Monday, May 31, 2010

Check out the new SF K Files Community site

In the next couple weeks, The SF K Files will be launching a new Community site. This new section of the blog will feature a forum where you can start your own thread. You will no longer have to email questions and then wait for them to be posted on the site. Also, the site will feature a schools database that will allow you to easily access information on school and find related blog posts.

We're offering dedicated SF K Files readers the opportunity to check out the new site. If you're interested, send an email to thesfkfiles@gmail.com. Thanks!

129 comments:

  1. I have an honest question I am afraid to ask.


    Every white kid on the NW side of town I know was assigned to john muir or f. s. key.

    Muir:
    37% AA
    45% latino
    5% white
    1# asian

    FS KEY:
    73% asian
    9% white
    1% AA

    Many of us were hoping to give Alamo (65% asian, 9% white) chance as that is withing a few blocks of many of us.

    WRONG! No one we know got into Alamo. Never seen a white face going into or out of there, either.

    Why do the public schools feel like "white people get assigned to the worst schools that have NO diversity, (e.g., over 60% one ethnicity) but everyone else has their own majority schools devoted to them All Chinses, All Latino, All AA.

    Feels like the public schools treat white kids very differently and I do not get it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can see how it feels that way, but it's about numbers. It works in different ways for different ethnicities, but it comes down to numbers.

    Asian kids are by far the largest group in SFUSD--around 40%. Given geographical clusters, it makes sense that (absent true attempts to mix up neighborhoods via forced busing, for which there is little support) there are majority Asian schools.

    Latino kids are also a large group at 25%, and they are very clustered for the most part in the SE, esp the Mission, OMI, and Excelsior. And there is the additional burden that few kids not of their ethnicity tend to apply to schools that they dominate (Chavez, Bryant, Sanchez). Same with African American kids, who often attend schools that are largely black and also undersubbed because others explicitly avoid them. There are studies that show that white families avoid schools that are largely AA or Latino, regardless of other factors or successes.

    White kids represent a small part of SFUSD--about 11% last I looked, though the applicant pool may be a bit bigger. White kids are also spread throughout the city although are found in larger numbers in the central, north and west. But it is just not likely that white kids will dominate many schools, because the schools they apply to are also the most uber-popular schools of all, like Clarendon, Grattan, Miraloma, Sherman, and those schools' applicant pools, unlike, say, the pool for Charles Drew, are relatively diverse.

    Note, these schools do ultimately do greatly OVER-represent white kids compared to the district as a whole: Grattan is almost half white kids, which is a stunning figure (5x the district %), and Clarendon is at 35% white kids (3.5x). But there are lots of other families applying in large numbers too (unlike at Chavez for Latinos, Drew for AA families, FS Key for Asian families, where applicants pools are undiverse).

    I believe that Alamo actually has 19% white kids, almost 2x the district average, and 62% Asian. I would assume that Alamo, given the neighborhood and reputation, gets a huge number of Asian family applicants. This is hardly more segregated than almost every private school in the city, btw.

    The main reason that white families get sent to the most unpopular schools is that they, more than most groups, tend to pick the most long-odds schools to get into, such as Grattan, Clarendon, Claire Lilienthal et al. They fill up their lists with these schools. Then they go 0-7 more than probably any other group because of these uber-popular picks. I'm not sure why there is this collective sense among upper/middle class white families of being able to beat the odds. I hate to say entitlement but sometimes it seems there is a feeling of--my kid deserves Clarendon, Grattan, CL, Sherman....and nothing else will do....(more than any other kid?, really? It's a lottery, take a number!!).

    Btw, FS Key is a nice school. Can't think why more white folks don't send their kids there, other than not wanting to be the minority. But how can it ever overcome being non-diverse if people don't give it a try?

    Anyway, it all changes next year. It will be interesting to see how neighborhood assignment affects racial / ethnic segregation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 12:33,

    "There are studies that show that white families avoid schools that are largely AA or Latino, regardless of other factors or successes."

    What studies and what "other factors"?

    I am not white but I would avoid most schools that have more than 40% of any ethnic background. In addition, a lot of schools, in the city, have segregated populations because the areas surrounding them are segregated.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would question this too:
    "There are studies that show that white families avoid schools that are largely AA or Latino, regardless of other factors or successes."

    There was a study that I read about a couple of years ago (it was badly misreported by Chuck Nevius in the Chronicle, causing me to research the original) -- but the description "regardless of other factors or successes" was definitely not one of the findings. The study showed that white families were applying in low numbers to heavily AA schools but didn't factor in the the point that the heavily AA schools being studied had low test scores.

    Do you have more information to the contrary, 12:33?

    I agree with many of your other points, including the information that FS Key is a fine and highly regarded schools.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I'm not sure why there is this collective sense among upper/middle class white families of being able to beat the odds. I hate to say entitlement but sometimes it seems there is a feeling of--my kid deserves Clarendon, Grattan, CL, Sherman....and nothing else will do....(more than any other kid?, really? It's a lottery, take a number!!)."

    Wow - You are extremely racially and socio-economically insensitive. Really? Is it ok to bash upper/middle class white families? Since when? I know many people who went 0/7 who put balanced schools on their list. No - It is "not their fault" as you suggest. If you read this blog or rachel norton's blog, you would have heard from these folks as well.

    The only groups of people that didn't go 0/7 in high proportions are people with diversity, people who lied to get diversity and native speakers in the language programs.

    Please do not create and spread such awful misinformation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The only groups of people that didn't go 0/7 in high proportions are people with diversity, people who lied to get diversity and native speakers in the language programs."

    What do you mean by "people with diversity"? Low-SES status folks who applied to popular schools probably did get into those schools, yes. Is that what you meant?

    As I understand it, a large majority, around 70%, of first-time kinder applicants got one of their choices (that is, even when removing sibling applicants who naturally got their choice--who account for the bump up to the higher percentages cited by sfusd). The key factor for not getting one of the seven choices was applying to those schools with historically hundreds upon hundreds of applicants. A significant percentage of the 70% who did get one of their choices were in fact not low-income, liars, or native speakers of an immersion program language. Applicants did have *some* control over this process (not fully--of course there were families that made balanced lists that still didn't get one of their picks). There are plenty of fine schools that are not Clarendon, Miraloma, Grattan etc.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Re studies showing racial bias (parents using racial information to seek or avoid schools, and in particular white parents avoiding AA and Latino schools--controlling for economic and academic data), start here:


    http://eduwonkette2.blogspot.com/2007/10/do-parents-choose-school-quality-or.html

    http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/
    scmsAdmin/uploads/003/057/1-The%20Demand%20for%20High%20School%20Programs%20in%20New%20York%20City.pdf

    There is a also a book, often cited:

    "School Selection as a Process: The Multiple Dimensions of Race in Framing Educational Choice" by
    Salvatore Saporito and Annette Lareau, 1999

    It's complicated, but there is evidence that white parents avoid AA- and Latino-concentrated schools, even controlling for academic outcomes and economics.

    Not making accusations about individuals here, rather trying to see the data in aggregate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Please do not create and spread such awful misinformation."

    It appears you are doing what you are asking a previous poster not to do. No one is "bashing" any particular group. The thoughtful post you find objectionable explained why the numbers tend to shake out the way they do. Yes, there are people who don't get what they want (at least in early rounds), but it's not because SFUSD is out to get them or is secretly imposing some racial quotas they're not telling anyone about.

    Take the original question. The poster wanted to know why so many "white kids" were assigned to Muir, which is more than a third AA. The suggestion seems to be that SFUSD is trying to force "white kids" into the school to balance out the current demographics. But that's not what's going on. The district assigns kids to Muir because that's the closest school with openings after Round I...which is exactly the policy that SFUSD sets forth in its enrollment guide.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am not white but I would avoid most schools that have more than 40% of any ethnic background.

    That's laudable but difficult! Most schools are more than 40% of one or another ethnicity, including of course most parochial and private schools as well as public. Even Aptos, often cited here as one of the more truly diverse schools in the district, has almost 40% Asian kids (mirroring the district).

    When SFUSD had a policy mandating that no school have more than 40% of any group, they had resort to assignments across town and forced busing to make it happen. And I assume that the new neighborhood assignment system will exacerbate the segregation, because, as you point out, segregation starts wtih the neighborhoods.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In other news, the principal from Starr King, Chris Rosenberg, will now be the principal of John Muir. This is excellent news for Muir.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It will be interesting to see what happens at Muir with new leadership and a new assignment system. Maybe it will become the new go-to school in 7-8 years, and newbies won't believe it was once scorned....(a la Alvarado, Miraloma, etc.).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Diversity means you answered questions on your application that gave you diversity points (i.e., lack of preschool, free lunch, etc). I would guess that 100% of diversity applicants (truthful or untruthful) got one of their picks, as well as native speakers for language programs.

    This makes it more likely for people not in these groups to go 0/7.

    Yes - I find it objectionable for the poster to call upper/middle class white families entitled. I think the poster is bashing an entire racial and socioeconomic group. How is that defensible?

    Would you make any of the same broad brush statements about the hispanic residents living in the city, or african american residents?

    ReplyDelete
  13. 11:48,

    The second link didn't work but the first link did not really go in depth. The person also noted that white families didn't want to enroll in schools with high AA and ELL. What is ELL? Second, even if a school is academically acceptable what is the student body and the PTA like. Many parents want an active PTA and high standards. That is what I was looking for. I wouldn't send my child to Jean Parker for the lack of a good PTA. I even attended Jean Parker myself as a child. The scores are good and the area is fine just not very racially mixed and little to no parental involvement.

