Friday, August 20, 2010

A helpful summary of SFUSD's new student assignment system

Someone posted a concise, clear summary of the new student assignment system on the Bernal Heights Yahoo Group:
The way the new system works is: you have a neighborhood school as a default assignment. If you want a different school, you can take part in a choice process. Kids in areas in the lowest 20% academically are in a higher preference category in this choice process.

If there's more applicants from your neighborhood, then you may be assigned to the nearest school with vacancies. Even if you want your neighborhood school, you'll still have to do the application and go through the choice/lottery in case your school is oversubscribed.

For middle schools, each elementary school has a default middle school it feeds into. Again, you can choose a different school than the default, but there'll be a lottery process.

About 1/4 of the elementary places remain allocated through a choice process on a city wide basis. These include the K-8 schools and the immersion and Japanese bicultural programs at Clarendon and Rosa Parks.

High school places remain allocated by a city-wide lottery (except for Lowell and SOTA).

193 comments:

  1. I thought they ultimately decided against giving families a default assignment. Everyone would have to choose a list of schools, but you'd have the best chance of getting your neighborhood school. Does anyone know for sure?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also, if you are shut out of your neighborhood assignment, do you get a preference at the nearest K-8??? Anyone know?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The new assignment system does NOT have a default assignment. It is still a lottery system with neighborhood playing more of a role for priority.

    ReplyDelete
  4. According to the Board policy passed last March, these are the lottery preferences. Note they include a preference for those crowded out of a neighborhood assignment.

    * For attendance area elementary schools, the student assignment process will give preference to
    applicants in transitional years (i.e., students entering kindergarten) in the following order:
    1. younger siblings of students who are enrolled in and will be attending the school during the
    year for which the younger sibling requests attendance;
    2. students who live in the attendance area of the school and are enrolled in an SFUSD PreK
    program in the same attendance area;
    3. students who reside in CTIP1 census tracts;
    4. students who live in the attendance area of the school;
    5. students who live in attendance areas that do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate all
    the students;
    6. all other students.


    * For city-wide schools, the choice process will give preference to applicants in
    transitional years (i.e., students entering kindergarten, or transitioning from fifth to sixth grade, or
    transitioning from eight to ninth grade) in the following order:
    (1) younger siblings of students who are enrolled in and will be attending the school during the
    year for which the younger sibling requests attendance;
    (2) students enrolled in an SFUSD PreK program at the city-wide school;
    (3) students who reside in CTIP1 census tracts;
    (4) students who reside in attendance areas that do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate
    all the students;
    (5) all other students.

    So yes, there is a preference given for crowded-out students for both other attendance area and citywide choices.

    Note that at the middle school level, there is a default assignment to the feeder school--in effect, a guaranteed assignment if you want it. They have under-enrolled the schools at this point so there will be no crowding out.

    At the elementary level, there is no guaranteed default assignment, but rather a strong lottery preference as you can see from above. I think it is safe to say that most far-westside schools will not be under "siege" from CTIP1 families who are ahead of them in the lottery. That may be more of an issue in the midtown schools like Alvarado and Grattan. But then, the citywide schools will be available to take up some of the slack, and many westside parents will simply take their assignment area school (unlike in the past, when everyone in the world went after Clarendon and West Portal). So we'll just have to see if this eases things.

    For more info--the policy is written down on this website:

    www.sfusd.edu/enroll

    ReplyDelete
  5. What is the assignment process for non-transitional grades - That is 2nd grade?

    I assume siblings will still get preference - what about CTIP?

    ReplyDelete
  6. For non-transitional grades, the preferences will be modified so that, apart from students who already attend the school, the first priority is for transfers as required by the No Child Left Behind Act (“NCLB”), to facilitate preference to the lowest income and lowest performing students from PI schools, and to comply with any applicable state or federal requirements. All of the preferences listed in the previous paragraph will apply after the NCLB priorities.

    This is from the document in March - Does anyone know if there have been any changes?

    ReplyDelete
  7. No changes.

    It can be found at www.sfusd.edu/enroll

    Worth a read.

    ReplyDelete
  8. so if my area school is west portal what are the chances of me getting it? it's not that big and there are tons of kids in the neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The district could create an all immersion middle if they wanted to.. this is ridiculous.

    Don't you think that would produce a better school and be a more efficient and cohesive environment for teachers and students? It's not like the immersion programs are elitist, most have high populations of ELL and free lunch (and most have crappy test scores).

    ReplyDelete
  10. 12:11, I bet you have a good chance at West Portal. There are three K classes, for 66 kids. There are lots of kids but many go to catholic and other privates.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "so if my area school is west portal what are the chances of me getting it? it's not that big and there are tons of kids in the neighborhood."

    probably ok. the cantonese immersion will be citywide, but the ge program will not be. there will be some ctip1 families applying, perhaps, but you are too far over the hill for most people from the mission or western addition or bayview. after them, you have priority as a neighborhood person--which has not been the case in the last decade with the wide open lottery. this will remove the competition of your out-of-neighborhood socio-economic peers who have been crowding you guys out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This summary is false from the get-go. There is no default assignment. If you live in the zone you don't get the zone school until all preferences before you get accounted for. This may or may not provide an edge to zone residents who have no other preference.

    When people understand what kind of a mess this SAS will create they will be outraged. But no leaders will ever admit to the mistakes, let alone take responsibility for them. That is just the way government works nowadays.

    It is the same with the strategic plan. The first Balanced Scorecard went belly up. Now its called BSC 2.0, as if 1.0 were completed. It died. Instead of admitting failure and scrapping it, they spend their leadership meetings doing fishbowls for new ideas. It is called "driving change through goals." Anyone can have goals and should. But we expect the leaders to be doers, implementers, not dreamers. Sorry slightly off topic here.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I would think if your school is small, has a CDC onsite, is near a low performing census tract, and happens to have a lot of siblings starting K, you might have a reason to worry about getting into your neighborhood school. (Gratten comes to mind.) If you don't live in the attendance area you will have virtually no chance of getting in. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. I do think overall the new assignment system will be an improvement over the current lottery process. I agree with one poster's concern about Westside schools becoming even less diverse, with even higher percentages of Asian kids.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Note that at the middle school level, there is a default assignment to the feeder school--in effect, a guaranteed assignment if you want it. They have under-enrolled the schools at this point so there will be no crowding out."

    Not true. There are several MS without capacity to take all comers. There is no guarantee being fifth in terms of preference priority.

    Regarding the following:

    "5. students who live in attendance areas that do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate all
    the students;"

    Not that is the 5th preference. What is the likelihood that you'll be accommodated if the school is reasonable well performing? Read- you can write in the preference, but unless it is high up it is just a formality.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Since Argonne is now becoming an attendance area school, will it still have the extended year status or will they go to the normal calendar year like all other attendance area schools? I would think current Argonne parents will be up in arms if they change it, and yet it doesn't seem fair that only one neighborhood school would enjoy this special status. Any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Which ones, Don? I'd like to see your numbers and assumptions there.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "5. students who live in attendance areas that do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate all
    the students;"

    Without a default assignment to your neighborhood school, how does the new system determine if a popular neighborhood school (lets say Grattan) is oversubscribed?

    Does it count only those families within the Grattan attendance area that rank Grattan #1 and are assigned elsewhere? or all families in the area applying to kindergarten?

