San Diego Unified School District, California
| San Diego Unified School District |
|---|
 |
| San Diego, California |
| District details |
| Superintendent: Fabiola Bagula |
| # of school board members: 5 |
| Website: Link |
San Diego Unified School District is a school district in California.
Click on the links below to learn more about the school district's...
- Superintendent
- School board
- Elections
- Budget
- Teacher salaries
- Academic performance
- Students
- Staff
- Schools
- Contact information
Superintendent
 |
This information is updated as we become aware of changes. Please contact us with any updates. |
Fabiola Bagula is the interim superintendent of the San Diego Unified School District. Bagula was appointed acting superintendent on August 30, 2024, and interim superintendent on September 10, 2024. Her previous career experience includes working as a deputy superintendent, senior director of equity, executive leadership coach, assistant superintendent, principal, teacher coach, and teacher.[1][2][3]
Past superintendents
- Lamont A. Jackson was the superintendent of the San Diego Unified School District from 2022 to 2024. Jackson's previous career experience includes working as an area superintendent, principal, and teacher.[4][5][6]
- Cindy Marten was the superintendent of the San Diego Unified School District from 2013 to 2021. Marten's previous career experience included working as a teacher, principal, and literacy specialist.[7]
School board
The San Diego Unified School District school board consists of five members elected by district to four-year terms.[8]
| Office | Name | Date assumed office |
|---|---|---|
| San Diego Unified School District Board of Education District A | Sabrina Bazzo | December 11, 2020 |
| San Diego Unified School District Board of Education District B | Shana Hazan | December 9, 2022 |
| San Diego Unified School District Board of Education District C | Cody Petterson | December 9, 2022 |
| San Diego Unified School District Board of Education District D | Richard Barrera | 2008 |
| San Diego Unified School District Board of Education District E | Sharon Whitehurst-Payne | 2016 |
Elections
Members of the San Diego Unified School District school board are elected to four-year terms. Two or three seats are up for election on a staggered basis every even-numbered year in November.
Three seats on the board were up for general election on November 5, 2024. A primary was scheduled for March 5, 2024.
Ballotpedia covered school board elections in 367 school districts in 29 states in 2024. Those school districts had a total student enrollment of 12,203,404 students. Click here to read an analysis of those elections.
Join the conversation about school board politics
Public participation in board meetings
The San Diego Unified School District school board maintains the following policy on public testimony during board meetings:[9]
| “ |
1025. PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION In order to provide an orderly process in receiving public testimony on matters before the Board, the Board encourages proponents on the same subject to determine in advance their principal speaker(s). The Board also encourages all public testimony speakers, whenever possible, (a) to be direct and concise, (b) to avoid repetition of statements made earlier by fellow proponents on the same subject, and (c) to place their views in writing and provide advance copies to Board members and the Superintendent. If questions are to be submitted to the Board, such questions must be in writing. The Superintendent, if requested by the Board, shall provide written responses to such questions subsequent to the Board meeting at which they were posed. There shall be two types of public testimony received by the Board of Education at its regular public meetings, as follows: A. Agenda Items--Any organization and/or person who desires to be heard by the Board on an item listed on the agenda shall come forward before or during the meeting and submit an electronic Public Testimony Request at the meeting, for or against the staff recommendation. Public Testimony Requests will be accepted up to the time the item is called for discussion by the Board. Once Board discussion of the item begins, no Public Testimony Requests will be accepted. Any organization and/or person who has requested to speak to an agenda item may express their opinion at the point in the agenda when that item is called. Technology to access the electronic Public Testimony Request is available in the auditorium and in the lobby before and during