    The author also noted that even AA families don't want schools in high poverty areas. Well, who can blame them and who can blame any family that doesn't wish to enroll in such a school. In disadvantaged schools, there is much more than economic issues that I would factor in. How stable are the families of the children attending? How stable is their living situation (i.e. housing)? How much parental involvement? How much assistance are they getting with school work (inside or outside the home)? Are they being abused? Is a family member dealing with abuse? Is there sufficient nutritional food available? All of these things must be taken into account when weighing a school since they can all impact school performance and how children behave in schools. Even if academically a school is doing well, if many of the children are dealing with a myriad of issues, more issues are likely to arise to impact the learning environment. Children learn things at home and if they bring some of these unacceptable tendencies to school, it will impact the school regardless of test scores.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 11:54,

    Those schools are out there. My child attends one of them. I was very please that we were able to get in to a fairly diverse school. There aren't many Asia children but other than that it is very diverse. So they exist and I agree the new system will indeed make all schools, more likely than not, less diverse. As I said earlier, neighborhoods are not diverse. People tend to live in enclaves of people like themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes - I find it objectionable for the poster to call upper/middle class white families entitled. I think the poster is bashing an entire racial and socioeconomic group. How is that defensible?

    Would you make any of the same broad brush statements about the hispanic residents living in the city, or african american residents?


    The original questioner asked why so many of his/her white friends in the relatively wealthy NW side of town went 0/7 and got assigned to an unwanted school--one with low, low test scores and one that is a successful but but mostly asian.

    12:33 answered with a plausible explanation based on applicant patterns and residential clusters. The "entitlement" comment may have been a cheap shot, but it was in light of asking why white/upper-middle class parents persist in applying to the same schools when all past lottery evidence points to going 0/7. [Let's stipulate right now that some 0/7 families did have balanced lists, but that the majority of 0/7s had the same schools in their #1 or #2 slots--as Rachel Norton has documented for the previous year.]

    The smart strategy is obviously to choose more schools off that list. There are plenty of decent choices in the NW that are not on that list, including FS Key. But there seems to be a feeling that *only* those popular schools are worthy for these parents' kids. Why is that? Given the odds, it is not likely you'll get them. So why pick them? What is the particular bias among white/upper-middle class families that leads the hordes to these schools in the teeth of failure and being assigned to Muir? Why not include FS Key from the beginning? We're talking about educated, savvy parents here, right?

    It's an interesting question. Try to see it not as an individual attack, but a sociological question about a group....

    There have been plenty of broad-brush statements about Latino and AA communities on this blog, some of them quite odious (bad parents, don't care about education, etc....). One difference is that those communities are largely not privileged, certainly compared to the aforementioned white, upper-middle class families. One would expect more savvy behavior from the latter, perhaps, and also less of a sense of victimhood in the system given their relative privilege and their many more options, such as abilities to navigate the system or opt out of it altogether. I really don't think assignment patterns reflect that white kids do poorly and AA kids do particularly well in terms of getting into high-scoring schools. What happens to individual families may of course vary.

    Just saying--and I am white and educated myself, though only middle class income I'm afraid (mid five figures).

    ReplyDelete
  16. 12:04 AM:

    Getting back to your original question:

    Yes, what you are observing is real. The same thing has happened on the other side of town with Miraloma and Grattan, where over 40% white people is viewed as a giant no-no, while it's OK to have over 60% ethnically Latino and Chinese at many schools.

    The Chinese and Latino communities have representation. White people do not.

    You see the effect of this in choices made regarding immersion programs as well. There's no French or German immersion, and Russion does not have an immersion program.

    Most of the supervisors are not advocating for middle and upper middle class white people. Sean Elsbernd, Michela Alioto-Pier and Beven Dufty are the exceptions. They have advocated for the middle and upper middle class. The redo of the Upper Noe Park and Recreation Area is an example.

    John Avalos (Excelsior) is also a straight shooter and in his first term has been very effective and even handed.

    If you don't like what's happening, vote accordingly.

    In anycase, I would *not* vote for Chris Daly. Given his voting record, his movement out the burb's with his young family is complete hypocrisy.

    If you want representation, you have to vote for it.

    Also, it would be great if we had more representation on the Board of Education.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I almost think 2:06's post must be a joke. I don't know what city s/he's living in but it's not on this planet. I want to laugh but I have this horrible feeling that maybe it's for real.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 2:06--have to disagree (and agree):

    The same thing has happened on the other side of town with Miraloma and Grattan, where over 40% white people is viewed as a giant no-no,

    Other than snarky but impotent comments on a few blogs, how is it *in fact* a no-no? It has happened. It has been allowed to happen. There are schools with other 40% white people. Very popular schools to boot. Not only that, but the new SAS will most likely increase the possibility of this happening in other schools. Twenty years ago, this would have been a no-no, but not anymore.

    Sheesh, people--take notice: upper-middle class white people have gained in power in SFUSD in the sense that they have defeated busing and are gaining mostly neighborhood schools. There are no more 40% quotas. Grattans and Miralomas can now proliferate.

    White people and upper-middle class people are not being victimized. Unless you call not getting exactly what you want all the time victimization. In the future if you want a school, you'll be able to buy into the right district to get it. IF you can afford to.

    I'm not even going to go into the language program thing. It's a matter of demand (or lack thereof) combined lack of organization by the folks that maybe could make it happen--as Carol Lei has done for Mandarin. If you really want French immersion, go for it. That's what others have done. You are not owed this, especially in a context of relatively low demand compared to Spanish and Cantonese (objectively speaking).

    In terms of "representation" I think you are mixing up school board and city board of supes. Kind of an important distinction.

    I doubt any of the politicians you mention would care to be identified as representing racial and economic classes, rather than their districts as a whole. That said, since you name three members of city supes as "representing" middle and upper middle classes, and name another as being fair-minded, I'm having trouble seeing how these groups are under-represented in city politics given your own description. On those terms, we happen to have a very diverse board, which is good, right??? Would you like it to be all people "representing" upper-middle class white folks? We've had plenty of boards like that in this city's history, btw.

    Finally, no worries about Chris Daly, as he is termed out. There's an active race going on in District 6 that does not include him. Although regarding his moving to the burbs, I doubt it was for the schools, since Fairfield has lower test scores than San Francisco.... Fairfield is a low-rent suburb, not exactly Orinda. My understanding is there were family/elder care issues involved.

    Anyway, I DO agree with you that if you want representation you have to vote for it (and advocate for what you want).

    ReplyDelete
  19. 12:04 AM:

    I'd also add that middle class white people are hurt by the board's decision not to verify information that in on the school enrollment form.

    We obviously can't claim as easily for "free lunch" status or "english language learner".

    ReplyDelete
  20. 2:25, I think it was most definitely real. Ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Poor suffering upper-middle class white people, sniff sniff.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 2:35 PM:

    I really don't see the schools you are taling about with more than 40% white kids. Could you point them out to me?

    However, I know of many schools that are more than 60% Asian or Latino. I'm just being polite, but if you want, I'll point them out to you.

    I'd like to believe in the whole diversity/achievement gap thing.

    However, until the city cleans up residency verification, diversity and achievement gap arguments are a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  23. taling -> talking

    ReplyDelete
  24. 2:44:

    Both Grattan and Miraloma have populations of white children that are in the high 40%s, approaching 50%, or half the school.

    It's important to remember that the population of white kids in SFUSD is much smaller than that of Asian and also Latino kids. White kids are only about 11% of the district, whereas Asian kids are 41% and Latino kids 23%.

    One would expect there to be at least some majority-Asian schools given their numbers. It is somewhat more surprising to see it for such a small group of white kids. Given that it is happening at two schools already, even before neighborhood assignment kicks in, it really cannot be argued that 40%+ concentrations of white kids is officially a no-no in SFUSD. It has happened already and it will happen more. The few white kids there are tending to self-segregate in schools like Grattan and Miraloma. Clarendon btw has about 35% white kids.

    Actually, the person who wrote in at 12:33 last night described pretty well why there are certain concentrations of kids in certain schools. The dynamics are somewhat different for each group, but it is all about residence and application patterns (not a conspiracy on the part of SFUSD, which if anything has thrown up its hands in the face of parental preference for de facto segregation).

    ReplyDelete
  25. "It's important to remember that the population of white kids in SFUSD is much smaller than that of Asian and also Latino kids. White kids are only about 11% of the district, whereas Asian kids are 41% and Latino kids 23%."

    11% in the SFUSD, but not in SF. About 40% of kids in the city are white.

    The reason there are not more white kids in SF public schools is that they can't get into the better schools.

    And yes, white people do seem to place a high value on a good education and are willing and able to move, pay for and advocate for a good education for their children, even when being cheated out of access to a good public school education.

    Again, as we all know, the under-representation of white people in SF schools is a direct result of SFUSD policy.

    However, we are still here in the city, if in much reduced number in the public schools, and we still vote.

    Hopefully, we will become better informed about why we can't get equal access to the public schools that we help pay for.

    ReplyDelete
  26. White people make up a sizable majority of the >$20K per year private population, and big chunks of some of the parochial schools. A number of parochials are quite diverse and mirror their surrounding neighborhoods to a surprising extent. For example Zion Lutheran in the inner Richmond is probably majority Asian (just guessing based looking around). I haven't really looked at Catholics other than NDV, but that's a trophy parochial and more white than some. The white population is colonizing certain publics (Grattan, Miraloma), taking up a disproportionate space at non-Chinatown trophy publics, and spending $ on private rather than taking whatever SFUSD hands out.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Another reason that whites are colonized into schools like Grattan and Miraloma, is due to the way the algorithm has worked.

    When a white person has tried to get into, say, Sunset or Stevenson, they have been at a disadvantage because there are so many other people who have priority ahead of middle class whites (free lunch, ELL, etc.)

    So its not like white have deliberately colonized themselves at Grattan and Miraloma. The algorithm is largely responsible for that.

    ReplyDelete
  28. About 40% of kids in the city are white.

    No. Only about 24% of the kids in the city are white [0-18 years of age). White people in this city are older than the population as a whole; fewer children are white. A little more than half the schoolage white kids go to private or parochial school or are homeschooled.

    And yes, white people do seem to place a high value on a good education

    There is too much here to unpack, but suffice it to say that your argument is quite general and simplistic. I think most parents want a good education for their kids, and future opportunity. Not everyone knows how or has the wherewithal to pursue it in the most strategic way. Also generalizations like yours about racial groups are [generally :-)] problematic.