    ReplyDelete
  18. 1:22, as I understand it, each family desiring a spot in kindergarten submits an application listing their choices. I'm not sure how many choices we would be allowed to list. Obviously the system doesn't really know any of the kids who would be applying, other than the CDC kids, so it really is necessary to submit an application.

    The system then processes all of the apps and endeavors to place the child in the highest choice spot possible. Sounds to me that they go school by school and fill them in based on the priorities as listed. Then, for children who receive multiple "offers," the highest-ranked offer would be made.

    Presumably many computer runs would have to be made, because for each child given an offer, a spot at another school would be freed up.

    The biggest difference for neighborhood folks between this and the former system is that neighborhood people would not be crowded out by their socio-economic peers from other neigbhorhoods. In the former system, huge numbers of middle+ class folks were applying to Clarendon, Miraloma, Grattan, etc. That has been the main competition. Now the competition will only be with CTIP1 folks, who get top priority, but who have not applied to schools out of the east side in huge numbers. It is also hoped that they will apply to citywide schools and that they will absorb some of the overflow.

    This will have the effect of limiting CTIP2 people to their neigbhorhood school or perhaps a citywide--or if they are lucky in the lottery, maybe, a different neighborhood school. So it is more limiting, but neighbors will be far more likely to get a spot at the local school.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The "helpful" summary overstated the description of a default assignment for kindergarten. Others have cleared up that mistake.

    The summary also said that there was a 25% set aside for citywide applicants. Is this right or wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's not that there is a 25% set-aside for citywide applicants, it's that the number of spots in citywide schools and programs amounts to about 25% of the total.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 12:48, AKA Rachel Norton,

    I assume by the punctuation you were asking a question. Please let me know what question you would like me to answer to the best of my ability.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Don, I am 12:48 and I am not Rachel Norton. I am a middle school parent on the other side of town from you and Rachel.

    My question was in response to your statement: "Not true. There are several MS without capacity to take all comers."

    So, which ones? Based on the proposed feeder patterns, which of the middle schools lack capacity to take all the incoming 6th graders from their feeder schools?

    It's a real question. You are telling people that they will not have a guaranteed default assignment at the middle school level. You are suggesting that Presidio-bound parents had better be worried that they will be crowded out by CTIP1 kids. However, the middle school enrollment policy states that the #1 priority for assignment is "students who received an initial assignment to attend the school," i.e., feeder school kids. Therefore, if there is enough capacity at Presidio for all feeder school kids, it really is a guaranteed assignment. So the numbers are important.

    So: which of the middle schools will be over-enrolled from the get-go with just the feeder school kids? I'm not seeing it, but perhaps you can point me to numbers that show this. As in, add up the total graduating #s of 5th graders from each feeder school and what do they come to, and do they exceed the capacity of the middle school. That assumes that every 5th grader will go on to that school, of course.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Does anyone know whether the feeder system is set up to fill each MS to capacity with feeder ES kids or whether there will be extra seats for citiwide applicants? This would be particularly important at the most popular MSs (Presidio, Hoover, Giannini).

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm pretty sure they have under-enrolled them all, though to a greater or lesser extent. Some of the most popular also have more capacity (including Presidio, which has about 1200 now).

    ReplyDelete
  25. That number is around 350 5th grade graduates feeding into a school that has 400 spots. No one can say what will happen. But many of those that routinely pick private school if they don't get an agreeable assignment (and even if they do) will go public if it is Presidio (and others). And as you are aware, a very high number of students over here go to private. 35-40% across the city are in private, (the highest in the nation) and even more here on the wast side despite our better than average schools. But I do think that the number that will change from private to public or vice versa is an unknown. This is conjecture.

    In addition, as I pointed out state and federal law trumps local law and NCLB (ESEA) and will require that the district make openings for students who opt out of program improvement schools.

    On top of that many people might move into the area which has a lot of vacancies thereby increasing total enrollment.


    I do believe the problem is mostly at the elementary level as regards the new SAS. Not that I agree with a lottery at HS. For the record, I am totally against having a school like Lowell that creams off the top 10% of students. It is elitist and destructive to the student body as a whole in SFUSD. When they get to college they can go to whatever most elite school they can get into, but as long as we are trying to equalize opportunity as we should, it is counterproductive to remove the highest achievers from the rest of the students.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So at 350 students from feeder schools being assigned to Presidio which has 400 capacity for 6th grade--there will be capacity for the 350, even assuming they all take the assignment--which we know they will not.

    There will also be some remaining out-of-feeder-school siblings in the next two years, but in 3-year school this is usually quite limited as most families don't have two kids only two or one grades apart. Not more than 50, certainly.

    It's true that federal law says kids have to be offered spots in non-Program Improvement schools, but at the transitional grades, including 6th, the fact of the lottery is the process through which that happens. It is only in grades 7 & 8 that NCLB trumps other factors.

    Re people moving into the area seeking better schools, that will be more of a problem at the ES level. As long as enrollment is held steady in the feeder schools, all feeder school kids will have a guaranteed assignment at their destination school.

    Conclusion: kids in Presidio's feeder schools will not be crowded out. They will have a guaranteed placement. This will not be an issue at the middle school level.

    What will be a concern for many parents is how to move their child from an intensely disliked middle school assignment (we are seeing this with McKinley and Everett), since so many seats at popular schools will be locked up by the west side kids already. This whole thing has been a victory for west side neigbhorhood school advocates.

    Agreed that it is a little more complicated on the elementary level, although I still see it being very beneficial for most west side families.

    High school, yes, a different issue. As an east side parent seeking high school soon I am very thankful. Different point of view on this side of the hill, for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  27. RE: Middle School...

    Is it true that if you do Spanish immersion for Middle School, you CANNOT do Honors courses? That none of the Spanish immersion programs have Honors/GATE tracks?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Aptos has an Honors track. Will that continue under the new system?

    ReplyDelete
  29. 9:21

    James Lick, which has the largest SI program at the middle school level, has no honors track, but does differentiated education within the classroom.

    It is true that Hoover's SI kids are not in the honors track--it is a mixed class. However, they proceed together as a class, and the teachers reach for their level. It seems like an honors class in some ways.

    I don't know what is happening at Everett, but I think it is similar to Lick.

    This is the trade-off for immersion. In practice, it functions as a diverse, mixed classroom setting. This is why all the immersion schools have mixed test scores, because their populations are very mixed--middle class kids + newly arrived immigrants, in most cases.

    9:22--I have no reason to think that Aptos's excellent honors program will be dismantled. They have recently added a sort of honors+ math track as well--as all kids are now on the track to 8th grade algebra, there is a track that has a very small set of kids taking 7th grade math in 6th, and on up to 9th grade geometry in 8th. One class of kids with the highest test scores in math (high 500s or perfect 600) and/or teacher rec.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 9:14 aka RN,

    There's nothing wrong with being Rachel Norton for the most part.

    But you are still underestimating the potential for private school children to go public. This could dramatically change the applicant pool size. On the other hand you mat be right that there are plenty of spots for zone residents. The BOE has said, as you are well aware, that there are a number of unknowns in this new system and that is one of them.

    You have to avoid the dead giveaways.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Not all teachers are good at differentiated instruction -- especially in terms of challenging the more advanced kids.

    If they were, there would be no need for Honors tracks.

