sole source for schools to receive information about their enrollment, thank goodness. 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 it is mistakenly reported that there have been huge drops of 40 or 50 students (at schools which enroll under 300 students total) when the actual decline is just a handful of kids. Kim has steadfastly refused to admit that her numbers are wrong, making it look disturbingly like she is deliberately trying to hurt these vulnerable eastside schools.