    Again, as we all know, the under-representation of white people in SF schools is a direct result of SFUSD policy.

    I don't think we do all know this or agree with you on this. White kids are in fact over-represented in the so-called "best" schools in the city (certainly those that are the most popular, and also many of the highest testing ones).

    The fact of white flight from the public schools has long and complicated roots, and is not only a phenomenon in San Francisco--and therefore at the very least cannot only be "caused" by SFUSD policy.

    I suppose you could argue that if segregation--which was the absolute norm 40-50 years ago, when there were schools set aside for black children, was allowed to continue--then white flight might not have happened. Although one might argue that Prop 13 and the tax revolution and subsequent defunding of schools might have played a role in white/upper-middle class flight as well--call it privatization. But not ending segregation would have brought its own social and political problems. Surely you don't want to argue that whites have been victimized by ending segregation.

    The point is, it's complicated. We have a large, diverse, urban district with many constituencies. There are NO easy answers to how to provide good education to all our kids, especially in this era of radical disinvestment. I agree with you that policy matters, though I would focus on building overall better schools (with more funding--yes, taxes) than on how to allocate more crumbs to the white kids per se. I disagree with you that white folks, or upper-middle class folks, are mostly the victims here, although I think ALL our kids are feeling the effects of disinvestment--as will our larger society, eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  29. When a white person has tried to get into, say, Sunset or Stevenson, they have been at a disadvantage because there are so many other people who have priority ahead of middle class whites (free lunch, ELL, etc.)

    I don't think so. Actually at some of the mostly Asian schools, middle class white kids would have an advantage in the lottery, as those schools have a majority population of free lunch kids--and the white middle class kids lend diversity. The algorithm is aiming for 50-50. I think they are just not applying in large numbers to majority-Asian schools. They are getting into Miraloma and Grattan because they are applying in large numbers there. Lots get turned away of course, but ultimately the applicant pool for Miraloma and Grattan is overwhelmingly not-poor and disproportionately white.

    Anyway, the new system will change some of these dynamics--I'm guessing in the direction of greater segregation, but we'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "I don't think so. Actually at some of the mostly Asian schools, middle class white kids would have an advantage in the lottery, as those schools have a majority population of free lunch kids--and the white middle class kids lend diversity. The algorithm is aiming for 50-50."

    oh right - the algorithm. How on earth didn't more non-low-income families get into Alamo if the algorithm worked as you profess it works?

    Me thinks that the diversity "algorithm" worked like this... Diversity points = you get assigned first. There is no other way to explain how non-diverse families went 0/7 when they listed schools like Moscone.

    but alas - the "algorithm" is gone and now a new "algorithm" will emerge.. with #1 CDC, #2 CTIP, #3 Attendance area, etc. So much simpler right?

    ReplyDelete
  31. "11% in the SFUSD, but not in SF. About 40% of kids in the city are white."

    Wrong!

    According to the 2000 census, 23% of school age children in San Francisco were white. This was down from 1990, when 29% of the school age population was white, which was down from 1980 when 55% of the school age population was white. Assuming a similar trend moving forward, in 2010 one would expect significantly less than 20% of the school age population to be white:

    http://www.thehdmt.org/indicators/view/85

    According to the chart, the percentage of white kids who enroll in SFUSD has actually increased since 1980, relative to their numbers (a little more than half of white kids attending private in 2000, compared to two thirds of white kids attending private in 1980.)

    By contrast, in 2000, Asians made up 41% of the school age population compared to Hispanics at 23% and African Americans at 12%. The AA population has been shrinking since 1980, and both Asians and Hispanics have been growing (and presumably would show similar growth with 2010 figures.)

    ReplyDelete
  32. "The fact of white flight from the public schools has long and complicated roots, and is not only a phenomenon in San Francisco--and therefore at the very least cannot only be "caused" by SFUSD policy."

    In recent years, resegretation of our schools is absolutely caused by the design of the algorithm that has been used to allocate school assignments. That's the case for at least as long as the algorithm has been running.

    The "bins" on the algorithm were never matched to the populations applying. They gave exceptionally heavy weighting to any child who fit in one of the diversity slots.

    Additionally, the failure to verify addresses and other items on school enrollment forms has made matters worse. Poor people have less to lose and more to gain when fabricating information on a school enrollment form. Again, this has tended to push the middle class out of the public schools.

    Go ahead and argue with that. I can't prove it. But I'd bet I'm correct.

    I'm not arguing for segregation to any degree. On the contrary.

    The fact is, I don't see the racist white person everyone keeps talking about, at least not any more racist than other racial groups.

    The fact is, when it comes to how the SFUSD lottery has worked, it has pushed middle class (and above) white people out of SFUSD public schools.

    That's a fact of the algorithm, plain and simple: Less then 7% success if you're child is a native english speaker and you can't claim any of the poverty criteria.

    And that's if everyone were truthful. Not! By some estimates, the number of address cheaters exceeds 20%. That doesn't include "free lunch" cheaters and English language learner cheaters.

    And we all know that the district did not test every child claiming ELL status.

    Palo Alto and Cupertino schools are not hurting. And they are even somewhat diverse, although quite affluent.

    It's a painful fact of the world that education costs money. Someone has to pay for education. If you are poor and have a lot of children, your chances of properly educating your children is reduced. That's been a constant through out history.

    Many in California believe that all we need to do is increase corporate tax and all will be well. What they forget is that Asia is more than able to compete against our companies. And corporations are more than able to move to the next state or country if they are confronted with an unfavorable tax situation here in the Bay Area.

    So in California, there is no way out of the fact that we now have too many children and not enough tax payers to educate them.

    Of course, we all know this, but we can't quite bring ourselves to skip the sturm and drang of pretending that there is some magical escape from this fact.

    ReplyDelete
  33. How on earth didn't more non-low-income families get into Alamo if the algorithm worked as you profess it works?

    Well, since Alamo has only 34% free lunch kids, presumably it was pretty hard for the upper-middle class white kids to actually add SES diversity to that particular school. It would have been easier for a not-poor person to get into Francis Scott Key with its higher percentage of free lunch kids.

    Thus, for Alamo, the algorithm first placed those neighborhood families that did lend SES diversity (free lunch etc.)--probably mostly Chinese immigrant families is my guess. Then it place out-of-neighorhood SES-diverse folks. Then it was straight lottery amongst those who were left, both white and Asian and anyone else, those who lent no SES diversity (were middle class or higher). Assuming the applicant pool was majority Asian, which is a good assumption in that neighborhood, then the overall school would look pretty Asian after that. Remember the algorithm is not considering race.

    Agreed that someone who applied to Moscone as a non-free lunch family should have gotten in (as lending diversity for that school). I'm aware of anyone who actually did that though--lots of middle class (and white) people in my experience think about Moscone but don't put it down. If there is someone, please speak up. You can talk to EPC about a glitch.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Actually at some of the mostly Asian schools, middle class white kids would have an advantage in the lottery, as those schools have a majority population of free lunch kids--and the white middle class kids lend diversity."

    No.

    The middle class white person has ended up competing with a middle class Asian person.

    Why do you think they abandonned this algorithm?

    Because, in the end, it did not create diversity.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "By contrast, in 2000, Asians made up 41% of the school age population compared to Hispanics at 23% and African Americans at 12%. The AA population has been shrinking since 1980, and both Asians and Hispanics have been growing (and presumably would show similar growth with 2010 figures.)"

    Good, so by that argument, in order to keep diversity in the city, the city should be bending over backward to keep whites from fleeing to Alemeda, Marin, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  36. As long as we are way off topic, anybody see this? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/06/02/state/n151101D60.DTL&tsp=1

    Calif. bill would raise kindergarten age to 5

    Proposal is to change the K cut off from Dec. 2 to Sept. 1. Bummer b/c this will make my 26 months apart kids (with summer and early fall b'days) 3 years apart in school. I would have liked for them to be only 2 years apart. Not to mention having to pay that extra year of preschool.

    I wonder what year it would go into effect? 2011/2012 school year? And would it be easier to get a good K that year b/c there would be 3/12 less kids available to apply for that year?

    ReplyDelete
  37. "The fact is, when it comes to how the SFUSD lottery has worked, it has pushed middle class (and above) white people out of SFUSD public schools."

    Actually, their numbers have increased during the period of the diversity lottery, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage. So it can't be the lottery that has precipitated white flight. In fact, the opposite might be argued, although it looks to me like correlation not causation.

    I agree with you that the lottery "bins" did not match actual populations. This was a problem, along with many other problems related to the evolving spit-and-tape character of the lottery. The new one at least has the virtue of being put together as a whole.

    "That's a fact of the algorithm, plain and simple: Less then 7% success if you're child is a native english speaker and you can't claim any of the poverty criteria."

    Um, no. This is a baldly wrong statement on its face. The number is complicated anyway by the element of parental choice--how define "success"--but 7% is pulled out of the air. A Rush Limbaugh moment for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Oh, and blacks.

    I hardly ever hear the flight of blacks from the city discussed. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  39. "The middle class white person has ended up competing with a middle class Asian person."

    Yes, definitely true at Alamo and Alice Fong Yu and West Portal. Wouldn't be true at Francis Scott Key and some others on the far west side and in Chinatown---the person said "some" mostly Asian schools as I recall. The Asian community is very diverse! But folks here tend to lump them all together.

    Best strategy under the old lottery was to understand the difference between an Alamo and a FSK in terms of lottery access.

    White folks tended to compete with each other at Miraloma and Grattan--not against fictional "diverse" people btw.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Why do you think that is, 4:22?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "I agree with you that the lottery "bins" did not match actual populations. This was a problem, along with many other problems related to the evolving spit-and-tape character of the lottery. The new one at least has the virtue of being put together as a whole."

    Oh, and cheating. You didn't mention cheating.

    It may be true that the 7% is a slight simplification, but in aggraagate, it's correct. The middle class and above of every color, were binned by the algorithm into an available 7% pool.

    Unfortunately, a few more than 7% of the city are middle class. Like that Indian carpenter who stood in line all night and can't get a decent pool for his kid. Nice!