    What if a Spanish-speaking kid is ready for advanced Math? They have to drop out of immersion and switch to the Honors track?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Why not have one city-wide honors track for immersion students?

    ReplyDelete
  33. "What if a Spanish-speaking kid is ready for advanced Math? They have to drop out of immersion and switch to the Honors track?"

    WHAT HONORS TRACK?

    If there are default assignments, you have no choose to participate in an honors track or to take GATE classes because they are not offered at your school! This goes for the SI programs but also for all of the GE programs that feed into any school but Aptos on the SE side.

    OUTRAGEOUS

    ReplyDelete
  34. Don, 9:14 here. Again, not Rachel Norton. (Are you obsessed with stalking her or something?) ... agreed there is nothing wrong with being her; what I know of her I like. But I am not she.

    Anyhoo....my points. It is true that there are some unknowns about the impact of this new SAS policy on the ES school level. Although my guess is that it will greatly benefit neighborhood residents, for the most part, by removing competition except for CTIP1.

    However, at the middle school level I think it is pretty simple. Even with private school kids potentially coming into or returning to the district, FEEDER SCHOOL KIDS will still have PRIORITY placement over all other kids except siblings. Yes, including out-of-district entries. And as you have acknowledged, there is room even at most-popular Presidio for all the feeder school kids.

    Ergo, there really isn't a complaint at the middle school level--unless you hate your middle school feeder-school placement.

    May I presume you are not upset about your family's pathway into Presidio via feeder school, as envisioned by the maps released yesterday?

    The people who have reason to be upset are those who are now being sent to middle schools they don't like. This is the problem with "locking in" via neighborhood school schemes. This would be even worse if your ideas of placing even more guarantees/restrictions on neighborhood placements were implemented. As it is, it will be hard for non-CTIP1 parents--and maybe even them--to get their kids into popular schools if they don't like their middle school placements.

    You, however, will be sitting pretty over at Presidio. Which is why I don't understand why you keep complaining and insinuating. Especially on the middle school level, you have WON. West side parents, rejoice! And on the ES level, you have made huge progress in getting priority for your local schools. So please stop acting like you NW parents are somehow being victimized in this new system!

    ReplyDelete
  35. OMG 9:29 - You are the same poster that is 9:59 on the other thread.

    Total CRAP!

    Are you saying that there are NO free-lunch, ELL, native speaking spanish students that are GATE identified and that would benefit from GATE programs?

    Totally ridiculous. We are not only short-changing the "middle-class" english GATE student, we are really short-changing the ELL/native spanish GATE students.

    I am steaming over your post..

    " This is the trade-off for immersion. In practice, it functions as a diverse, mixed classroom setting. This is why all the immersion schools have mixed test scores, because their populations are very mixed--middle class kids + newly arrived immigrants, in most cases."

    It couldn't be more patronizing and insulting. Regardless of a student's background - Don't they deserve to have access to GATE classes if they have been GATE identified?

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Why not have one city-wide honors track for immersion students?"

    I think to understand why this is impractical you have to understand the actual demographics of our SI immersion programs. Frankly, if you tried to do this you would end up with mostly native English speakers in that program, which goes against the methodology (and the heart) of the SI immersion programs. This is because most Spanish immersion programs are comprised of very poor native Spanish speakers and middle class (or above) native English speakers. GATE identification tends to follow socio-economics pretty closely. Yes, there are exceptions to the above rules--I know of wealthy + educated Spanish-speaking families in the program from Spain and Latin America. They are the exception, however.

    Understand too that the district frequently places newly arrived immigrant kids into these programs at the middle school level. These are kids coming from very poor educational backgrounds.

    That doesn't mean that SI kids at Lick are getting a bad education. But it is different from the honors tracks at Aptos or A.P. I really suggest you talk to parents whose kids are in these programs. I know there are some parents with a kid who has gone through one and another kid who has done the other, so they have strong points of comparison and contrast. There is value to either approach. We are lucky to have these options.

    However, the poster at 11:11 makes an extremely important point that the new feeder system will make it much harder to make actual choices. And that schools on the east side don't have honors programs. For parents and kids who really want this, it is an outrageous and "guaranteed" advantage to the mostly westside school attendees that will be feeding into Hoover, A.P., Presidio, Aptos, etc.

    And they really must do a better job of articulating the language pathways.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "It couldn't be more patronizing and insulting. Regardless of a student's background - Don't they deserve to have access to GATE classes if they have been GATE identified?"

    Take a breath! Yes, I agree with you totally--they deserve access to GATE classes if they have been GATE identified. And they deserve access to high quality education in general even if not so identified.

    I was merely stating a fact.

    Not passing a judgment about what SHOULD be.

    Do you have any idea of the socio-economic breakdown of GATE identification in this district?

    You ask:

    "Are you saying that there are NO free-lunch, ELL, native speaking spanish students that are GATE identified and that would benefit from GATE programs?"

    Not none. But proportionally? GATE students are white and Chinese and middle class or above.

    There is some provision for GATE identification that takes into account family SES status and looks for high potential kids.

    But you know what? GATE--and honors, and test scores--track SES status. That is why schools like Moscone and Taylor and Sheridan, which beat their low-SES demographic expectations, are so very important.

    But in general, it is a fact that if you did the usual separation of honors and non-honors kids in an SI classroom, you'd end up with many native English speakers in one and many native Spanish speakers in the other.

    The approach of Lick, with its non-tracking into honors programs, is to push all the students. They are teaching algebra to all 8th graders and have been for a few years. There are also realities when a significant percentage of your kids are disadvantaged and some are just arrived in the country, often way, way behind in schoolwork (not even counting English). Reality!

    None of which takes away responsibility to lift kids up and provide stellar education. Some say honors classes is the best way. Others say that Lick has the best approach because it doesn't doom half the kids to dead-end non-honors courses, and puts them in a diverse setting with a mix of classes and backgrounds.

    Reality is there are kids of very different levels that tend very robustly to track socio-economics.

    What is your solution? It's an honest question.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "This whole thing has been a victory for west side neigbhorhood school advocates"

    Yep, no sh*t. As a south-east side parent, I am definitely going private in middle school (I'll sell a kidney if I have to, or leave the city) because there is no viable honors track in this part of town. And I'm quite likely going private or leaving the city for elementary since I'll be competing with the whole city for the Spanish immersion slots over here (and let's face it, the GEs in this part of town are not very good).

    So, score, SFUSD! Appease the rich part of town, and send the few middle- to upper-middle class people who have settled in the poorer part of town scurrying out of the city or into private/parochial. Not to mention the more obvious crime of locking kids in the poorest parts into lower-performing schools and non-honors classes all the way through middle school. Nice work!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Here's the deal: Monolingual, English speaking kids who are GATE identified have a CHOICE of doing Honors tracks or relying on a teacher's ability to do differentiated instruction.

    Those few Spanish-speaking GATE students you speak of do NOT have the same choice... and don't they need and deserve that choice as much as their monolingual counterparts without resigning themselves to losing their Spanish?

    BTW, even if those kids (low SES Spanish speakers who are GATE) are a minority, I bet there are more than enough to fill an Honors track at a single school AND sprinkle the rest throughout the other Spanish-immersion programs.

    BTW: By having at least one All Immersion middle school, you could have an Honors track and even benefit from other economies of scale to have a TERRIFIC Spanish-language collection in your library, a Spanish-language theater program, all sorts of things. You could even make sure you have Spanish speaking administrators and counselors. THat's nearly impossible when Spanish-immersion is a small and new track at a middle school.