the meeting; paper Testimony Requests will be accepted only if the technology is not functional. In the interests of expediting the consideration of other business before the Board, upon receiving a request to speak to a consent item, the Board may act to defer consideration of the consent item to that point in the meeting immediately prior to adjournment. Persons addressing the Board on an agenda item shall confine their remarks exclusively to the agenda item about which they speak, and they shall not be permitted to participate in any legislative deliberations of the Board about the agenda item. All individuals submitting an Agenda Item Testimony Request in a timely manner, up to the time the item is called for discussion by the Board, will be given an opportunity to address the Board. No deferral of time will be allowed. Organized presentations of five (5) or more speakers not to exceed ten (10) minutes per subject may be permitted at the discretion of the presiding officer. All speakers must submit an Agenda Item Testimony Request. B. Non-Agenda Items--Any organization and/or person who desires to be heard by the Board on an item which is not listed on the agenda shall come forward before or during the meeting and file an electronic Public Testimony Request. Organizations and/or persons requesting to speak to a non-agenda item shall be prepared to be heard by the Board after all agendized items at the end of the meeting. All requests to speak to non-agenda items must be made prior to the time scheduled to hear non-agenda matters. Technology to access the electronic Public Testimony Request is available in the auditorium and in the lobby before and during the meeting; paper Testimony Requests will be accepted only if the technology is not functional. No deferral of time will be allowed. Organized presentations of five (5) or more speakers not to exceed ten (10) minutes per subject may be permitted at the discretion of the presiding officer. All speakers must submit a Public Testimony Request. The Board shall take no action, other than an action of referral, on any subject brought forth as a non-agenda item unless the Board finds that exigent circumstances require immediate action. C. Time Limits—Public testimony shall be limited to a maximum of twenty (20) minutes per consent and/or action item allowing for a maximum of ten (10) minutes per opposing viewpoint, and with a maximum of three (3) minutes per speaker unless such time limit is waived by the Board President. The President shall announce the amount of time allocated for public testimony on agenda items prior to hearing the public testimony. Testimony on non-agenda items shall be limited to a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes per item with a maximum of three (3) minutes per speaker unless such time limit is waived by the Board president. Any public testimony may be interrupted at any time on motion of any one member of the Board or by the Superintendent. If interrupted, the Board then shall decide whether it should continue to hear the speaker in public meeting, whether it should hear the speaker in private closed session, or whether it should refuse to continue hearing the speaker at all.[10] |
” |
District map
Budget
The following statistics were published by the National Center for Education Statistics, which is a part of the U.S. Department of Education.[11]
| SOURCE | AMOUNT | AMOUNT PER STUDENT | PERCENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal: | $237,580,000 | $2,425 | 11% |
| Local: | $1,461,028,000 | $14,913 | 65% |
| State: | $541,110,000 | $5,523 | 24% |
| Total: | $2,239,718,000 | $22,862 |
| TYPE | AMOUNT | AMOUNT PER STUDENT | PERCENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Expenditures: | $2,247,111,000 | $22,937 | |
| Total Current Expenditures: | $1,565,138,000 | $15,976 | |
| Instructional Expenditures: | $939,730,000 | $9,592 | 42% |
| Student and Staff Support: | $205,354,000 | $2,096 | 9% |
| Administration: | $182,012,000 | $1,857 | 8% |
| Operations, Food Service, Other: | $238,042,000 | $2,429 | 11% |
| Total Capital Outlay: | $526,723,000 | $5,376 | |
| Construction: | $514,153,000 | $5,248 | |
| Total Non El-Sec Education & Other: | $1,888,000 | $19 | |
| Interest on Debt: | $150,530,000 | $1,536 |
Teacher salaries
The following salary information was pulled from the district's teacher salary schedule. A salary schedule is a list of expected compensations based on variables such as position, years employed, and education level. It may not reflect actual teacher salaries in the district.
