The Legacy and Conundrum of Lowell High School

Muddy Waters: School Board's admission and renaming decisions

by P Segal

We're living through times when change is necessary, as we face crises in public health, environmental catastrophe, political mayhem, economic and racial inequality, and the failure of capitalism to manage those issues. Massive social problems breed hysteria and an urgent need to root out the causes of those problems.

Changing Heroes

Changing school names is a step towards recognizing what has served us and what hasn't, but it's complicated, because historical figures were flawed human beings like the rest of us. People who actually know history, like the graduates of Lowell High, or professional historians—and not appointed officials with attitudes—should decide who did something that deserves a school name.

The committee recommending name changes put Lowell on the list, because they said James Russell Lowell was a racist. At the time when war raged over the right to own slaves, Lowell was an ardent abolitionist who supported giving freed slaves the vote. If the committee read his poems, they would find this:

"No! true freedom is to share
All the chains our brothers wear
And, with heart and hand, to be
Earnest to make others free!"

He may have formed other opinions, later in life, as people often do, but he was an activist who was passionately on the side of the equality.

Dumbing Down Academic Achievement

Eliminating merit-based enrollment is wrong on every level. The city has a high school for the arts, and another for students interested in the trades. There is a bi-lingual Chinese-American high school. Why shouldn't there be a school for those interested in academics? We need serious pursuit of knowledge to train intellects capable of solving all the massive problems we face.

Stripping the school of its legacy, to accommodate one concept of equality, is the lowest point in the dumbing down of America. The only way to solve problems is to give the absolute best education we can offer. The worst thing we could do is downgrade excellence in any aspect of public education. For over 100 years, the name of the school has meant high academic achievement, and we should keep it that way.

Real Problems Need Real Answers

Perhaps the answer is not to put kids who are inadequately prepared for Lowell's academic challenges into a difficult situation, just to make the numbers meet some standard of equality. It might be better to have advanced placement classes in every middle school, for students who'd like to go to Lowell and want to do the work. We have been trying measures like Affirmative Action for decades, and it clearly hasn't fixed racism or sexism.

Lowell High has been accused of racism, because students have to show academic merit to get in. Charges like this imply that Black students can't get the good grades needed for admission, which seems like a far more racist point of view. In fact, any bright kid can love learning and do well, when teachers use imaginative and compelling ways to engage and inform. The need for imaginative engagement in the classroom is even greater in communities where financial burdens are most dire, and hope is hard to find.

While it's a problem that there are not enough minority students at Lowell, other than highly represented Asian students, it may just be the result of the agency's policies. Teachers are limited by standard methodologies and supervision that discourages anything else. The kind of teaching needed to engage students in unsupportive situations is different from that the Department's status quo. Administrators need to let teachers use storytelling, educational play, and creativity to captivate and inspire, where motivation is limited: that's the art of teaching.

Changing Tactics

The controversies surrounding Lowell High School signify the need to change tactics, but not in the ways proposed by the SFUSD and Board of Education. In fact, the actions of those city agencies demonstrate exactly why we need to retain Lowell's standards of academic excellence.

We're in a period of great change, as we survive the pandemic, a perfect time to rethink how we prepare all students for a better future. We have to begin with the understanding that there are many kinds of intelligence, and only one is academic. We must consider all the issues that affect academic performance and create better ways to overcome them. Until then, we should leave Lowell as is, name and all.

P Segal is a Lowell aluma, and she was editor of The Lowell, the school newspaper, under a former name.

Video Recording of January 26, 2021 hearing at 6:38:10-6:38:36.

Legal Challenge to School Renaming - Atty. Paul Scott (PDF)

Carol Kocivar on Renaming Schools

School Board Resolution on Assignments (Collins)

February 2021

Don't Change Lowell High School’s Merit-based Admission Policy

Policy Debate Highlights Undercurrent of Racist Bias

by A Parent (Name witheld due to anonymous, threatening online messages)

The School Board’s most recent October 13 meeting was the first one I ever attended. I was struck by the Board’s arrogant and dismissive demeanor towards parents who had come out to learn about and discuss the drastic departure from Lowell High School’s long-standing merit-based admission policies. As a parent in the SFUSD, I felt disrespected, brushed off, and not heard. I had been under the impression that we could talk constructively, and hopefully find creative and workable solutions to problems? Not so.