    Talk to Lick parents about what they had to go through just to get textbooks for their Spanish-immersion classes before you idealize that school!

    ReplyDelete
  40. 7:14 -- You'd probably be happy with an assignment at Alvarado, Miraloma, or Grattan for elementary. YOu do realize those are the same teachers who taught at those schools when they were all low SES and low performing? THe middle schools you dread will change very quickly once this system is in place. The teaching quality for the elementary schools above didn't mysteriously improve in the last 10 years. The school composition did. THe default MS assignment system will accelerate that.

    ReplyDelete
  41. It's really stupid to have a system where the Elementary School you pick also dictates the Middle School you pick, and then NOT have Middle Schools at the enrollment fair.

    What do you want to bet that all those "upcoming gems" will not be so popular anymore, when parents realize what crappy middle schools they will be forced to feed into?

    ReplyDelete
  42. 7:13 very correctly stated. one ommission - you forgot to thank all the me-me-me and my kids only parents that made it possible.

    ReplyDelete
  43. People will flock to McKinley et al anyway.

    They are great elementary schools.

    They will plan to go private for Middle School, but by the time they get there, those schools will be so improved, they might actually go with that assignment.

    ReplyDelete
  44. 7:44 AM - CORRECT. so incoming kinder parents should tour 20 elementaries AND the middles schools they feed into.

    it is also outrageous to have current students - who took assignments with no idea they would have no middle school choice - forced into a middle school track. yes, they can apply for extra spaces in the middle schoolos, but come on! there won't be any!!!

    i went 0/15 and FINALLY got a "up and coming" school that now will feed into a terrible middle school. great! 9 years of donated money and service to the district on top of my full-time job in an attempt to make things passable for my child.

    neighborhood schools = unequality in quality.

    ReplyDelete
  45. 7:32 -
    it isn't about the teachers. the student populations won't change at all the middle schools. aptos will become more asian/caucasian. everett will become more diverse. mann and ISA and denman will remain with a majority student population of free lunch/ELA/less-academically-prepared/little-parent-involvement.

    ReplyDelete
  46. You can still apply elsewhere for middle school, people...

    But if you like your default school, you don't have to... and guess what? Your default school will look VERY different in 6 years. It is useless to factor that in.

    ReplyDelete
  47. What about Roosevelt? From what I've been reading on on here it's going to be destroyed by the schools that are feeding into it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. 8:54 -- How do you know that school will be terrrible in 6 years?

    You don't!

    10 years ago, no one would have bet on Miraloma being a decent school... or Alvarado or Grattan for that matter. (When I moved to SF 11 years ago,people assigned to Grattan left teh city!)

    ReplyDelete
  49. I predict GREAT things for Everett.

    It'll be a really great school in 5 years.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Reconsidering, the fact that private school elementary children would not automatically get their zone school because they did not attend the feeder public elementary school is a reason why those children would remain in private school. Therefore, this new SAS does little to encourage those that left the public schools to return. So I expect that Presidio probably would have enough spots and admit I was wrong about that.

    To clear up some misconception about my views, I'm not against choice. I am against pushing neighborhood children out to achieve it. Choice could be maintained via alternative schools.

    As famed education historian Diane Ravitch said - "We abandon neighborhood schools at our peril." You see, San Francisco, there are other people who also disagree with you.

    Changing subjects, the idea that SFUSD does not offer honors classes (being Gate identified is different) at all middle schools is extremely inequitable. I would hope that they would recognize this and set up those programs for next year. There is no excuse for it. People will flee in droves if they don't.

    Regarding my own situation, my child was initially assigned to Cabrillo which was not a particularly good school then and is a facility that houses Academic and Professional Development now. I was able to get him into Alamo several days after the school year started and we lucked out in the lottery to get Presidio this year. Neighborhood residents had no priority.

    As for the Norton references, you seem quite knowledgeable and she lurks here. Not that many people are familiar with PI non-transition year placement rules. So I thought you might be her. I was really just joking around. So pardon me.

    ReplyDelete
  51. 9:01 a.m.

    Roosevelt will not be destroyed by all of the schools that are going to feed into it. New Traditions has an API over 800 and is quickly becoming gentrified due to the influx of NOPA families. It is now a neighborhood school and will not draw from the city-wide population anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  52. 9:02 -

    not in six years for now. some families will be going to these assigned middle schools in 1-2-3 years.

    if you have a "failing" school - ie horace mann which was one at risk of closure and you put assign students from several other low-performing schools DW GE, SK GE and SB, Chavez, you aren't going to get much of a population turn-around. sorry. this is not a grattan/miraloma issue. we didn't know where the grattan/miraloma folks would come from --- eventually they came from everywhere and very, very often from middle class families. horace mann's incoming future student populations are PRE-DETERMINED by this system, so yes, we do have a good idea of what the school will look like in 1-2-3-4-5-6..... years.

    ReplyDelete
  53. 9:03 -

    i agree about everett and was really surprised to hear mckinley people were upset. beautiful building. several years of imrpovements already in the mix. a bunch of new, motivated parents in there NOW. good feeder schools. good neighborhood.

    everett will be a lot like lick, i think.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "To clear up some misconception about my views, I'm not against choice. I am against pushing neighborhood children out to achieve it. Choice could be maintained via alternative schools."

    Ah, but where is the balance. The more neighborhood guarantees, the less choice (even via alternative schools). The more schools are converted to citywide choice, the more crowding out there is in neighborhood schools--as we see in Oakland where parents who paid a pretty penny to move into parts of Montclair find out they are assigned down the hill due to crowding.

    The ONLY sustainable solution is raise achievement and provide good services everywhere--but as everyone who has been around knows, this is not a simple answer. Full set of medals and a pension to anyone who has the solution to that one in a mixed-SES district.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Those few Spanish-speaking GATE students you speak of do NOT have the same choice..."

    I'm confused by this....they do have the same choice as GATE-identified English speakers, don't they? I know of several Spanish-speaking GATE kids in honors in Hoover and Aptos. They are from middle class families. Their families chose honors over SI. Just as many English speakers make the same choice.

    I actually agree with you about setting up a highly-resourced SI middle school with kick-ass teachers in all subjects. And maybe a truly dual-language honors track cohort could be developed within that school.

    Although if you do that, then welcome to the same debates that happen elsewhere--honors is filled with middle class kids and non-honors is not.

    I think you asked earlier if were really true that there were not enough low-income, Spanish-speaking GATE kids to fill an honors SI class. I'm not sure. It's not an accident that most of the Mission is CTIP1. For lots of reasons--and I am not calling anyone stupid--our Spanish-speaking ELL kids are as a group low-achieving. Often their parents are under-educated, from rural parts of Mexico and Central America. They are brave and ambitious to have come here, but not greatly literate. We have significant numbers of these kids. So if you put together a Spanish immersion honors track, you would most likely attract professional-class kids whose families hail from Spain, Argentina, Colombia, even Mexico. Kids who are not ELL. Kids with educated parents. And that would be fine. But it wouldn't provide the opportunities for excellence that you are talking about for the majority of Spanish-speaking kids. One reason for the Lick approach is to try to bring those kids up into a milieu that is not monolingual Spanish and includes some middle class kids (of mixed ethnicities).