| Year | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|
| 2023-2024[12] | $58,608 | $124,050 |
| 2020[13] | $48,791 | $100,771 |
| 2019[14] | $47,051 | $97,176 |
Academic performance
Each year, state and local education agencies use tests and other standards to assess student proficiency. Although the data below was published by the U.S. Department of Education, proficiency measurements are established by the states. As a result, proficiency levels are not comparable between different states and year-over-year proficiency levels within a district may not be comparable because states may change their proficiency measurements.[15]
The following table shows the percentage of district students who scored at or above the proficiency level each school year:
| School year | All (%) | Asian/Pacific Islander (%) | Black (%) | Hispanic (%) | Native American (%) | Two or More Races (%) | White (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-2021 | 19 | 25-29 | 11-19 | 10-14 | 11-19 | 35-39 | |
| 2018-2019 | 48 | 67 | 27 | 32 | 50-54 | 62 | 69 |
| 2017-2018 | 47 | 66 | 26 | 30 | 40-44 | 61 | 68 |
| 2016-2017 | 43 | 63 | 24 | 28 | 45-49 | 57 | 65 |
| 2015-2016 | 44 | 62 | 23 | 27 | 40-44 | 57 | 67 |
| 2014-2015 | 41 | 59 | 21 | 25 | 40-44 | 55 | 64 |
| 2013-2014 | 68 | 82 | 55 | 55 | 60-79 | 70 | 84 |
| 2012-2013 | 63 | 77 | 47 | 51 | 55-59 | 74 | 80 |
| 2011-2012 | 60 | 76 | 46 | 49 | 55-59 | 70 | 76 |
| 2010-2011 | 58 | 74 | 43 | 47 | 55-59 | 69 | 75 |
The following table shows the percentage of district students who scored at or above the proficiency level each school year:
| School year | All (%) | Asian/Pacific Islander (%) | Black (%) | Hispanic (%) | Native American (%) | Two or More Races (%) | White (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-2021 | 29 | 30-34 | 11-19 | 20-24 | PS | 30-39 | 40-44 |
| 2018-2019 | 57 | 71 | 37 | 42 | 55-59 | 69 | 76 |
| 2017-2018 | 56 | 72 | 36 | 41 | 50-54 | 70 | 76 |
| 2016-2017 | 54 | 70 | 36 | 40 | 55-59 | 68 | 75 |
| 2015-2016 | 55 | 71 | 37 | 40 | 45-49 | 69 | 76 |
| 2014-2015 | 51 | 66 | 33 | 36 | 45-49 | 64 | 73 |
| 2013-2014 | 62 | 73 | 50 | 49 | 60-79 | 66 | 82 |
| 2012-2013 | 61 | 72 | 48 | 47 | 60-64 | 74 | 83 |
| 2011-2012 | 61 | 73 | 51 | 47 | 65-69 | 75 | 82 |
| 2010-2011 | 59 | 71 | 48 | 45 | 60-64 | 73 | 81 |
The following table shows the graduation rate of district students each school year:
| School year | All (%) | Asian/Pacific Islander (%) | Black (%) | Hispanic (%) | Native American (%) | Two or More Races (%) | White (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-2020 | 89 | 95 | 84 | 84 | >=80 | 92 | 94 |
| 2018-2019 | 88 | 93 | 83 | 84 | >=80 | 91 | 93 |
| 2017-2018 | 87 | 92 | 84 | 81 | >=50 | 89 | 93 |
| 2016-2017 | 87 | 90 | 84 | 82 | 60-79 | 89 | 92 |
| 2015-2016 | 91 | 95 | 87 | 88 | >=50 | 95 | 95 |
| 2014-2015 | 89 | 94 | 85 | 85 | >=80 | 90-94 | 95 |
| 2013-2014 | 90 | 94 | 87 | 85 | >=80 | 90-94 | 95 |
| 2012-2013 | 88 | 94 | 83 | 82 | 60-79 | >=95 | 94 |
| 2011-2012 | 87 | 93 | 84 | 80 | >=80 | 90-94 | 94 |
| 2010-2011 | 85 | 94 | 82 | 78 | 80-89 | 90-94 | 92 |
Students
| Year | Enrollment | Year-to-year change (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 2022-2023 | 93,893 | -1.4 |
| 2021-2022 | 95,233 | -2.9 |
| 2020-2021 | 97,968 | -4.4 |
| 2019-2020 | 102,270 | -0.9 |
| 2018-2019 | 103,194 | -22.5 |
| 2017-2018 | 126,400 | -1.3 |
| 2016-2017 | 128,040 | -1.0 |
| 2015-2016 | 129,380 | -0.3 |
| 2014-2015 | 129,779 | -0.4 |
| 2013-2014 | 130,303 | 0.0 |
| 2012-2013 | 130,271 | -0.6 |
| 2011-2012 | 131,044 | -0.6 |
| 2010-2011 | 131,785 | 0.3 |
| 2009-2010 | 131,417 | -0.6 |
| 2008-2009 | 132,256 | 0.5 |
| 2007-2008 | 131,577 | 0.5 |
| 2006-2007 | 130,983 | -1.1 |
| 2005-2006 | 132,482 | -1.7 |
| 2004-2005 | 134,709 | -2.4 |
| 2003-2004 | 137,960 | -2.0 |
| 2002-2003 | 140,753 | -0.6 |
| 2001-2002 | 141,599 | -0.1 |
| 2000-2001 | 141,804 | 0.7 |
| 1999-2000 | 140,743 | 0.0 |
| RACE | San Diego Unified School District (%) | California K-12 STUDENTS (%) |
|---|---|---|
| American Indian/Alaska Native | 0.2 | 0.0 |
| Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander | 14.4 | 0.0 |
| Black | 7.2 | 0.0 |
| Hispanic | 44.7 | 0.0 |
| Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander | 0.4 | 0.0 |
| Two or More Races | 9.1 | 0.0 |
| White | 24.0 | 0.0 |
Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.