At one point, Commissioner Allison Collins’ had a hot mic moment inadvertently admitting that she was “listening to a bunch of racists.” That appropriately sums up the Board’s attitude. Yet there were many parents there who seriously felt the policy change is hasty and ill-conceived. We were surprised at some board members’ enthusiasm for lottery-based admissions at Lowell and that they want to continue it beyond this year — making them permanent.

I understand the pinch we’re in. COVID-19 has turned everything, including the district’s finances, upside down. We need a workable plan for managing Lowell’s admissions - that doesn’t break the bank and doesn’t require a level of manpower the district doesn’t have right now.

Applying the existing high school admission lottery system to Lowell this year only would probably be simpler and cheaper than trying to use the limited data we have for trying to maintain some form of merit-based admission at Lowell. However, the rhetoric from the Board and their supporters stirs many parents’ worst fears that this is not, as it is being presented, a sincere attempt to temporarily cope with challenging circumstances. There is an obvious power grab designed to attack Lowell’s long-term academic status, that provides a unique service to a unique student population, just as School of the Arts does. The calls for permanently dismantling any and all merit (whatever that may mean) - based admission at Lowell, both by the Board and the (rather few) parents who support the proposal, made it clear that this is about more than just the 2020/21 admission.

Equal Opportunity Enrollment

SFUSD’s 2019 fact sheet shows a total of 7% of African American kids enrolled in SFUSD. Only 2% of Lowell’s students are African American. Even considering the same fact-sheet’s proficiency data (and, yes, I do know that those numbers are based on standardized testing and that such testing has problems with cultural bias), we find severe lack of proficiency in both literacy (80%) and basic math (88%) among our districts African American students. This doesn’t mean they are less smart than other kids in the district, but challenges may be due to income differentials — differences in opportunity and support, starting in early childhood. Still, even if Lowell would admit only the highest scoring 20% of African American 8th grade students, we would end up with roughly 6.4% African American kids in each Freshman year, far closer to the overall number in the district. We are nowhere near close to that.

However, if we confound, confuse, and entangle these two very different issues, (a) desperate attempts at a temporary, money and resource-saving COVID-19 emergency admission process and (b) greater equity for African American students at both Lowell and in San Francisco overall, we risk prettying up our statistics right now, but may in the long run, cause more harm than good. There are several issues at play: 1) common misconceptions about the nature of Lowell’s exceptional academics as supposedly teacher and policy-driven; 2) more promising, but slower and more tedious means for achieving equity, which those who are obsessed with “finally sticking it to those elitist Lowellites,” may overlook; and 3) we risk forgetting about other inequities (that overlap with, but are not identical to racial injustice) when misguided by a sense of hurry and hampered by a lack of self-awareness about racial biases.

The push for more African American students’ admission into Lowell, will also require extra academic support for them, because most of our failing elementary schools don’t have the resources to prepare even the brightest students for Lowell’s rigorous academic expectations. Current students of Lowell will be happy to tell you that many of their teachers fail to present material in an inspired, engaging manner. Lowell teachers are used to students who pay attention and work hard, regardless of how dry and lecture-based any teaching may be. The exceptional learning environment at Lowell is not due to superior teachers, superior teaching methods, or superior resources, it’s the result of a critical mass of motivated, well-prepared students. Putting students who have not previously had the support they deserve into the hands of teachers who are not accustomed to lower performing students, means throwing these students to the sharks. No one wants to see students become discouraged or overwhelmed at Lowell’s expectations.