    I don't idealize Lick. It was a hard decision in our family to figure out whether to go for English-only honors in a west side middle school or to keep the SI going. I know about the textbook issue at Lick (now resolved). I just don't know that your solution addresses the issues of low-income ELL kids. It would create a nice solution for families like mine, that wanted both honors and SI. But it too would be segregated. I just don't see a lot of the lower-income ELLs being in that class. A few, but not many Not because they're not bright, but because they are disadvantaged. Raising the achievement levels of that population is THE hardest nut to crack in education. Do we serve them by segregating them in non-honors classes, even at an SI school? Rather than mixed-skill classes as they have at Lick now? Maybe. I think your idea is very interesting. But let's not fool ourselves that most of those kids would end up in honors. (We could call it honors--but that is different.)

    I hope you keep dogging this issue --you have good ideas and a lot of of passion.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "People will flock to McKinley et al anyway."

    I don't think so, but we'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  57. 12:39 good points regarding ELL kids. i believe the research shows that combining low inccome ELL kids with middle/uppder middle class high achievers brings everyone up (does not compromise high achieving kids).

    ReplyDelete
  58. The worry for Roosevelt is that New Traditions is tiny and DeAvila won't graduate 5th graders for a couple of years. The Rosa Parks Japanese program is good, but the GE there plus Tenderloin will cause Roosevelt to struggle under the current draft. Adding Peabody and McCoppin would change the balance.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Former BOE member and current BOS member Eric Mar has a child at McCoppin. This may have something to do with my McCoppin will feed into top-ranked Presidio MS (as will the school where BOE member Rachel Norton's child attends) not more-challenged Roosevelt MS

    ReplyDelete
  60. The below is a link to a survey the district has put out to gather feedback, you might want to complete:

    http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VC7TQGX

    ReplyDelete
  61. 2:04, you keep posting this venomous bulls**t, it's beyond stupid. They had nothing to do with the boundaries that were designated.

    ReplyDelete
  62. The Bernal parents have complained a lot about the loss of choice for them under the new system. Many of them moved into the area to take advantage of low relative real estate prices and relied upon sending their kids to other better schools elsewhere. That is to say, they want to displace students in those neighborhoods so they can have the best of both worlds.

    Rental flats in the Richmond don't cost any more than most areas of the city. Some one said that people are stuck with their assignments. Last I heard this is still a free country. If you don't like your assignment - move! All this whining and complaining is what happens when people feel entitled. If the west side won move to the west side.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Don,

    I own a house in the west side of town and got a school in the east side of town. Now I must follow our school's feeder pattern for middle school and am not allowed priority in my west side neighborhood middle school. The lottery forced us east and the no-choice feeder system will keep us east.

    So, running to rent a flat in the Richmond won't get you out of your east/south east side school.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Is it even legal to change placement rules for families currently in the system? We chose (or were assigned) a school without knowledge that we would become anchored to a specific middle school? Should'nt they begin the entire change with 2011 incoming kinder class and wait for them to need middle school?

    ReplyDelete
  65. If you buy or rent in CTIP1, that will get you a spot at the middle school of your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  66. 'All this whining and complaining is what happens when people feel entitled. If the west side won move to the west side.'

    This pretty much sums up the "neighborhood" advocates view. I won and you lost -hahahahahaha

    ReplyDelete
  67. With this new assignment system, if you don't like your ES or MS default assignment and choose to enter the lottery, do you keep or give up your default assignment? If families can hang onto default assignments while entering the lottery, this won't leave terribly many seats for the lottery pools.

    ReplyDelete
  68. 9:41

    For ES, there is no default assignment, you rank your list of schools as you do today.

    For MS, there is a default assignment, and you keep your default assignment while you try to get a spot at a different school if you so desire.

    I agree with you - Where are the spots going to come from at the MS level? Also - with the proposed system, here are no city-wide MS schools (although I don't see how that will survive, given the lack of GATE classes on the SE side)

    To be honest with you - I wouldn't be surprised if they put a hold on the whole MS feeder concept for a year or two. It's obvious they haven't thought through the issues. Parents are pretty pissed and there have been no community meetings specifically on the MS feeder plans (the focus of the community meetings has been the student assignment at the elementary level)

    ReplyDelete
  69. 9:41--

    At the elementary level, you must register (they don't know who you are) and list choices. It is not a default assignment at this level, but rather a strong neighborhood priority. You can list X number of choices (this is not decided yet) that may include your neighborhood school--or not.

    Neighborhood preference will apply whether or not you list it first. So they will have everyone's information when they process the applications--if a child is placed at a higher-choice school somewhere else, then a spot is still available at the neighborhood school. If you don't get one of your choices, you'll be placed in the neighborhood school (even if you didn't list it), or if that fills up (is crowded out), at the nearest one with seats available.

    Middle school is, in effect, a default assignment. You can take the offer per the feeder schools or enter the lottery.

    Not sure how they are going to waitpools. I assume they will need some mechanism to address the spots left open at popular schools when kids take private spots, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  70. 9:54, I think if you want a different middle school you may be giving up the default. You can still list it and get priority for it but in effect you give up the guaranteed place by entering the lottery.

    Agreed the MS thing is not well thought through, particularly language pathways, IB, and other magnets for parents. About time there is finally focus on middle school! It's an important time. The lottery hasn't been horrible at that level--keep the choice system until feeders are better worked out.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I think they've done a good job with the elementary school zones and the middle school feeder plan. I don't see a lot of gerrymandering going on. Some minor tweaks may be needed but overall, nice job! For us, the (relative) certainty of attending a school near our home is so important. A lot more people will opt for public schools as a result and the process assignment should be more humane. The influx of students and parents who formerly would have gone private will only help improve our public schools.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Don, I would like to smack you. Clearly everyone on the east side cannot move to the west side. That is sheer "let them eat cake" idiocy.

    I did not move to the east side "to take advantage of low real estate prices." That's what I could AFFORD in this city -- it's not like I said, "Oooo, I'm gonna turn down this $4 million Pacific Heights mansion for a little $700K bungalow in Bernal cuz I just love a bargain!" There will likely be westsiders who can rent a second place in a CTIP1 area to game the system. But lower real estate prices on the east side mean you can't just trade in your east side house for one on the west side (not to mention the huge bump in property taxes for those who sell after many years and buy again), and it is reasonable that people who have built up some equity would want to continue to be able to do so. For some it's their only retirement savings. So it's not fair of you to say "sell and rent," either.

    Lastly and most importantly, it is EQUITABLE to give all students access (at least theoretically) to all schools. It is not equitable that westsiders have preferred access to neighborhood schools and eastsiders have built up immersion programs we are now competing for with the whole city. It is not equitable that low-performing schools on the east side are bunched up and fed into low-performing middle schools.

    The whole thing is class consolidation in a city that already has shocking divisions between rich and poor. So you win, Don, but don't shake your finger at the losers. That's just nasty.