    BTW, I looked at the algorithm myself, line by line, so I do know what I'm talking about regarding the 7%.

    ReplyDelete
  42. decent pool for his -> decent school for his kid.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "It may be true that the 7% is a slight simplification, but in aggraagate, it's correct. The middle class and above of every color, were binned by the algorithm into an available 7% pool."

    .....but were not competing against equal bins at every school. Mostly, at places like Grattan and Miraloma, were competing against each other in what amounted to a straight-up, non-diversity lottery.

    If it were really 7% success for this group, then you would expect to see only 7% middle class + English speakers at Grattan--but you don't. Half the kids are white and relatively well-off to boot. A significant percentage of the rest are not white but still relatively well-off. Where's the other 93% ..... attending Sanchez, Chavez, Bryant, Cobb, Drew, Carver .... that's how it has worked in reality.

    ReplyDelete
  44. 4:21 - The new age requirement would be phased in over three years beginning in 2012.

    http://www.senatorsimitian.com/entry/sb_1381_kindergarten_age/

    This is killing me as well b/c my kids would now be 4 years apart in school instead of three...

    ReplyDelete
  45. Maybe they can grandfather in younger siblings? Contact Joe Simitian, the bill's sponsor, to suggest the amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 4:34 PM:

    What you are describing confirms my point.

    A white applicant in the know was best off choosing Miraloma or Grattan because the algorithm would default into its alternate mode at these schools and pick randomly from the middle class pool.

    So much for encouraging diversity.

    ReplyDelete
  47. ^ what does white have to do with it in the case you describe? Wouldn't a free-lunch-qualifed white person have been in a different "bin" than a middle-class one?

    ReplyDelete
  48. If you're not hearing the flight of middle-class African-Americans from San Francisco discussed, you're not paying attention:

    USA Today, Aug. 2007
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-26-urban-blacks_N.htm

    Christian Science Monitor, June 2009

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2009/0615/p02s04-usgn.html

    San Francisco Chronicle, August 2008

    http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-08-10/bay-area/17121007_1_african-americans-black-families-public-housing

    San Francisco Magazine had a big cover story on the same issue in the past 3 years or so, which I can't find right now.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Good link on the K age bill. So phased over three years:

    2012/2013 - cut off Nov. 1
    2013/2014 - cut off Oct. 1
    2014/2013 - cut off Sept. 1

    My older kids will able to be two years apart. But my younger ones (both Sept b'days) will be 4 years apart in school but only 3 calendar years!

    ReplyDelete
  50. The age change is great. To have 4 year olds starting Kindergarten, with the requirements that is there today, is wrong. In my daughter's class this year, it was all too obvious that several of the younger kids should not have been there. It is unfair to them - they end up getting a lot of negative attention, which can't be good for their self esteem or their ability to learn - and it is unfair to the other kids as well, as it drains resources away from the rest. There is one teacher, and at least 22 kids, and the more mature the kids are, the better off everyone is. In her school they routinely keep several kids back a year when necessary, but not all schools will do that.

    The fact that private schools have long had this cut off has meant that not only do they get to pick the most pliable, supported, kids, but they are often a full year older as well. Despite having to pay for childcare/preschool, etc. for another year, this will in the end mean LESS of a disadvantage for public school kids.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "The study showed that white families were applying in low numbers to heavily AA schools but didn't factor in the the point that the heavily AA schools being studied had low test scores."

    This is a dumb thing to say. African American kids in general consistently underperform and this is widely acknowledged. You don't need to know more than what is the racial composition of any school to know how it performs academically. This has nothing to do with racism. It is a staistical fact. Whites may avoid black and Latino dominated schools or schools with low APIs. But they are, by and large, one and the same in urban areas, with few exceptions.

    ReplyDelete
  52. You need to be careful about some of your comments, specifically where race is concerned. A lot of what people discuss here is related to class, not race. I attended college with many middle and upper-class AA who were very well educated and attended the top public and private high schools. This is especially true in the mid-Atlantic states. In California, the Black elite is not as well represented, so the stereotypes and generalizations go unchecked. Also,one group that people fail to mention in their racial discussions are children of African immigrants, specifically Ethiopians and Nigerians. They tend to surpass most students in test scores, GPA's and college attendance. Never mentioned.

    Also, some posters mentioned that SF does not offer German or French immersion. However, in other states, particularly in the Midwest and East coasts, there are French immersion programs offered in public schools. It would be nice to see a cosmopolitan city such as SF offer a French, Russian or German immersion program rather than restrict it to those who can pay for private school.

    I digress... What I ultimately want to say is the racial talk is quite alarming to me in such a progressive city as SF. I guess progressive means that we can eat ethnic food and watch a parade or two; but just not attend the same schools.

    ReplyDelete
  53. 10:04, you must be new to following education issues. It's a sad, undeniable fact that overall, on average, African-American and Latino students' achievement is much lower than white and Asian students'. That's what all talk about the achievement gap is about.

    Of course it's heavily linked with social class and economics. Of course there are high-income black students, and there are many exceptions to the average who are high-achieving, low-income black students. Our national education policies and statewide education policies all make a high priority of trying to close the achievement gap. If it's racist to discuss the achievement gap, the entire national conversation about education is based on racism.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "I attended college with many middle and upper-class AA who were very well educated and attended the top public and private high schools."

    I'll bet you even had friends who were black. Good for you.

    "What I ultimately want to say is the racial talk is quite alarming to me in such a progressive city as SF. I guess progressive means that we can eat ethnic food and watch a parade....."

    Did you move to progressive San Francisco hoping you would not have to hear views more in keeping with moderate values? Surely you are aware that Sf has some of the most radicalized politics of any American city. Excuse me if I have another opinion than that which pleases you. But then, you didn't have to live in San Francisco. If you really don't want to hear other opinions than the socialist voices, you could have moved to China, North Korea or Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  55. This idea that SF's progressive politics are racially progressive is hugely problematic. What's your evidence? The contrary evidence is pretty strong, starting with the city's demographics - it's considerably less diverse than some other Bay Area cities, and its schools are badly segregated (again, worse than many other Bay Area enclaves).

    This thread is disturbing for me to read. Many of these comments expose a great deal of racial privilege - unstudied perhaps, but harmful all the same.

    Still, it is my opinion that white parents who do not want to send their children to school with children of color (and the studies are awfully good on this - there IS a documented racial aspect to enrollment and school selection) probably shouldn't. The attitudes they bring are unwelcome, and I don't think children and families of color should bear the burden of bringing white people around to common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Some background on Miraloma and how it came to be so heavily white today:

    About eight years ago when families in the area started noticing Miraloma, it was severely underenrolled (245 kids our first year there) and was a 3 on the API and 1 on similar schools index. Because of the bus schedule/routes, there were a large number of immigrant families from the Excelsior and African American kids from Bayview attending the school. When we arrived, the test scores had not moved up and many of the Chinese families were fleeing to Lakeshore and Rooftop.

    Several of the families came from Miraloma Coop and Glen Ridge Coop and others were like-minded community building spirits. For most of us it wasn't our neighborhood school, but was still walkable-ish or easy to get to by car or MUNI) We started a PTA that year and started telling our friends (mostly middle-class, English speaking families which skewed white, but certainly not exclusively. It definitely attracted more educated parents - who found Coop preschools attractive.)

    Basically, the school 'filled up' with families that were willing to go to the school, "take a chance" and take empty spots that had historically gone unfilled. During this time, Dream Schools like Drew opened and many of our African American families left to go to school closer to home and which at the time provided way more resources like a longer school day/year and built in preschool and before/afterschool (in the middle of this Miraloma lost our Title I funding but after that PTA fundraising went from $12,000 the first PTA year to close to a couple hundred grand today.)

    The same families from Excelsior and Bayview are still at the school, but instead of being the majority of the 245 enrolled eight years ago, the balance that brought the enrollment up to 360 came from the English-speaking middle class. The group that started choosing the school tended to be families that used to only choose Lakeshore, Clarendon, Rooftop, etc. and shifted the demographics.

    Interesting to note, in recent years as the test scores rose, we have seen a sudden increase in Asian families choosing the school again. I recall the principal saying last year that this really shot up with last years (2009-10) kindergarten applications.

    I dont' know Grattan's details, but they were considered a school very similar to ours and I believe they, too, went from underenrolled school populated mostly by students of color, which started filling up to capacity with students that skewed white or middle/class English speaking.

    Were the parents all racist? For most that started going there, the blonde kids were definitely in the minority (and mine, now in middle school, certainly still are.)

    I shudder reading the comments that SFUSD is doing something to "unfairly" target whites - good heavens, paranoid much? If just a few parents band together and help to grow a diverse parent community, you really CAN change the world and be a part of a positive future.

    And will everyone get it through their heads that SFUSD doesn't place kids by RACE!!! Doesn't happen, over and out!

    ReplyDelete
  57. According to the census bureau site the percentage of school aged children as of 2008 is as follows: white 32%, asian 32%, latino 20% and AA 8.4%.

    http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US06075&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_S0901&-ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false

    There are more white children in SF than has been suggested so far in this thread. It would be hard for anyone to argue convincingly that whites are not seriously under-represented in the SFUSD overall. And it may very well be because whites are not as savvy as a group about picking schools in the lottery, "pickier" about what schools they may find acceptable, or a combination of these factors (or other factors as well, like whites are racists, which have been suggested on this thread). But based on the statistics it's easy to make a case that the SFUSD does a poor job of serving whites in the city (11% white in SFUSD). I know it's complicated, but I mean this in the same sense that I mean it would be very easy to make a case that the SFUSD does a great job of serving the asian community here (40% enrollment).

    Furthermore, the presence of 2 schools with 45% white populations doesn't seem all that unusual given the presence of other schools with more than 50% populations of another ethnicity, and the fact that white kids are roughly a third of the population.