Ethnic equity in San Francisco cannot be solved quickly and haphazardly. Truly making a difference will require…
• targeted literacy and basic math support in elementary and middle schools
• avid instruction to teach administrative functioning and work methodology
• support for under-served families’ specific needs (rather than one-size-fits all solutions)
• a special ed system that serves all kids through proactively and accurately identified behavioral issues and learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, depression, and childhood PTSD—as opposed to dismissing such issues as quirks
• solutions for current transportation issues, and
• extra counseling and intense academic support for kids who come from failing elementary and middle schools, regardless of how bright and motivated those kids may be.

Anti-Asian Bias

Many parents have reported (both online and during the Board meeting) a toxic undercurrent of ‘Anti-Asian’ sentiment. People who accuse all Asian families in our district of being “privileged,” “entitled,” and “elitist,” forget that 36% of students at Lowell (of all ethnic backgrounds, many of them Asian) come from low-income families (identified through qualifying for reduced-cost or free lunch). Not all Asian families are middle class and thus privileged. Yes, some of them are, but many struggle with the same social and economic obstacles as other students.

When we look at recent immigrant kids whose parents barely speak English, and whose academic family support consists in their being pushed to work extremely hard, we know parents want newcomers to have better opportunities than their parents did. Asians are aware that many consider them some kind of “menace taking over high-quality schools.” Those kids have to, indeed, work extremely hard, with very little support, and they do. Blaming them for our city’s structural racism and using that blame to justify making their access to educational resources even harder than it already is, simply trades one injustice for another. Blaming these kids is blaming the victim.

I have also witnessed instances of Asian immigrant families’ parents being arrogantly excluded from public discussions about this and other issues concerning our school district. I have seen those, whose English is less than perfect, being ridiculed and quickly shut down by people who proudly think of themselves as anti-racist. Many, for whom English is their second or even third language, don’t know how to skillfully juggle the subtle, linguistic codes and politically correct terminology that our Board of Education members seem to consider the price of admission for being taken seriously and heard. Parents who fail to use these “correct” and expected verbal “secret handshakes,” in order to identify themselves as worthy of having a voice in this process, are labeled racist haters and undeserving of being listened to. These parents come to a Board meeting trusting that they can simply speak their minds. If they misunderstand the complexity of the situation, members may kindly educate them. But include their experience into Board decisions. Don’t shut them out and punish their kids.

Those Asians who attended the meeting were offended when speakers called Chinese parents  “White supremacists.” Or when others merely implied that they are hostile or racist without explicitly saying so. We are humans, and nobody is perfect. We can all listen and learn from each other.

Please view this as the sincere plea of a person concerned - not just for the well-being of my own kids — but for all the kids in our district. This is not a disguised pitch for an “all lives matter” attitude. Fighting for one’s own family at the cost of other families never works in the long run and, as Dr. King wrote in 1963, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

A concerned, frustrated San Francisco parent.

October 2020

On the Frontline

SFUSD Teachers Affirm COVID-19 Plan

By K. Rolph Morales

There is urgent need for planning and implementing crisis learning, caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) teachers had until Monday evening, August 10 to vote on an agreement between the school district and the United Educators of San Francisco (UESF) union. Their affirmative vote means school will begin on August 17th. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was agreed to by the SFUSD leadership and UESF negotiators at 1 a.m. Friday morning. The agreement will remain in effect until June 30, 2021 or until the return to normal classroom teaching, whichever comes first.

The negotiating parties affirmed that all provisions of AB77 and SB98 and the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) California Government Codes 3540 et seq. apply and remain in effect. Licensed teachers will begin distance teaching using computer or communications technology. Video and audio instruction will be the primary manner of communicating.

Communication between the pupil and teachers will include online interaction, instructional television, video, telecourses, or other instruction that relies on computer or communications technology. Teachers may also use written and oral materials. Teachers are required by law, to work at least 7 hours per day, which includes lesson design and preparation, meetings with colleagues, online teaching (synchronous) and ensuring that students do classwork assignments. Teachers who themselves are parents with children at home, can develop teaching that takes into account their own students’ studies and schoolwork.