    ReplyDelete
  73. 7:35 Bravo - he deserve to be banned from this discussion group along with a good kick in the a**

    ReplyDelete
  74. 7:35 -

    "Lastly and most importantly, it is EQUITABLE to give all students access (at least theoretically) to all schools. It is not equitable that westsiders have preferred access to neighborhood schools and eastsiders have built up immersion programs we are now competing for with the whole city. It is not equitable that low-performing schools on the east side are bunched up and fed into low-performing middle schools."

    this is the best point i have heard all week on this issue. i am copying and pasting it to my list of points on the subject to share with the district at the meetings and online survey. thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  75. What you guys do not understand is that the westside doesn't win.
    Just because the school is in your attendance area does not mean you will get into that school.
    Priority is given to siblings first, then to people living in CTIP1 zones.
    It could mean there is no space in your attendence area school and you'll be assigned the next closest school in your area that has openings (after CTIP1).
    The district also plans to really go to CTIP1 zones and urge parents to enroll their children in the coveted schools, and if they apply, they will get in.
    So, "Don" hasn't "won, he's just ignorant and thinks that he has.

    ReplyDelete
  76. "Lastly and most importantly, it is EQUITABLE to give all students access (at least theoretically) to all schools. It is not equitable that westsiders have preferred access to neighborhood schools and eastsiders have built up immersion programs we are now competing for with the whole city. It is not equitable that low-performing schools on the east side are bunched up and fed into low-performing middle schools."

    YES. I argued this throughout the process last winter and I heard many east side people of all ethnicities saying the same thing in various community forums. But we were outvoiced by the "neighborhood first" people. The present system has terrible kinks and EPC's communication is spotty at best, but it is far more fair. Especially on the middle school level.

    Thank god they kept the high school citywide lottery.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "The district also plans to really go to CTIP1 zones and urge parents to enroll their children in the coveted schools, and if they apply, they will get in."

    this was always the case. it is the same as the diversty index essentially (except that plenty of 2 million dollar homes in potrero hill are CTIP1...) and it never worked. families didn't have transportation, time, comfort in those neighborhoods, and feared being outcasts.

    westside still will win.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Both neighborhood school systems and citywide choice systems are valid ways of school assignment. It is reasonable to help kids be able to physically get to school with a preference for neighborhoods schools. It is also reasonable to be more flexible about school assignment and let parents have citywide choice, which we have done for many years.

    The inequality is found in the achievement gap among the students. Therefore, citywide choice is restored to the CTIP1 areas.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "The inequality is found in the achievement gap among the students. Therefore, citywide choice is restored to the CTIP1 areas."

    There is logic to this, and I'm willing to give it a try--albeit I think the middle school pathways need another look. But we will have to guard against the neighborhood-first crowd that wants absolute guarantees for neighborhood at all levels--which would mean diluting or removing CTIP1 preferences, and really exacerbate inequities in the process. We heard a number of these speakers the other night at the BoE meeting--they are organized and they want more. You see it here too in Don's comments about how the west side parents are somehow victimized in this system. (This from a parent with a child who got into Alamo and then Presidio under the old system and would fare even better under the new.)

    ReplyDelete
  80. I deserve to be banned? What a laugh. Me and anyone else who does not agree with the group think mentality that pervades here? Believe me I don't put it past you.

    But you are the first ones to want to deprive others of their freedom of speech as part of your hackneyed schemes to promote equity and diversity. Have you heard the word hypocrit? Take rsponsibility to turn around your schools like I did and continue to do at Alamo with its own set of problems.

    Many of you think your ideas about social justice, which are far out of the mainstream, should be the pax romana. The fact that your ideas about students assignment have been voted down by the courts including the Supreme Court make no difference to you and your ideology. Not even your own ultra liberal Board of Education agrees with you about the SAS as illustrated in their actions.


    So where should the feeders schools feed into? Schools on the other side of the city? Should I have to drive across town because you don't like your school? "Driving out" is what SFUSD did to much its middle class - thumbing their nose at those that don't vote progressive. Now even our own Board see the folly of past policies.

    Write up a ballot measure like I did or go to the outreach meeting and put up a unified front like the neighborhood people did.

    After all the talk if you really want to go 'Beyond the Talk 2.0" as they say now at 555, the diversity index failed. Had it not why would it need to be changed? Why would SFUSD still have the largest ahievement gap?

    Many of the lowest performing schools are going to be showered with the SIG money. And they are going to have double and triple the budgets of elsewhere. This is an opportunity for reform minded people to go into the schools and make big changes. Do it.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "Have you heard the word hypocrit?"

    I have, Don, and it's not spelled like that.

    The feeders should be organized such that no middle school is disproportionately fed by low-performing elementary schools, with TRANSPORTATION provided to ensure that. That's just common sense.

    And the west side does indeed win, if you compare it to the CTIP 2 east side. Don, you and your neighbors get to reap the benefits of all your hard work on your schools (whoopee -- do you have a paid job? Because it's awfully hard to do significant work on your kid's school, if you are part of a family with 2 working parents, which more people on the east side are, I am willing to bet). But the east side parents put their time, trust, and faith in immersion programs and do not have preferred access to them -- didn't under the old system, and won't under the new system. That is absolutely unfair.

    And don't smirkingly tell me that "neighborhood schools would solve that problem." Neighborhood schools would mean that the poorest kids would have NO chance out of the poorest neighborhoods. They are the least equitable solution.

    But whatever. I don't think "liberal" is a bad word, especially if you're its opposite. And while I wouldn't ban you, I would still like to smack you.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "I did not move to the east side "to take advantage of low real estate prices." That's what I could AFFORD in this city --"

    Which is the same thing. No one forced you to buy. You could rent. You figured you could buy on the East side and go west to school. While you were shopping for real estate where you watching what the courts were saying about manufactured diversity? They said it is not the job of the government to do UNLESS it was undoing segregationist policies, which did not apply in SF and is one reason why the NAACP chose to make a deal rather than go to court in the 80's.

    You had it your way for a long time. Now people downtown are realizing that the game has changed - that diversity models are not going to give them the numbers they need to comply with the Federal takeover and money that comes with it - thanks to the questionable investment policies of China.

    Many people on this blog are not keeping up with what is happening at the State and Frederal levels. Haven't you wondered why such an ideoligically liberal BOE would vote for this SAS? Get on the ball. Times have changed. Achievement is the mantra now, not diversity. It is high time.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Typically snobbish pedantry to focus on spelling and typos.

    If you would like to smack me I will meet with you and anyone else over coffee in your neighborhood cafe and you can decide then if you still want to smack me. Though I understand this is just a rhetorical device on your part. I am used to it. I get accused of all sorts of things for complaining about the voting record of Rachel. BTW - she voted for this policy. Take your complaints to her if you want something done. Or vote in new members more to your liking.

    Is it common sense to force people who live near Cobb to go to Presidio when they can go to Marina? Obviously, common sense is relative.

    The poorest students don't want out of their neighborhoods. You do. They want good schools in their neighborhoods. As long as SFUSD used student assignment to avoid school reform they have succeeded in avoiding reform. Then they closed down underperforming schools in the SE to appease the development interests. Now people are moving in to new developments and want good schools in their neighborhoods which are quite diverse.

    Your ideas are based on the cynical notion that children of color can only do well next to children who have historically performed better. I don't believe that. I do believe that diversity is fundamentally grounded in racialist thinking that verges on racism itself.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Since none of you have managed to figure this out: IGNORE DON. He's a trouble-making troll who disrupts discussion groups. he was banned from sfschools for posting as several different people.

    ReplyDelete
  85. When people say that a certain school will be better 5 years down the line I wonder if they think about how this will come to be. It sounds so optimistic and simple.