Staff
As of the 2022-2023 school year, San Diego Unified School District had 4,290.44 full-time classroom teachers. The student-teacher ratio was 21.88.
| TYPE | NUMBER OF TEACHERS |
|---|---|
| Prekindergarten: | 0.00 |
| Kindergarten: | 541.09 |
| Elementary: | 2,456.48 |
| Secondary: | 1,292.87 |
| Total: | 4,290.44 |
San Diego Unified School District employed 66.00 district administrators and 261.00 school administrators as of the 2022-2023 school year.
| TYPE | NUMBER OF ADMINISTRATORS |
|---|---|
| District Administrators: | 66.00 |
| District Administrative Support: | 771.62 |
| School Administrators: | 261.00 |
| School Administrative Support: | 598.69 |
| TYPE | NUMBER OF OTHER STAFF |
|---|---|
| Instructional Aides: | 1,971.09 |
| Instruc. Coordinators & Supervisors: | 33.00 |
| Total Guidance Counselors: | 261.45 |
| Elementary Guidance Counselors: | 95.00 |
| Secondary Guidance Counselors: | 82.25 |
| Librarians/Media Specialists: | 1.00 |
| Library/Media Support: | 0.00 |
| Student Support Services: | 459.10 |
| Other Support Services: | 1,943.74 |
Schools
Noteworthy events
2016: District one of 100 to pursue socioeconomic integration
The San Diego Unified School District was included in a list of 100 school districts pursuing socioeconomic integration. The school districts, which included 13 other California school districts and charter schools, were listed in a report published by the Century Foundation. According to its website, the foundation is a "progressive, nonpartisan think tank that seeks to foster opportunity, reduce inequality, and promote security at home and abroad." The report showed that socioeconomic integration grew from two school districts in 1996, when the foundation first started researching the issue, to 100 in October 2016, when the report was published. Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, praised the U.S. Department of Education for offering incentives for school districts to voluntarily use socioeconomic integration.[16][17]
The Century Foundation's report came five months after data released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in May 2016 showed schools across the country had been largely resegregated. The data showed that "the number of high-poverty schools serving primarily black and brown students more than doubled between 2001 and 2014," according to The Washington Post.[18]
The data from the GAO showed that high-poverty schools did not offer students the same access to opportunities that other schools did and were also more likely to expel or suspend students for disciplinary issues. According to The Washington Post, the rise of resegregation began in the 1990s when school districts that had integrated were released from court-ordered mandates. The student population in the United States also changed, becoming less white and affluent.[18]
A 2007 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court stopped school districts from assigning students to schools based on race. Those in favor of integrating schools started using the socioeconomic status of students as an integration method.[16]
2016: District sues charter schools
The San Diego Unified School District joined a lawsuit against the Julian Union Elementary School District in June 2016. The lawsuit was originally filed in 2015 by the Grossmont Union High School District after Julian Union Elementary authorized the creation of satellite charter schools outside of the district's boundaries. Both San Diego Unified and Grossmont Union High had charter schools opened within their boundaries without their knowledge and without listing the addresses of the charter schools on their petitions, according to the lawsuit.[19]
Julian Union Elementary received a portion of its authorized charter schools' revenue for providing oversight. By opening charter schools outside of its boundaries, it also did not lose students or the state funding attached to them. Julian Union Elementary Superintendent Brian Duffy did not comment on the lawsuit, but he said, "Julian Union School District strives to provide the best programs for students."[19]
The satellite charter schools in the Grossmont Union High and San Diego Unified school districts were set up as resource centers, which kept students in classrooms less than 80 percent of the time. Officials in the San Diego Unified School District, however, said they did not believe the charters were acting as resource centers. "We don’t believe they are resource centers," said Andra Donovan, San Diego Unified’s general counsel. "If you want to operate a charter in San Diego Unified, apply to San Diego Unified. You’ve got a school district that’s relying on charter school revenue to stay afloat."[19]
"When another school district authorizes a charter that goes and operates in our boundaries and without our approval, we are no longer completely overseeing education in our boundaries," said Grossmont Union's deputy superintendent of business services Scott Patterson. "It gets into accountability. Grossmont taxpayers are paying taxes that are going to Julian."[19]
The California Charter Schools Association responded to the lawsuit by saying the Grossmont Union High and San Diego Unified school districts did not understand the law. The association said the charter schools named in the lawsuit were "non-classroom-based schools that by law may locate outside of the the [sic] district that authorizes them."[20]
| “ |
The issue here is simple: what's best for students and for learning? The issue is not: what's the best way to keep fueling an antiquated system? If students' educational needs met aren't being met by the traditional system, they deserve to access programs that will meet their needs. Building barriers to prevent them from doing so is simply wrong. It is time to put politics aside and support parents and students who seek alternatives to the status quo. These schools are not breaking the law. They are doing exactly what the charter law envisioned: providing flexibility, choice, and above all, better options for students and families.[10] |