    Seems to me that the sfusd would be well-served to substantially raise the percentage of white kids for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is more kids means more money, right?). Does anyone seriously disagree that this should be a goal of the SFUSD? And many whites feel the sfusd has failed them. I wonder if the new assignment system will change any of this. I suspect it will lead to more segregation/less diversity (which I think is terrible for many reasons) but I am not sure that means more whites will enter the system overall.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Take a look at the students at any of the "elite" or even "progressive" privates, and you'll see where all the missing white kids went.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I'm so glad none of you people would ever consider sending your child(ren) to my kid's school. You would immediately cause strife and conflict and try to impose your own agenda on everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Shouldn't we discuss the racism of private schools accepting mostly white kids?

    ReplyDelete
  61. "Shouldn't we discuss the racism of private schools accepting mostly white kids?"

    Until the city truly fixes the cheating problem in the school enrollment process, and starts to verify that all families attending an SF school live in SF, I'm no longer going to worry about diversity in private school.

    Private and parochial schools are schools of last resort for many white families who can't get into public school. (Please, don't tell me that all families get a school assignment. We're all onto that broken record.)

    White families are stuck with a huge bill for these schools. Or they have to move out of the city after having paid into the system for years.

    It's a red herring, the constant blabber about private schools and their lack of diversity.

    Fix the cheating problem. It's huge. It could be rectified and would increase white enrollment in public schools.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "Fix the cheating problem. It's huge. It could be rectified and would increase white enrollment in public schools."

    Your logic is laughable. I actually don't think the cheating problem is as big as people think but let's say you're right -- that it's huge. Wouldn't that mean that our schools are so desirable that people from out of the city are clamoring to go here? And wouldn't that also mean that our schools would be equally desirable to SF residents? How does cracking down on cheating increase the white population in the schools?

    ReplyDelete
  63. 9:22 AM:

    Are you suggesting that putting fraudulent information on a school enrollment form is acceptable?

    ReplyDelete
  64. "And will everyone get it through their heads that SFUSD doesn't place kids by RACE!!! Doesn't happen, over and out!"

    SES is a proxy for race in SF and most cities. Where have you been? Thanks for making me laugh before my morning coffee. That don't call it K-files for nothing!

    And those of you who going around accusing whites as racists, why do you assume that the people commenting are white? MAYBE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PREJUDICIAL MINDSET.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Most of the "elite" (read expensive) private schools have been trying hard for years to attract more diverse student bodies and have significant financial aid budgets, but the applicant pool is what it is.

    Nobody talks about parochial schools, but if my superficial playground observations are accurate, most of them are not white dominated. The Lutheran school we'll be at next year has considerably fewer whites than Grattan. I'm sure it's partly cultural as there are high number of Catholics among the Filipino and Latino populations. Among non-Christians we know who send their kids to Christian schools, their main reason for doing so is a firmly held conviction that the parochial school will provide a solid education in a rigorous environment for a bargain price. That outweighs whatever lack of enthusiasm the families might have for the schools' religious missions.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I don't buy this:
    "Still, it is my opinion that white parents who do not want to send their children to school with children of color (and the studies are awfully good on this - there IS a documented racial aspect to enrollment and school selection) probably shouldn't."

    NO, the studies DON'T appear to "document" the racial aspect. The schools with high numbers of black and Latino students tend to be low-achieving schools.

    The white families who don't want their kids going to school with black and Latino kids go private or move to Marin or Walnut Creek.

    Any white family that is a position to have a choice that remains in SFUSD schools is by definition reasonably open to diversity.

    ReplyDelete
  67. 8am,

    Thank you. I will add this: Aside from the cheating going on, many parents simply don't place diversity above academics. They have one purpose in choosing a school and that is a quality education. Everything else is second.

    ReplyDelete
  68. 9:46 AM:

    I will second you.

    I put up a comment like this yesterday. Many responded that my comment was racist because other parents besides white ones also value academics.

    I hope that we can let the comment stand that whites value academic excellence over diversity.

    And I hope we can avoid getting lost in divisive and false comments that suggest that whites are racist because they value academic excellence over diversity.

    Rather, I would think that whites, at least this one, would want diversity AND academic excellence, but when forced to choose, select academic excellence.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Progressives are racialists. They believe that society should be viewed through rose colored glasses. I want diversity because I know that my child will benefit by being around all kinds of different people and diversity of race, religion and culture increases that possibility. But I do not want my children around a bunch of gangbangers who think that being stupid is cool and often make classrooms a living hell for teachers and students. I realize that kids are kids and they should not be judged by their cover. But my kids don't know that at their young and impressionable ages. It is my first duty as a parent to protect them and that includes protection from influences that are beyond the pale. This does not mean I want to sequester them from society. It means I choose to draw a line. The Board of Education is not looking out for your best interest in this mess. They want to achieve political goals and have ignored the flight of middle class families from the city, the very families that they need to create socio-economic diversity with a school population that is already 55% low SES.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I am white and I find the comment that white people value education over diversity to be racist. Given the choice between a great education in a non-diverse environment and a lousy education in a diverse environment, I would take the former. Luckily here in San Francisco there are many schools where you can get both, some public, some private. I have known many white people, rich, poor and middle class, who think education is for suckers. I also know many people of color who prefer a great education in a non-diverse environment over a lousy education in a diverse environment. I think the truth is that if quality education is your top priority, you'd rather have great education in a diverse environment, but if forced to choose, you'll choose quality over diversity every time, regardless of race. When I say quality I mean well-qualified, energetic teachers, adequate classroom resources, a rich curriculum, and a student body whose parents insist that their kids behave in school and put forth their best efforts. I expect most parents would define quality the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Keep in mind that Don sends his child to a school that has 550 students, and only 4 of those students are African American.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "When I say quality I mean well-qualified, energetic teachers, adequate classroom resources, a rich curriculum, and a student body whose parents insist that their kids behave in school and put forth their best efforts. I expect most parents would define quality the same way."

    I am the person who wrote the comment that you consider to be racist: "Rather, I would think that whites, at least this one, would want diversity AND academic excellence, but when forced to choose, select academic excellence."

    The glowing school setting that you describe was not available to us. On the top of our list for two years in a row, we put schools like the ones you describe on our list: Sunset, Alvarado, Stevenson, E R Taylor . . .

    I particularly liked E R Taylor.

    We were not assigned to any of these schools. Our school assignments were to schools that are in the infamous ten schools that are recognized by the federal government as needing drastic improvement or be closed.

    We ended up going private and very much like the diverse setting and excellent instruction at our school.

    So please: Do familiarize yourself with the current reality that middle and upper middle class families confront when trying to apply to public school in San Francisco.

    Also, please consider the negative impact of condoning address fraud as it impacts the financial viability and reduces diversity in our schools.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Shouldn't we discuss the racism of private schools accepting mostly white kids?

    June 3, 2010 7:41 AM"

    I was 7:41. I guess the sarcasm didn't show well.

    Of course most independent school applicants are white. That's not the issue. If anyone think the district is racism just because the end result is the low % of white kids in some schools (without looking at the application pool of public schools), then it is equally valid to claim the independent schools of racism because of the high % of white kids in them (without looking at the application numbers).

    At the end of the day, it is all about numbers. Since most private school applicants are white, those private schools WILL be filled with white kids, and the white kid population in public schools will be subtracted by that number. Given the neighborhood difference, yes, some schools will have very few blonde hair in them.

    The real issue is that there are good public schools and bad public schools. White middle-income families have the option to send their kids to private schools, so they do. Some families do stay put, and they were the driving force for some turn-around schools, and they enjoy their fruit of labor.

    Complaints is really about there aren't enough good public schools for the population of SF, without the desire to actually be in a "bad" school and make the effort to turn it around.

    ReplyDelete
  74. As someone who was somewhat naive to the gaming of this system, I really screwed up on the kindergarten R1 application, mistakenly thinking if a childcare center was connected to the school and listed in the SFUSD brochure, that my son would be able to go to it.

    My husband and I both work M-F (office hours are 8-5 me and 7:30-6 him). We make a combined pre-tax income of around 130k/yr and have 2 kids (kindergartner is the older one), we pay a mortgage on a small TIC and we are both white. So, I listed the seven schools closest to us or with bus routes near us that had childcare linked up with the school. We were accepted at one of our choices and then told that the childcare associated with the school was completely full of state funded children, the next school we were assigned to also would not make a space for my kindergartner because they were overburdened with our tax $$ funded aftercare.

    My conclusion is that the middle class (white or otherwise) families don't go to the schools with poor asian/AA/latino/white students because middle class families work and need child care and can't get into the CDC centers where poor kids go. We would be very interested in going for convenience sake and are willing to pay, but still the programs have no room for us. Grattan, miraloma, mckinley, etc. all seem to have childcare that middle class kids can get into. That it why parents want those schools so bad. This is not a racial issue, it is about trying to stay afloat with a family in a city that we love.

    ReplyDelete
  75. 12:15,

    Some parents are trying but if you are one of 10 or fewer families in a school trying to turn in it around, I double you are going to get very far. I hear that complain from Starr King families. I hear that the only parents that volunteer are the ones in the immersion program. Few, if any, of the GE parents do anything. You may not need the majority but you need a core group and then you can possibly turn things around. I can't image how discouraging it is to see so few parents caring enough to volunteer. So unless there is that "Core" group and I don't know what percentage you need, there isn't going to be a turn around in the school. In addition, you need a certain amount of educated parents or parents that care about education to ensure that the student body has a chance to increase test scores enough to draw in other parents. In many undesirable schools, this is not happening.

    ReplyDelete
  76. 1:39, I think you have a really good point about childcare. No matter what the income level or racial makeup of a school, if we can't qualify for and get a space in aftercare, we can't go there. Period. That's one of the things that appeals about private school; they seem to get that most families are dual-income. If SFUSD wants to keep the middle class in the city, they need to offer extended care to all families who need it, perhaps on a sliding scale.

    ReplyDelete
  77. 12:15, I am 10:47 and I did not say anything about it being "easy" to get a high-quality diverse public school in San Francisco. I said such schools exist, and that is true. Many of our middle-class friends have their kids in such public schools. A couple of middle-class white families we know got great schools in Round 1 for their oldest kid's kindergarten and were done with it. One family had to wait out the 10-day count. We've been in the lottery 3 years in a row and remained in our relatively diverse private, which has the attributes I mentioned. I also said nothing about address fraud so I don't know why you think I would condone it.