    But it will be because of the hard work of the relatively few people who have been assigned to these schools and don't decide to bail out and who have the resources to help make them better. Many of these people have already put in a ton of work at their up and coming elementary schools and it will be asking them to do it all again from scratch at a bigger school. There better be a lot of support for them.

    Also if the feeder schools do have GATE identified kids - even if it is just a small percentage of the whole student population- there better be support for them as well.

    ReplyDelete
  86. "Your ideas are based on the cynical notion that children of color can only do well next to children who have historically performed better. I don't believe that. I do believe that diversity is fundamentally grounded in racialist thinking that verges on racism itself."

    But research supports this. It may not be the only strategy for closing the achievement gap but it is a strategy, not to mention a one that promotes the value of diversity in our schools. And I've seen the difference it can make in the academic achievement of low performing students in the classroom.

    The District has invested an awful lot ot time and dollars for this redesign, in part because of the clamoring voices of the neighborhood proponents and incoming families who for the most part do not have the patience, time, open mind, and resilience to whether an admittedly complex system to get their kids into a school that would save them a down payment on a new home in sf. Apparently,a lot of people think that they deserve something for no effort at all.

    What really bugs me is that after all this (and people, its called a DRAFT plan) the neighborhood people are STILL COMPLAINING. Apparently, anything less that exactly what they want will never be enough. Me, me, me, me, me, me, me........

    ReplyDelete
  87. Don is a wise man. Preach it brother.

    ReplyDelete
  88. 5:09:

    Exactly, I can't believe there are still pro-neighborhood people complaining about this new system because they aren't guaranteed a space at Clarendon for example when everybody else has virtually no chance at all.

    And complaining about the "golden ticket" CTIP1 people will get? Why should it be the more privileged that gets the golden ticket and not them?

    Worried that they might end up at an undesirable school even though they live right next to a popular one? Well that is still better than the situation you are in if you live next to an unpopular school.

    I agree that there are some middle class people who live in CTIP1 so maybe it isn't totally "fair". But if the neighborhood first people really wanted fair they wouldn't have lobbied so hard to do away with the previous system. At least then everyone had almost the same shot of getting into a popular school. Well even then the neighborhood families had an edge. But that wasn't enough for them.

    Sorry this subject really irks me.

    ReplyDelete
  89. People on this blog post as me. There is nothing I can do about it.

    It is the Board of Education that makes policy. Some of you haven't yet figured out yet that they voted unanimously for this SAS. They are responsible. If you don't like the policy change the membership of the Board.

    Many people here feel this SAS is unfair. You are looking for a scapegoat in me. I have nothing to do with how BOE members vote. Take your complaints to the appropriate persons if you want change you can believe in.

    ReplyDelete
  90. The issue is not that low-income children magically do better when they sit next to more privileged children.

    It's that a critical mass of low-income, high-need, at-risk children overwhelms a school.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Don has been banned on other sites and for good reason. Don't act so surprised by someone suggesting it here.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Caroline,

    You know that over 50% of the district is free and reduced lunch. And it is a fact that many minority groups underperform even when they are not part of the low SES group. So what do you propose - that we should have 2 groups like CTIP1 and 2 with 50% in the one and 50% in the other and that we assign each group evenly to schools? I can only imagine the outcry if you think the new SAS is bad.

    Re: anonymous

    Regarding the constant anonymous slandering of me - say whatever you like. You may not like my POV but it you that is debasing the dialogue with this incessant intent to malign.

    ReplyDelete
  93. slander is spoken
    libel is written

    but anyhow,

    everything people are writing about you is true

    ReplyDelete
  94. I for one will say that I am thoroughly disgusted to read these attacks against Don. It has all been said before again and again. Whoever is making these accusations is obvious operating under some sort of grudge. Will you please spare us this embarrassing behavior?

    Don have every right to voice an opinion without having to undergo threats of violence and slander on this blog. This is disgraceful. And shame on those who willfully go along with it.

    To address those out their who hide comfortably behind their screen of anonymity and throw jabs, instead of attacking Don say something that adds to the discussion.

    Don is absolutely right. The Board of Education voted for this plan. You should be directing your anger towards Yee, Maufas, Kim, Wynns, Norton, Fewer and Mendoza.

    I have decided to write in as John B. instead of anonymously.

    ReplyDelete
  95. "The issue is not that low-income children magically do better when they sit next to more privileged children.

    It's that a critical mass of low-income, high-need, at-risk children overwhelms a school."

    The problem for SFUSD is that the low-SES percentage where you see a sharp drop in achievement is 40% or greater. Now, given SFUSD's high Asian population, you might (and do) see exceptions to that 40% rule, but in any case the percentage of low-SES kids is too high to get all schools below the magic 40%.

    It's possible the new less-uncertain assignment system might draw in more parents from the West of the city where the percentages of kids going to publics is lower than average: but the West of the city is not were the low-SES kids are most concentrated.

    ReplyDelete
  96. "I thought they ultimately decided against giving families a default assignment. Everyone would have to choose a list of schools, but you'd have the best chance of getting your neighborhood school."

    I'm the one who wrote that summary, and yes, that's a mistake, or rather me using "default" instead of "very strong probability of getting in": I did mention that if the school is oversubscribed then there will be spill-over to other schools.

    ReplyDelete
  97. 6:43

    Stop boring us. Your attack mode antics are sickening. You are an online bully. Is this how you get your kicks? We are trying to have a discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  98. John B is Don, sock-puppeting as usual. You can tell by the bad grammar and misuse of words.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Shuttt the helll upppp!!!!!!!!!!!

    How's that for bad spelling you moron?

    And who the hell are you anyway? Madame Bovary?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Whatever your personal gripe against Don, it is off of topic. It is creating strife and ruining the thread so take it elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Madam Bovary?
    Obviously you know nothing about that book, the comparison makes absolutely no sense. Something funny about being called a moron by an illiterate.

    Anyway, whoever mentioned it earlier is right, ignore the trolls and sock-puppets, that's all we can do.

    ReplyDelete
  102. The thing nobody, not Don and not his supporters, will answer is this: how is it fair that the west side gets preferred access to their schools and the immersion programs at the east side schools are citywide? How is this FAIR -- never mind what you think about diversity or moving west or Rachel Norton or Don. How is this an equitable treatment of both parts of the city? And why shouldn't the two sides be treated equitably? Moreover, why are low-performing elementary schools being bunched together and fed into low-performing middle schools? In what way does that do anything but resegregate the schools by income and race? Or is that, in the end, what west-siders want?

    These are pointed questions, not libel, or slander, or violence (whatever with that -- since when is wanting to smack someone violence?). But the me-first west-siders have no answer to them. Don, in particular, offers nothing but bluster and patronizing "advice" to move.

    ReplyDelete
  103. 11:25, you're right.

    ReplyDelete
  104. But ask yourself, why are the schools on the East side so bad? In part b/c none of the middle class people that live there go to them? If you did, the schools would be better. There are so many great families living in Bernal, tons of kids over there, but they must all go to the schools on the west side b/c I know if those active families went to schools on the East side they would be better. I mean look what they did for the Bernal library.

    ReplyDelete
  105. It is fair everybody gets priority at a school nearby. It's not fair that the schools aren't all good. At least people on the East side get the sunshine. West siders have to live in the London fog to live near a decent school (that in the past they couldn't get into anyway).