” |
| —California Charter Schools Association (June 28, 2016)[20] | ||
On October 17, 2016, the California Third District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the Anderson Union High School District in a similar lawsuit as the one filed by San Diego Unified and Grossmont Union High. The court determined that charter schools could not legally expand by opening satellite campuses outside of their authorizing school district. “This ruling fully supports our position," said Donovan.[21]
Ricardo Soto, general counsel for the California Charter Schools Association, said he was disappointed by the ruling. He also said, "It’s going to have a really significant impact on tens of thousands of students and their families that depend on the charters schools that operate those resource centers."[21]
In January 2017, the California Supreme Court declined to review the appellate court's decision, leaving the ruling in place.[22] The California Charter Schools Association advised charters with satellite campuses outside of their authorizing school district to "seek a new charter agreement from the school district where the resource centers are located to avoid having students and families travel longer distances to continue attending the schools.”[23]
In April 2017, Judge Donal Donnelly ruled in favor of the Grossmont Union High and San Diego Unified school districts and ordered the satellite charter schools to close by June 30, 2017. The California State Board of Education, however, granted the schools a waiver, allowing them to close in 2018.[24]
2016: Charter school sues district
A charter school called the Evangeline Roberts Institute of Learning sued the San Diego Unified School District in June 2016 after its charter was revoked. The San Diego Unified staff determined that the school had not met the necessary criteria to renew its charter. The Evangeline Roberts Institute of Learning was opened in 2011 with a five-year charter. In order to renew the charter, the school had to meet eight criteria set by San Diego Unified School District, including renewing its nonprofit status and meeting performance benchmarks. According to the agreement reached by the school and the district, the Evangeline Roberts Institute of Learning had until June 15, 2016, to meet the criteria. If it did not, it had to "voluntarily surrender" its petition for renewal.[25]
Officials of the charter school filed a lawsuit in order to seek an injunction to stop the district from shutting down the school. The lawsuit said the district violated the law when staff decided the fate of the charter school rather than the elected school board. The lawsuit said that district staff did not have "the authority to make final judgments on the opening and closing of charter schools," according to the San Diego Reader.[25]
The judge ruled in favor of the charter school, allowing it to remain open for the 2016-2017 school year.[26]
2016: Former board member's misdemeanor plea bargain leads to new ethics policy
In March 2016, the San Diego Unified Board of Education unanimously approved a new ethics policy plan for the district. The plan was co-authored by Board President John Lee Evans and Board Vice President Richard Barrera and came one month after former board member Marne Foster pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and resigned from the board.[27][28]
Foster pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of accepting illegal gifts as a public official after she accepted over $3,000 in funding from a philanthropist for her son to attend a youth theater camp. The gift was over the $460 threshold a public official is allowed to accept from a single source in a calendar year. As part of her plea, Foster was put on probation, required to do community service, and forbidden from running for public office for four years.[28][29]
Though the acceptance of an illegal gift was the only charge filed against Foster, allegations that she had used her position as board member for personal gain had also been made. The allegations included pressuring San Diego Unified Superintendent Cindy Marten to remove the principal of the School of Creative and Performing Arts where Foster's sons attended, meddling in other personnel decisions at the school in alleged retribution for actions taken against her sons, holding a private fundraiser to raise money for her sons and inviting people through her professional contacts, and enrolling her son in the district's subsidized lunch program even though her income level disqualified him from joining the program.[28][29]
“We must hold ourselves to a high standard,” Evans said at a press conference before the board voted on the new ethics policy plan. “It is unacceptable and contrary to the mission of the school district for any one board member to give the public cause to question our integrity.”[27]
The ethics policy plan set up a process for the superintendent to inform the full board if an individual member attempted to interfere in the operation of the school district and to inform the public if the behavior continued. It also set up a way for district employees to notify the superintendent of a board member's interference without risk of retaliation. The policy also required new board members to go through ethics and conflict of interest training within 60 days of taking office, and it required board members who were parents of students in the district to meet with staff at their students' schools to draw a clear line between their actions as parents and their actions as board members. The board began their first ethics training session a week after the plan was approved.[27]
Contact information
San Diego Unified School District
4100 Normal Street
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: 619-725-8000
About school boards
Education legislation in California
Bills are monitored by BillTrack50 and sorted by action history.