There are several ambiguous elements in the MOU, but here is the general summary:

Crisis Distance Learning

• District provides priority for students with disabilities. A task force is convened to ensure learning and access standards are met.
• Teaching content will be aligned with state and district grade level standards and delivered with intellectual content that closely approximates in-person teaching and learning.
• The district will continue to ensure that all students have internet connectivity and devices for learning.
• Every student will receive synchronous (learning and studying together with teacher – live access) and asynchronous (independent studying and classwork) learning each school day. Teachers must provide at least 120 minutes per day of live access for students. This can include one-on-one and small group studies. Teachers can increase instruction beyond 120 minutes at their discretion.
• According to Education Code 43501 as amended by SB98, the minimum daily instructional minutes for grades TK-K (180 daily minutes), grades 1-3 (230 daily minutes), grades 4-12 (240 daily minutes), and Continuation High School (180 daily minutes) are in effect for the 2020-2021 school year.

Equipment & Materials

• Teachers are promised access to school sites to pick up equipment, materials, and supplies.
• SFUSD will continue to survey teachers about access to materials and needs for successful crisis teaching.
• Teachers will be provided all necessary equipment and supplies necessary to support distance learning.

Teachers have agreed to these and additional detailed conditions — school begins August 17th.

K. Rolph Morales, Ph.D. is a certificated bilingual teacher in the San Francisco Unified School District, specializing in indigenous languages and cultures of the Americas. Please support local newspapers and radio stations

August 2020

On the Frontline:

Teachers Wait for Direction from the Superintendent

Face-to-face classrooms or online training — teachers must prepare for both options

by K. Rolph Morales

San Francisco parents and students have been waiting for information about the coming school year. Not much has been heard from central district leaders, who coordinate their plans with the Health Department, as well as state leadership in education and public health, and the governor. On July 17, the Governor provided directives about school reopening. 

Everyone wants in-person classrooms but everyone must also be aware of the data on COVID-19. Distance education remains as the plan for now, based on information we have about the virus. San Francisco County, as does each county, makes its own a decisions about local conditions using guidelines provided by the Governor.  In every instance, school districts will depend on county level departments of public health and follow the facts that are  provided to them. The public can track COVID-19 public health data on the state’s COVID tracking website. Statistics are tracked county-by-county.

As difficult as it is, intensive individual instruction is required when there is no in-person teaching, a task that conscientious teachers must learn through working with students online. Educators quickly attended SFUSD online training in the spring, but rapidly realized the limits to the online model. School Superintendent Vincent Matthews has indicated he is working to “ensure community safety and compliance with state guidelines.” Plans for ensuring robust participation and learning for the coming school year will be determined by infection rates. Plans for when and how schools reopen for in-person instruction are yet to be revealed. Based on current understanding of the virus, students in 3rd grade and above will be required to wear masks throughout the in-person school day.

Case numbers are used to determine whether schools open — new infections per 100,000 residents of each county. Whether test positivity rates (the percentage of positive tests per total people tested) have gone up, remain similar, or have fallen are the important criteria. Hospitalization rates also affect the opening of schools. Counties are being monitored to ensure state benchmarks are observed, and met.

Local departments of public health can grant waivers to allow elementary schools to reopen - but this is an exception to infection rates and must be in consultation with the district superintendent, educators, parents and community organizations. Families can follow the California County monitoring data as it updates daily on the State’s website. For everyone’s safety decisions must be driven by scientific evidence.

As of late June, 79 school and central district employees had died of the coronavirus in New York City, which was hard hit with the virus. Another concerning vector for the coronavirus is daycare centers, where educators and children have tested positive for the virus. The Centers for Disease Control issues guidelines on daycare centers’ health and safety. A special area of uncertainty is the risk of exposure to pregnant women and newborns. In Nature Journal French researchers just published the most up-to-date information we have on the possible effects of COVID-19 infections on the mother’s fetus.