    I still think it's racist to make a blanket statement that white people value quality education above diversity, because it implies that (a) members of other races do not value quality education above diversity, and (b) all white people value education.

    I do not think it is "easy" for middle-class families to find good schools in San Francisco and I did not say that. It's a huge undertaking. There are not enough good public schools, there is too much competition for the available space, and there is not enough after-school child care for middle-income families. The good news is that there are more good public schools than there used to be, but that's cold comfort when you've been assigned to a bottom 10 school several years running. Not everybody has the stomach to ride out the 10-day count, and even if you did, there's the little problem of forfeiting what you've paid for a spot at private. No, it is definitely not easy for most people.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "SES is a proxy for race in SF and most cities."

    It might be, but not completely.

    I agree with an early comment that the algorithm basically pins all non-low SES against each other. We are a Latino family who makes a low middle-class household income (Less that $60k/year, family of 4, and YES we live in the city). We are not considered low-income. But I value education, as do many other San Francisco Latinos. That is the main reason why my father moved to this city/country in the late 50s. My brothers and I are all college educated.
    But I also value diversity and research schools, just as most people on this blog have done and strive to place my child in what I think is the best achieving and diverse schools. We didn't get any of our R1 choices this time around for middle school. Because according to the algorithm, we don't contribute to the "diversity" of the school we applied to.
    I know this has happened to many non-low income Latino families in this city who choose more desirable schools. Most of my friends have their children in parochial schools. I'm one of the few that still believe in the public school option.
    We were just about to go the parochial school option ourselves when we didn't get a choice school. Which probably would have been a hardship for us, but something I would have been willing to do. We fortunately hung in there and got our choice via R2.
    I just wanted to point out that it isn't just white middle class families that are being pinned against each other. It's middle class families vying for the few spots in desirable schools that hurt our chances.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I agree that childcare should be available seamlessly at all school sites. I maintain that it's not SFUSD that should offer it, however; SFUSD's function is to educate. City/state agencies such as DCYF should provide, operate and fund before-school and after-school care. We tend to dump every responsibility on educators, and that's not right.

    ReplyDelete
  80. “Grattan, miraloma, mckinley, etc. all seem to have childcare that middle class kids can get into. That it why parents want those schools so bad.”

    Good point. We took Grattan because we could get childcare there (both parents work). Our #1 choice (Jefferson) child care was completely full after Round 1. We took the Grattan (which was still available in Round 2 – this was 5 years ago) and was able to get into the non-CDC childcare.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "I still think it's racist to make a blanket statement that white people value quality education above diversity, because it implies that (a) members of other races do not value quality education above diversity, and (b) all white people value education."

    Nobody implied that other races besides whites do not value education. You are putting that value judgement on the statement. Not me, who made the statement.

    As to a) white people, like any other people, are allowed to make generalize statements regarding themselves.

    b) The majority of San Franciscans who are white value education. When faced with a poor school, they generally will seek out other options, or try to organize to improve the poor school.

    That's based on pure observation of who I see volunteering in the schools, who I see paying for academic rich summer programs, etc. I'm not going to qualify that statement against other races. It clearly stands by itself and is supported by statistical fact.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "I just wanted to point out that it isn't just white middle class families that are being pinned against each other. It's middle class families vying for the few spots in desirable schools that hurt our chances."

    June 3, 2010 2:56 PM

    Thanks very much for your comments. I agree that it's not necessarily about race. Many second generation families in San Francisco are faced with this problem, regardless of race.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "Keep in mind that Don sends his child to a school that has 550 students, and only 4 of those students are African American"

    What does this mean? Are you implying that attending the school closest to my house (Alternative Argonne excepted) is a racist thing to do? I don't get your point. Do you have one? I spent years teaching in the SFUSD. I know what problems teachers face.

    ReplyDelete
  84. 1:42 We are at Starr King and there is a lot of parent participation. More visibly in the immersion program, yes, but I for one do not feel at all discouraged by parents not volunteering, and will continue to actively work to increase family involvement across strands. There is no doubt a lot of things being discussed here are related to socioeconomic status, and the people who don't seem to volunteer as much are the ones who seem to have less money and education. Instead of being discouraged by these parents I feel inspired to help their kids get a better education alongside my child.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I am a non-white, lower middle class mother and we didn't get "credit" for being "diverse." After I got over my disappointment with not getting into the top schools in the west side (where we lived), we chose a school in the SW with a high portion of disadvantaged students. So its scores are low but my kid is fine. Its is her classmates from low income communities who are scoring low. My kid has intelligent parents and access to things many children in this city don't have. If we want all want to see this city have a future, we need to have a vested interest in all kids (not just our lucky ones) get educated. So if that means resources are dispropotionately spent on poor kids, so be it.

    The contention that SFUSD is using SES as a proxy for race, atleast as at pertains to Latino and AA families is misguided. It is the paranoid white parents who are couching this issue in racial terms. Yes, SES in this city does cluster whites, Asians, blacks, and latinos differently.
    But the interest of SFUSD is that all children, regardless of SES (not race), get a quality education and achieve academic success. SES is a predictor of academic success, for a million reasons. SFUSD wants to raise the acheivement gap for these kids. The educated, middle class in this city does relatively fine-we are LUCKY; we have the resources to give our kids a strong future. I want SFUSD to make sure that ALL kids graduate HS with a future so we have a growing and racially diverse middle class.

    ReplyDelete
  86. This whole converstaion seems to neglect the fact that, whatever the district did in the past with its SAS, we have a new SAS with a very different system. Why beat a dead horse?

    ReplyDelete
  87. It's not a dead horse to 0/7s right now who do not have a school assignement! It matters to us right now. I am still dealing with THIS SAS not next year's.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I sympathesize with you and I did not mean to say it doesn't matter for those in your position. I was referring to the SAS in general. If you hang in there until after schools starts, a lot of spots will open up. Many parents leave before that. Don't be discouraged.

    ReplyDelete
  89. 7:41am I feel your pain! We also do not have a school assignment. Everyone says that we need to wait until after school starts to have any hope of getting our wait pool school. It feels like an inordinately long wait, doesn't it? I feel like I can hardly stand it! I am just hoping that magically we get a space in the next wait pool run at the end of June.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I'm just stressed out that this year is different than 2-3 years ago, even last year. More kids in the system. Less kids affording private w/the economy. Also, privates starting later in the year. My only hope about this year being better this that you have to reconfirm your waitpool school in July. Maybe that will weed a lot of people out. Is anyone else considering holding their child back? I thought of finding some preschool that does a preKish program and then doing K next year again with sFUSD when the system has changed. My child has a summer birthday and is tall and mature so this is not ideal. but i'm honestly considering it as a last ditch effort.

    ReplyDelete
  91. 2:07pm here

    I know two schools that do transitional Ks (Marin Prep and Presidio Hill). I'm sure that Marin Prep has room.

    Do we have evidence that there are more students in the wait pools this year than last? Do we think that less people will use their private school backups because SFUSD starts so early this year?

    ReplyDelete
  92. I have not added up the waitpool numbers this year vs. last so that is just hearsay. My concern about the private/public starting differently is that some kids in Sherman, Grattan, etc. are on waitlists at SF Day, Hamlin, etc. Last year, maybe some kid accepted at Hamlin, waitlisted Rooftop, gets a spot at Rooftop, gives up Hamlin, kid at Grattan gets Hamlin call, opens spot at Grattan, some 0/7er gets the spot at Grattan off waitpool etc. etc. All this back and forth movement won't happen so much this year b/c the schools are on different schedules. That's my fear anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I see your thinking. So once SFUSD dissolves the wait pools on August 31, how can people find out about openings at SFUSD schools apart from visiting EPC daily? If you still don't have a school assignment on September 1, do they call you?

    ReplyDelete
  94. They will call you only for your WP school and only if you are not enrolled in any other SFUSD school. If that happens to me, I'm going to bug them weekly if not daily. Especially after the privates start, in case a public student gets into a private after that school starts (b/c some other kid moved or something). This could open spots in some of the best publics but they won't open until two weeks after SFUSD locks down the district kids.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Thanks for the info 3:08pm. I guess I have to decide if I would be willing to lose a whole year of private school tuition to get into a good public. I think it would be worth it since we have two kids. Hopefully, neither you nor I will be put in this position.

    ReplyDelete
  96. The new Alta Vista school has a Jr (transitional) K

    ReplyDelete
  97. 9:25
    Buy an ad in the newspaper, stay outta here.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Alta Vista school organizers:

    Yes, please give us more information.

    I don't find it to be advertising, but an essential service.

    The district seems willing to dole out spots that are meant for SF kids to any family within driving distance of the city.

    In light of this, it would seem only fair to allow SF families to organize and create their own schools, given that their slots are stolen by out of city families.

    Please, more private schools. Please organize. Please tell us about it.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Whatever ya say, Eddie.

    ReplyDelete
  100. "The same thing has happened on the other side of town with Miraloma and Grattan, where over 40% white people is viewed as a giant no-no, while it's OK to have over 60% ethnically Latino and Chinese at many schools."

    *66% of the fucking district is Asian or Hispanic*. 10% is white. It would be really hard for some schools in the district to not be greater than 60% Asian or Hispanic based on the neighborhoods they're in.

    "The Chinese and Latino communities have representation. White people do not."

    Because 2/3 of whites go private, either because they prefer the Catholic schools, go private for social network/peer pressure reasons, or flounce off in a snit because they didn't get into ClaireLillenMiraGrattendontop.

    "You see the effect of this in choices made regarding immersion programs as well. There's no French or German immersion, and Russion does not have an immersion program."

    There are Spanish and Cantonese Immersion programs because *66% of the fucking district is Asian or Hispanic*.