See also
| California | School Board Elections | News and Analysis |
|---|---|---|
 |
 |
 |
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- San Diego Unified School District
- California Department of Education
- California School Boards Association
Footnotes
- ↑ San Diego Unified School District, "Statements from the Board of Education on August 30, 2024," accessed September 3, 2024
- ↑ San Diego Unified School District, "Superintendent," accessed September 3, 2024
- ↑ KPBS, "Fabiola Bagula named San Diego Unified School District’s interim superintendent," September 11, 2024
- ↑ La Jolla Light, "Who is Lamont Jackson, San Diego Unified’s likely interim superintendent?" February 19, 2021
- ↑ San Diego Unified School District, "Superintendent," accessed April 4, 2022
- ↑ ABC News 10 San Diego, "San Diego Unified Board terminates Superintendent Lamont Jackson's contract," August 31, 2024
- ↑ San Diego Unified School District, "Superintendent Cindy Marten," accessed April 24, 2014 (dead link)
- ↑ San Diego Unified School District, "Board of Education," accessed April 22, 2014
- ↑ San Diego Unified School District, "Board Bylaws," accessed June 7, 2021
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ National Center for Education Statistics, "Elementary/Secondary Information System," accessed June 17, 2024
- ↑ San Diego Unified School District, "ANNUAL SALARY RATES 184-DAY CONTRACT YEAR," accessed February 6, 2024
- ↑ San Diego Unified School District, "SDEA Bargaining Unit Effective January 1, 2020," accessed June 7, 2021
- ↑ San Diego Unified School District, "SDEA Bargaining Unit Effective January 1, 2019," accessed June 7, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: EDFacts, "State Assessments in Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics- School Year 2018-19 EDFacts Data Documentation," accessed February 25, 2021
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 The Washington Post, "These are the 100 U.S. school districts that are actively pursuing socioeconomic integration," October 13, 2016
- ↑ The Century Foundation, "About the Century Foundation," accessed October 18, 2016
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 The Washington Post, "On the anniversary of Brown v. Board, new evidence that U.S. schools are resegregating," May 17, 2016
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 The San Diego Union-Tribune, "Julian charter schools under fire," June 27, 2016
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 California Charter Schools Association, "CCSA Responds to Misguided Lawsuit Against Non-Classroom-Based Charters," June 28, 2016
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 The San Diego Union Tribune, "Court ruling limits storefront charter schools," October 17, 2016
- ↑ The San Diego Union Tribune, "Supreme Court lets stand ruling against satellite charters," January 18, 2017
- ↑ The San Diego Union Tribune, "Supreme Court forces cooperation among satellite charters, districts," January 21, 2017
- ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "SD Unified victorious in Julian, Point Loma lawsuits," June 30, 2017
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 San Diego Reader, "Encanto charter school, facing shutdown, files lawsuit," July 1, 2016
- ↑ Facebook, "The Evangeline Roberts Institute of Learning (ERIL) on August 3, 2016," accessed December 28, 2016
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 Times of San Diego, "San Diego Unified Tightens Ethics Policy in Wake of Foster Resignation," March 9, 2016
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 Voice of San Diego, "What Brought Marne Foster Down," February 2, 2016
- ↑ 29.0 29.1 The San Diego Union Tribune, "Philanthropist gift at center of Foster plea," February 2, 2016
| |||||