Teachers, who are already using their own money to buy school supplies are now also purchasing masks and materials in order to be prepared for contingencies, but too much is out of our control when it comes to classroom safety and productivity. I know many educators who are currently taking online teaching training in anticipation of continued distance teaching.

The Westside Observer will continue to provide updates on local education and the SFUSD plans for the school year.

K. Rolph Morales, Ph.D. is a certificated bilingual teacher in the San Francisco Unified School District, specializing in indigenous languages and cultures of the Americas. Please support local newspapers and radio stations.

July 22, 2020

Open Schools in the Fall

by 8th Grade Student Charles C. (Name witheld)

On Tuesday, July 14th, 2020, the district announced that students will begin the fall semester with distance learning.

SFUSD schools must open in the fall without restrictions for the sake of student’s mental health and sanity, and parent’s schedules and time management. In response to the coronavirus pandemic, SFUSD, as well as many other school districts transitioned to online schooling. There are issues with these new systems, including how some aspects are unjust to students. Students are expected to complete assignments and attend online classes, however all of the social aspects of attending school are stripped from them. Students do not get help from peers in class, do not get to socialize at lunch or converse with their friends, and overall do not get the social interaction they need as humans. Students have already missed out on many activities, trips, and year-end ceremonies, and they will miss out on much more unless the district opens schools without restrictions. Here are some of the notes from one of the district’s PTA meetings with superintendent Vincent Matthews:  The district is considering many options for fall instruction format including:

• Distance learning
• Combo of virtual and brick and mortar
• Staggered start half days (i.e. some kids go to school 8-11:30 and some go 12:30-4:00)
• Some kids go Mon/Wed and others go Tue/Thu
• Students take turns every other week going in person
• Grouping students in a bubble that would travel together around the school to different classes

These plans are unjust. And they can be detrimental to students. From my experience, during online classes students usually have their microphones muted, and do not speak unless they are sharing answers. We do not get a chance to speak with each other, and all classes are recorded by the district, limiting our right to privacy.
If the district continues to use the unhealthy system of distance learning — students expected to participate in online classes and complete assignments without learning any social skills will proceed. Students need to socialize and converse with friends in order to maintain good mental health and happiness. Some argue that students do get social interaction through online classes, I have not found that to be true.

Having a staggered schedule will cause major scheduling complications and cause parents a lot of trouble. Many students rely on their parents to take them to and from school, and a staggered schedule will cause a lot of conflict and force parents to adapt quickly. Many parents have to work, and do not have time to pick up/drop off their children in the middle of the day. Some parents may have multiple children in SFUSD, all attending school on different days. The staggered schedules will leave parents struggling to find childcare and manage their time in order to incorporate taking their children to and from school. Students also will not get to socialize with their friends, as they will likely have separate schedules and separate lunch times. 

The concept of traveling in “bubbles” would also be unjust and ineffective.  Students may not get along well with those in their group, providing a feeling of separation and isolation from others. Students have the right to choose who they socialize with. Even if this restriction is put in place, it would only be effective for those in grades 5 and under. Middle and High School students are not likely to obey these restrictions, and it would be very difficult for staff to enforce. Many students are choosing socialization over attending classes as it is, there is no way to expect that students will stick with their group every day. 

It would be unreasonable to implement these new restrictions on students, especially after everything that has already been taken from them. As students we did not get a graduation, did not get year-end dances, did not get field trips, and did not get to enjoy the celebratory feeling and environment that comes with the end of the school year. We did not get a spring break, and effectively will not get a summer break. With everything that has been taken from us, it is completely unreasonable to expect us to comply with these harsh restrictions when returning to school.  I believe continuing distance learning may even pose a greater public health risk than returning to classrooms. We have been under quarantine since March of 2020, and are growing impatient with the COVID-19 restrictions. If schools do not open this fall, it is likely to induce students to interact with one another outside of school. At school, students are in a somewhat controlled environment, and it is easier to enforce facemask and social distancing restrictions and procedures. Outside of school, students are to follow less likely for these restrictions, with the risk of an increase in cases. Continuing online school may do more harm than good.