    It's time to use some Anglo-Saxon. Get out a fucking copy of the fucking enrollment guide: look for the "SB" and "CB" by the program descriptions. The district can run lots of fucking two-way immersion programs because there are buttloads of Cantonese and Spanish speakers in the city, and can make them effective at transferring the target language (which isn't the case at at least one of the private immersion programs). If you fucking look at one of the fucking guides from fucking five years ago, you'd see even more CB and SB programs, which have been phased out in favor of immersion.

    For German, despite there being a lot of German medical professionals here, there isn't sufficient demand for even a full-time German immersion preschool (there's one co-op one). For French, the two private immersion programs, one sponsored by the French state for French citizens, pretty much suck the oxygen out of any attempt to set up a SFUSD French immersion program: most of the French speakers I know in SFUSD schools are Quebecois rather than French. I'd say the same is true for Russian as for French - there are two private Russian immersion schools.

    As a middle-class white person, I'd like to apologize for the retarded sense of victimization by those of my socioethic group.

    ReplyDelete
  101. "There are more white children in SF than has been suggested so far in this thread. It would be hard for anyone to argue convincingly that whites are not seriously under-represented in the SFUSD overall."

    They're under-represented in the lottery, also: IIRC only 18% of R1 applications are from white non-hispanic families (can't find source of data for this, sorry), compared to ~30% of kids in the city being white non-Hispanic. And only ~60% of that enroll.

    Having seen 3-4 years of this, there's a depressing amount of Kabuki theater here. I talk with a lot of white parents who tell me "there's only a handful of schools that are acceptable".

    Having toured 20+ publics during my search, I can tell you that is BS. There wasn't one public I toured that I wouldn't have sent my kid to.

    [I'll take on board that lack of afterschool care is a real problem for ruling out a lot of otherwise stellar schools (like Moscone or Longfellow).]

    Some parents I've met were more honest and admitted they didn't want their kid being one of only two white non-Hispanic kids in their class: which, given the demographics of the district is what the odds are (and is the case for my kid). If you don't want to confine yourself to the trophies, you have to accept you may be the token gringo or gwaihlo.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Kate, could you please remove the 9:22 post, which inserts the "f" word into quoted posts. (Which did not use the fword.)

    ReplyDelete
  103. Kate, could you please remove the 9:36 post, which refers to a white person as a "gringo". Or have we reached a new low where we can use insensitive names for races.

    Many white families do try to sign up for schools where they would be one of a few white families.

    In my observation, they are often mistreated in exactly the way that the above two posts reflect, so of course, given the choice, white people avoid being in a hostile environment.

    As discussed, many middle class families do try to sign up for public school. However, they can't get their kids into the better public schools.

    Some one who frequently posts on this blog seems to have some sort of obsession that all white people are racist monsters who spend all their time thinking about trophy schools and status.

    Actually, most of us are worked to the bone, trying to educate our kids and pay taxes. We don't have much time to think about status or trophy schools.

    I'm sorry that you have this mistaken impression of white people.

    ReplyDelete
  104. "Kate, could you please remove the 9:22 post, which inserts the "f" word into quoted posts."

    9:22 here: I didn't insert the f word into the quoted post. An f-word was used between asterisks. Sorry to have disturbed your mellow.

    ReplyDelete
  105. "Some one who frequently posts on this blog seems to have some sort of obsession that all white people are racist monsters who spend all their time thinking about trophy schools and status."

    Maybe it was the comment:
    'The Chinese and Latino communities have representation. White people do not.'

    Last I looked, there were two white non-hispanics on the BoE.

    "Kate, could you please remove the 9:36 post, which refers to a white person as a "gringo".'

    Yeah, and I also used the word gwailho (ghost), which is even more pejorative, frankly.
    I'm also a white non-hispanic Mick, and tired of the parochialism and myopia on display by some people with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

    This city has a lot of poor kids, and it also has a lot of non-white kids and a lot of non-native English speakers. Low-SES kids are the majority. Non-white kids are overwhelmingly the majority. The district has to cater to them and their needs, as well as to yours. We're not Danville, with 3% low-SES kids: we have 55% low-SES kids. But there seems to be a sense on this blog that the district is failing because it can't make the schools here look and feel like Danville, with maybe a few token poor kids or ethnics to give us all a warm fuzzy feeling on what good urban granola liberals we all are.

    "As discussed, many middle class families do try to sign up for public school."

    Middle-class != white, BTW.

    "However, they can't get their kids into the better public schools."

    I'm sorry about that, but too often 'better' is taken as synonymous with 'whiter'. Explain to me why Yick Wo has better test scores than Grattan or Miraloma as equal to Rooftop's, but is only a fraction as popular in Round 1? (Never mind that Yick Wo has a higher percentage of low-SES kids.) The answer is lemming-like herd behavior. Not only is it depressingly ethnocentric, it's also being a dumb consumer.

    ReplyDelete
  106. 11:40 AM

    You clearly have some sort of agenda. I'm not interested.

    I've been through two years of signing up for good, but non-trophy schools. Most of the schools we tried to sign up for were not majority white. We did not sign up for Miraloma or Grattan.

    We could not get into these schools. Not a chance. Not any of them.

    We could care less about status or bragging about trophy schools.

    Afterschool care (or the lack of it), start time, academic curriculum and commute were major issues for our family.

    Not all this garbage you are spewing out.

    Please take your extremist agenda, misinformation and hatred elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  107. 11:40 is speaking truth, even if it is harsh. E.g., the comment about Yick Wo is telling. There is room for all of us if we are willing to look and not carry a sense of entitlement and frankly undeserved victimhood. Most poeple posting here are frankly privileged compared to the majority of families in our schools. You can find a place that works, maybe with a little effort yeah, but I never thought raising kids would be easy. I still think I have it easier than many of my fellow parents, because of my education, my networks and also some disposable income.

    Thanks, 11:40, for saying what I've been thinking while I have read through this thread with a growing sense of disgust.

    --middle-class, non-hispanic white person, also longtime SFUSD parent

    ReplyDelete
  108. Yick Wo is on the other side of the city where families do not live.

    For a city that is so hysterical about whether a bag is paper or plastic, it is truly hilarious that, when it comes to school assignments, seems to think it just fine to have every parent in the city with a school assignment on the other side of town.

    I do in fact know a family that has kids at Yick Wo. They are white and live in Bernal. The commute is a huge hassle, even though one parent works downtown close to the school.

    Grab a brain.

    The address fraud thing means that ever parent on the south side of the city is displaced from their local school.

    And yes, address fraud probably occurs at a rate greater than 20% on the south side of the city.

    But go ahead, keep feeling all self rightious about those grocery bags.

    Green! Ha. San Francisco is SUV minivan central.

    ReplyDelete
  109. There is not NEARLY enough emphasis on the environmental considerations involved in driving kids all over town. Families DO live in Chinatown, which is why there are several schools there and they are overwhelmingly Chinese. Duh. But if you live in the SE or SW, your options for getting to Chinatown are not good. Maybe you live near a school bus line but maybe you don't (and school bus service is certain to be cut, we just don't know how much yet, oh more lovely uncertainty). You sure can't count on MUNI to get your kids to school on time, and instructional hours are already short enough. Pretty much if you request a Chinatown school and don't live there, you have to assume you'll be driving, which means either making a round trip twice a day or parking downtown at some crazy high price. Gas, hassle, pollution, parking costs for many . . . not a good outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Imagine that!

    Chinatown has mostly Chinese families in it.

    Surprise! Yick Wo is mostly composed of the children of Chinatown families!

    Better get the diversity vigilantes on that one.

    ReplyDelete
  111. 12:32

    Hey, grab a brain yourself.

    1) Yick Wo is in an area with a huge population of children, i.e., where families live.

    2) There is a school bus to Yick Wo from Bernal and the Mission. many families have used it over many years--it has been very reliable. Yeah, I know, doesn't work for everyone, but that is one reason Yick Wo has had a Bernal/Mission base all these years. There have been other buses from the Mission/Noe/Bernal areas too--to SF Community, for example.

    3) The address fraud thing means that ever parent on the south side of the city is displaced from their local school. Uh, no. Many south side families attend their local schools (although it is also true that many have chosen to go out-of-neighborhood). Those who want to stay local have usually been able to find something within a reasonable radius--though not always a first choice. You can check this out for yourself on the sfusd website--plenty of maps on the page discussing the new student assignment system.

    You make some good points, but getting over-excited like this kind of hurts your case and starts to sound like truthiness a la Beck. Speaking from the facts, with qualifiers, is a little more persuasive.

    4) Yeah, school buses will be decreased, reworked, etc in the new system. But that's the point, right? There will be a new system, based largely on neighborhood assignment for elementary, that will address many of the concerns of parents who feel they are shut out of their local schools (notably those on the west and north sides, who are much more likely to WANT their local schools). Therefore what is the point of ranting about the failures of the old SAS, at this point? The district listened to the concerns of parents regarding uncertainty and desire for neighborhood assignment.

    The group that will have the most trouble, I think, is the borderline non-CTIP1 families--hopefully it will work out that they will either dig in locally (as at JSerra this year) or find spots in the citywide schools. We don't yet know what the impact of the new SAS will have on citywide lottery schools.

    5) Not sure why you think I or anyone here is "self-ritious" about plastic bags. Has that ever been talked about here or on this thread? I think you are overlaying a sterotype of who you think I/we are--hypocritcal liberals, etc. I don't drive an SUV, either. I live in the SE, my kids have attended non-trophy, out-of-neighborhood schools for both elementary and middle, and took/take school buses and sometimes MUNI (in middle) to get to and fro. I do have a car that I drive about 2000 miles a year and am considering giving up as not worth the cost/mile.

    6) I chose the non-trophy schools because I assessed them as decent schools we could get into. I figured the odds were long at Rooftop and Clarendon (ones I considered at the time; Miraloma and Grattan were not considered trophy back then). I didn't take that fact personally, but figured why fight the madding crowds. I knew I didn't want to drive every day so I looked for schools with school bus routes. My very local schools were accessible but in a downturn at the time (one has since become quite decent). I didn't feel victimized by missing out on the trophies or by having to put my kids on the school bus. I assessed the options and figured that was the easiest and best way to a decent school for my kids given the heavy competition and lottery and the realities of living in a vibrant and dynamic neighborhood with rich and poor and in-between like me. No regrets.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Surprise! Yick Wo is mostly composed of the children of Chinatown families!