Attendance is another major issue in distance learning. From my experience, attendance is around 50-60% for P.E. and Elective classes, and around 75-85% for A-G courses. These numbers are unacceptable. If it continues, student attendance will be very low, and apathy will be rampant.

Attendance disproportionately affects minority students. For example, in LA, 50,000 Black and Latinx students did not regularly attend online classes last spring. From my experience, these disparities are even more common here in San Francisco where there are huge economic inequalities There are many houses worth millions of dollars, while other neighborhoods have median rent prices below the national average ($949). These economic inequalities highly impact distance learning.

Grading systems are another major issue when it comes to online school. Pass/fail seems to be the fairest grading method, as a letter grade system would not accurately measure a student's effort and improvement. Pass/Fail may also cause apathy and reduce student attendance, which is already low. Additionally, it will be very difficult for high schools and colleges to decide who they accept. It is uncertain what the district will do about grading, however it is clear that returning to classroom learning will make things easier for everybody. 
SFUSD needs to return to classroom learning this fall for the sake of students, their families, and the public. Prolonging these restrictions on students will cause mental health issues, frustration, public health issues, and other complications. These restrictions further prolong the isolation that comes from not having proper social interactions. Parents will have to deal with scheduling conflicts and extra driving. They are harmful to students and parents alike.

Charles C is an 8th grade student at SFUSD. You may sign his petition to SFUSD here

July 22, 2020

Is long-term distance learning causing additional stress to students?

8th Grader's Petition Protests Distance Learning

by Charles C. (Name witheld)

I am an 8th grade student in SFUSD and I attend a public middle school. At my school, we have online meetings on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, plus additional meetings if teachers organize them. We have many assignments every week (I have experienced 43 google classroom notifications within 48 hours). I have to get up early to attend online classes just as if it’s actually school. School has become more demanding due to the pressure of hands-on learning. We do not truly have a place where we can check what we need to do, therefore it’s very hard to keep track of the work. I spend an average of 2 hours per day on schoolwork.

Mental health hotlines have seen up to 897% increases in calls, and I can only assume many are from students feeling isolated. I worry about my friends who, due to severe economic inequality, are unable to keep up with the pace of online classes. This inequality is amplified by distance learning. Some do not have easy access to electronic devices, some are not familiar with computers, or have no wi-fi access. A lot of the students at my school are not privileged to have a two-parent household, or a consistent schedule with their parents. Some parents lost employment due to the coronavirus and simply don't have the money to pay bills and pay for necessities. It is no wonder some are falling behind due to stressful factors and distractions in their home life.

How can SFUSD expect everyone to focus on schoolwork? This is not a few students — 55% of SFUSD students are socioeconomically disadvantaged. While I am not subject to child abuse myself, it is happening and it shouldn’t be swept under the rug. While long-term social distancing is enforced, the school district should not be causing additional stress to students. I do not think it is reasonable to expect students to continue completing work and attending all online classes.

At home, the quarantine makes me feel that I’m always getting in the way, and that I don’t have my own space. I have been taking walks and learning how to cook (a life skill that isn’t taught in schools, even online) to deal with it.

With study-at-home, SFUSD students lack social interaction with peers, do not get free time with friends, miss out on the entire social aspect of school, and most likely will not be able to participate in school dances and after-class activities or year-end activities such as graduation. While students have been stripped of many of their rights and privileges, yet the school district expects them to maintain all their responsibilities.

These are some of the reasons I have started a petition to allow for exemption from online classes and schoolwork, and I ask that the district stop mandatory online classes and assignments and make them optional.

The school district needs to take student's mental health seriously. It should discourage teachers from assigning excessive work and scheduling extra meetings.

For additional information about my petition, please visit its website. change.org/sfusdonline

April-May 2020