    Not really--or at least, not compared to Lau, Parker, and other Chinatown schools. Yick Wo is 55% Asian, not surprising given its proximity to Chinatown, but also 24% white (more than double the white population in the district). Many of these commute by school bus from stops in Bernal and on Valencia Street.

    Yick Wo is also 9% multi-race or decline to state, 5% AA, 4% Latino, and 2% PI.

    55% of one race/ethnicity is high, but hardly off the charts compared to most private schools and a fair number of public. White kids at Yick Wo would hardly feel like tokens. If you want to send in the diversity police, start with the private schools, the parochials, and also Bayview, Mission and far west side publics. Yick Wo is doing okay.

    ReplyDelete
  113. 2:18 - "what is the point of ranting about the failures of the old SAS, at this point?"

    B/c I'm getting screwed by it right now! That's great it's changing next year, but my kid starts K this year! Glad your kids are older and you are through this nonsense and that the system is changing next year, But it is still very relavant this year to many of us!

    ReplyDelete
  114. So you see nothing wrong with asking a 5 year old child to commute on our city buses to the other side of town?

    Not concerned about the environmental footprint?

    The child's wasted time?

    The family's wasted time?

    Worlds apart, that's all I can say.

    Hopefully, the new assignment system, and hopefully, address verification, will yield some improvement.

    ReplyDelete
  115. So you see nothing wrong with asking a 5 year old child to commute on our city buses to the other side of town?

    Who said THAT? I see nothing wrong with a 15-minute SCHOOL bus--not "city buses"--ride in elementary school. (The Lilienthal bus from Fairmount seemed too long for me, though.)

    MUNI has been fine for my older kids though (depending on the route, which we did think of).

    Sure, I'm concerned about the environment and climate change. That's one reason why I'm thinking of giving up my car. But how does taking the school bus qualify as a big carbon footprint? It's a reasonable trade-off for more diversity and a chance to opt out of what was (at the time) a failing school.

    This whole straw man thing is getting old....can't you please argue with the facts and not the hyperbole? I never said a kindergartener should be taking MUNI, sheesh, and I don't drive most days, as already stated.

    ReplyDelete
  116. 2:18 - "what is the point of ranting about the failures of the old SAS, at this point?"

    B/c I'm getting screwed by it right now! That's great it's changing next year, but my kid starts K this year! Glad your kids are older and you are through this nonsense and that the system is changing next year, But it is still very relavant this year to many of us!


    I don't mean this in a mean way, but is your ranting helping your current situation? I think the point of the veteran parent was to say that it is not personal, and you just have to figure out the best way through the system you have before you. Thus he/she avoided Clarendon and chose a non-trophy on a bus line (way back when).

    I can see ranting about the SAS as a productive outlet if it has the possibility of getting results--I actually think commentary on this blog helped propel the board to what will hopefully be a less arbitrary and uncertain system in the future. But for those in it now, that utility is done. The main focus maybe could be--what avenues and options are available NOW to secure a decent school for your kid. That is a productive line of inquiry that is also helpful to other parents in the same boat.

    ReplyDelete
  117. "I actually think commentary on this blog helped propel the board to what will hopefully be a less arbitrary and uncertain system"

    Nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  118. 8:05,

    I'm glad you like Starr King but many families are not happy with the general lack of participation. You maybe fine with it but others need to have their own opinion. My child is not at Starr King and I would not choose that school due to the general lack of participation. I like getting together with other families to enhance a school and I don't want to be one of the lone parents doing it. It also speaks to the general success of a school. One parent on this board even dared to suggest that SFUSD use parent participation and general fund raising as a guild to how well a school will do. I think that is fair gauge.

    ReplyDelete
  119. 9:34, I don't know why you feel the need to post negative second-hand complaints about Starr King, but the school you are describing does not sound like the one my child attends. We have many, many families who are involved in the school in various ways (volunteering in the classroom, helping out in the yard or at lunch, raising funds, organizing community activities, helping at the school food bank, participating in school governance, coaching soccer teams, helping out at sports day, etc.) - and many, many community events for parents and children to attend together (Books for Dinner, science fair, International Dinner, school concerts, a first-ever Spring Fling, car wash, a Bottom of the Hill event, a Chinese New Year festival, and far more). I'm constantly inspired by the other parents there and happy and proud to be a part of the community. (I'm not 8:05, by the way.)

    ReplyDelete
  120. 8:55,

    I am not trying to bash Starr king but illustrate why some parents don't choose it as a school. It was by far the one school I heard most about regarding the lack of parent participation. I also heard that complaint regarding Jean Parker but more from Starr King. Maybe these parents didn't see it much or maybe the participation is a new thing at the school but I have heard this for a few years. That is why I did not list it as one of the seven when I was going in for the lottery. So sorry but I am only telling the truth from what I hear. If you see different that is fine but everyone has a right to post what they wish.

    ReplyDelete
  121. This discussion about Starr King is EXACTLY why I always think it is better to leave out school names when talking about problems like lack of parent participation. I've been at a school with terrible parent participation and a beleaguered PTA for five years now that has struggled mightily. Call it selfish or misguided, but I would never, EVER mention the school's name publicly in a negative way. I've still got a kid at the school, and we keep hoping (praying?) for more energized parents to come along with each new K class; or maybe some of the parents who've not participated will realize how much the budget cuts are going to hurt the school's offerings and get off their butts and do something. Yes, it is a bit of a pipe dream, but why should I make it self-fulfillingly a failure by saying it publicly?

    ReplyDelete
  122. 2:43,

    Yes, it is a pipe dream but a nice one. The only problem is that this board and others are places to learn about issues, even ones to a particular school. If we don't share the information we have, then what is the point. No one will know about the issues and no one can help to solve them. Look at one post where a set of parents are assigned a school they are not thrilled with but are trying to band together to make it the next up and coming school. With your ideas, they should post here because it might give the school a worst name than it already has. I think people should do what they think is right. I think people should have access to information, even bad information. So you may not be interested but other parents that are looking at a school want more than the "rose colored glasses view".

    ReplyDelete
  123. Oops,

    I meant "shouldn't post here".

    ReplyDelete
  124. This is 8:55 again. I don't necessarily have a problem with people posting information naming specific schools, but I would never myself post a second or third hand negative account because, as here, it may turn out that it is completely unreliable or outdated.

    ReplyDelete
  125. It maybe second hand but I can assure you it was reliable and up to date. I heard about this not more than a month ago from 2 parents from that school when I asked how their fund raising was going. Their children go to that school and I was curious since I hadn't heard anything.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Who said THAT? I see nothing wrong with a 15-minute SCHOOL bus--not "city buses"--ride in elementary school. (The Lilienthal bus from Fairmount seemed too long for me, though.)

    This is what happens when people express their views on subjects they know little about. SFUSD is serverely curtailing busing, reducing the former 5 million non SPED budget by over a million each year. It is already below 4 million.

    ReplyDelete
  127. "Who said THAT? I see nothing wrong with a 15-minute SCHOOL bus--not "city buses"--ride in elementary school. (The Lilienthal bus from Fairmount seemed too long for me, though.)"

    This is what happens when people express their views on subjects they know little about. SFUSD is serverely curtailing busing, reducing the former 5 million non SPED budget by over a million each year. It is already below 4 million.


    8:39--

    More straw men and slippery argumentation? What are you trying to prove--seriously?

    I wrote my original*post at 2:18 on June 7. I was replying to a rant about the current, soon-to-be-obsolete SAS system, in which someone (you maybe? at 12:32pm June 7) stated that SE families have been shut out of their local schools; that the presumably required commute across town to another decent school was an unreasonable hassle; and that those of us who favored some measure of school choice were environmental hypocrites.

    I responded that many SE parents were not shut out of local schools, in fact (you can check the stats on that); and that some of us who chose non-trophy but decent out-of-SE schools were quite happy with our choices, including our children's short commute by school bus. You responded by accusing me of putting my 5-year-old on MUNI (which I never said).

    Now you say I "know little about" the subject [of school assignments and buses, presumably?]. Well, I'm pretty sure I know more about the school bus schedules than you do after all these years :-) ....

    I said in my original post that the school buses were being severely reduced in the new SAS. But the new system isn't what you were ranting about originally, was it....? You were screeching about the old system--and I asked why keep going on about it, since it is in process of being changed.

    It remains to be seen how the new system will work. I do worry that reduced bus transport will effectively limit the choices of SE parents, even those who have CTIP1 preference. That's okay for me, since my kids are old enough to take MUNI at this point. It may be a real problem for elementary parents who may want options beyond the Bayview and Mission. This is one of my concerns about the new system; as one who had good results at our non-trophy elementary school under the old choice system, I wasn't as unhappy with it as you apparently were, and I worry how low-income families will fare in terms of increased segregation / concentration at schools like Bryant and Carver. But I have an open mind to see how it goes.

    So--in your drive to be proven right about something/anything, please tell me, are you now ranting about the old system or the new? If the old, then my point about there having been viable options for SE parents stands (by my own experience); if the new, well, we just don't know yet.

    Please stick to one line of argument--and to the facts.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  128. 12:30:

    "More straw men and slippery argumentation? What are you trying to prove--seriously?"

    It's probably hard to stick to one line of argument since you are arguing with different people.

    I'm done with the whole problem. The whole thing is out-of-world ridiculous for me. I can't cope with it and am truly signed off of any problem.

    But please do be aware that it's more than one person that is posting on this and other threads regarding address fraud. More like five or six. They can't all be a bunch of "ranting" idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  129. I posted about the reduction in busing and wanted to make the point that all the discussion of busing kids here and there seems pretty ridiculous in the context of getting rid of most busing for GE students. I only posted one time on this thread so you are barking up the wrong tree.

    ReplyDelete