    ReplyDelete
  106. It is truly sad that in a diverse city like San Francisco people are resorting to west-side and east-side mentality. We should all be banding together for all schools in our city that we all reside in. What kind of example is this for our kids? I hope this is just a small group of parents and not how most people feel. Maybe things have been unfair, but why turn it into an east-side parent vs. west-side parent fight. Yuck.

    ReplyDelete
  107. 12:12, the move toward neighborhood preference is not "banding together for all the schools." It came from the people nearest the good schools, who wanted to be sure their kids got into them.

    I would cheerfully jump on a bandwagon that equalized equal resources for and equal access to all schools. But this new system isn't that bandwagon. It's a retrenchment in the interests of the richer people.

    ReplyDelete
  108. SE quadrant residentAugust 23, 2010 at 3:33 PM

    IMO, it's no mystery why many of the schools on the East side of SF are challenged: all of the housing projects are located in the Eastern and Southern portions of SF and the concentration of students from the projects is highest at the nearby schools. This was part of the thinking behind the CTIP1 zones (which roughly coincide with the location of the city's housing projects, excluding those in Chinatown and North Beach, whose residents tend to be higher-scoring).

    ReplyDelete
  109. Is the eastside being unfairly treated?

    There is no discrimination in favor of the westside and against the eastside on the face of the local school policy or on the face of the immersion programs being citywide. All neighborhoods, whether east or west, have the local preference. All alternative schools and programs, whether east or west, have citywide choice. There is no unequal treatment on the face of the school assignment policies.

    Is the SAS discriminatory as applied even if it is neutral on its face? Are the neighborhood schools predominantly found only on the westside and the alternative schools and programs predominantly found only on the eastside, so that the SAS is effectively giving neighborhood preferences only to the westside and and giving the eastside nothing?

    Even if the answer is yes, that the eastside is getting the short end of the stick, can you say that it was the purpose of the school board to favor the westside over the eastside?

    ReplyDelete
  110. The school board caved in to the loud vocal middle class most of whom are located on the west side. They new who the losers were going to be, but did it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Where was everyone when the SAS was being discussed. Probably at home hoping someone else would take care of the problem. I was downtown fighting for my interests, as everyone else in my place would. Now that the plan is coming out, and people don't like it do they start to complain. As usual, too little too late! Am I to blame for living on the west side of town? No. Blame the Board of Ed that you all voted for. If you don't like your assignment? Hey, it's a free country. MOVE! Stop taking all of your anger out on the "west-siders". Go chase the real bad guys...

    ReplyDelete
  112. 8:48

    If it is your opinion that the Board sold out you should be voting 3 of the members out in November.

    ReplyDelete
  113. The board did not sell me out personally ( I live in the west side and did extremely well in this configeration). It does not mean I can not see the injustice of it and think that this system is ultimately horrible for a large portion of the citizenry and for the city as a whole (undereducated youth will effect us all).

    I think people need to complain about this system NOW. It is not yet set in stone. Write your opinions and go to the community meetings. One does not need to wait till the election to take some action.

    ReplyDelete
  114. 11:22

    Only 2 of the Board members are up for re-election, Mayfas and Mendoza.

    Jane Kim is not running again for Board of Education, she is running for Supervisor in a district she just moved to.

    ReplyDelete
  115. and this is part of the problem. You have a BOE president that voted for this plan while she was actively working on her Supervisor campaign, how much did she really care what happened? Please vote for people who care about our kids, not on endorsement by various groups.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Jeez Don that's kind of harsh. No one is saying it is your fault that the east side lost. We just don't like your support for neighborhood schools and your devil may care attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Just move? I don't think that's the answer to the student assignment system.

    ReplyDelete
  118. jeez people, just IGNORE THE TROLLS.

    ReplyDelete
  119. What are the troll comments? No one is saying anything inappropriate (except maybe the person who wrote "ignore the trolls")

    ReplyDelete
  120. Dear Sf Kfile readers,

    I would hope that at least some of the readers on this blog would realize that there is at least one or more people that write in using my name and say things that are intended to make me look foolish.

    I cannot speak for the mental health of this person or persons, but I will say that if you read something with my name on it there is no way to tell whether it was actually written by me. It is unfortunate that someone ruins the integrity of this blog because of some personal vendetta.

    I have tried to ignore this kind of nonsense, but since at least some people are gullible enough to buy into it, I do have to make this known to those that don't understand it. It is really amazing how nasty some people can get by engaging in this behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  121. They called Don "sybil" on sfschools, because of all the different names and personalities he posted under.

    Could people please stop making him the subject of the posts, and get on with the real discussions?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Ok I will.

    Some comments on the new student assignment system - We have three separate SASs so each must be evaluated individually. I’m not going to go into a long analysis in the age of tweets, but I’ll try to sum up from the perspective of neighborhood schools.

    1. Elementary school - The small number of seats that will be available after preferences could and likely will leave many non CDC zone residents without spots. If you add up the numbers siblings and CDC together could garner most of the spots. After a few years most out of area siblings with CTIP1 excepted would attrite. But then CTIP1 students get in anyway if they can navigate the travel issues. We will have to see what actually happens with CTIP1 usage, but one outcome will be that certain CDCs will become impacted due to the assurance of placement in K. The result – no win for large numbers of neighborhood residents in sought after schools.

    Note - SFUSD would not have written in the CDC preference for low income zone residents only after siblings if they thought that neighbors would be getting in anyway. They put that in because THEY KNEW that many would NOT get in at sought after schools. So this was a way t o make schools more SES diverse. That’s a good thing. But don’t call it a neighborhood schools policy if only certain demographics get guaranteed entry.

    2. Middle school – Neighborhood students do not win. Neighborhood schools win and to the extent that neighborhood students get into neighborhood schools they win. But as I said above, there is little assurance of that.


    3. High school – total neighborhood loss with lottery for all schools without individual placement policies.


    After all the analysis I believe the BOE/SFUSD realized that they cannot afford to continue to lose high achieving students whose parents can afford in some cases to opt out of public and create diversity. SFUSD has made millions for the privates as their past SASs are their prime recruiting tool. On balance, this will not change with this SAS because there is little assurance for neighborhood placement as even the seemingly pro middle school policy is entirely dependent on the anti neighborhood elementary policy as it plays out in sought after schools. And high school is largely unchanged.

    The BOE has to raise achievement and is data driven.

    To do that they have to deal with two kinds of drop outs - the ones at the low end of achievement that have failed as a result of numerous factors, and the ones at the high end who ‘drop out’ to attend private school. The former is the harder one. In the case of the latter middle class parents can be retained through SAS policy and achievement can be raised.

    (By the way, this year zeros will be recorded for traditional dropouts for API purposes. This will cause declines in performance at already low performing schools, but will not affect the high performing ones.) This will further pressure districts so they must find ways to keep high performing students. Unfortunately I don’t think this will work on balance.

    ReplyDelete
  123. continued

    Having to travel across town to go to school has perpetuated attrition from PS. People in the SE like everywhere else want good neighborhood schools and don’t want SFUSD using diversity as a tool to help development interests in the sense that SFUSD can and did close or downsize schools which were considered blight to aid developers who want to raise the profile and bring in middle class buyers.

    That said, I understand why a large number of vocal whites from the SE want to maintain a system that allows them to escape low performing schools because they have the means and will to. But most of the residents there want the schools fixed and that is why there is much neighborhood schools support in BVHP.

    Of course fixing them is the rub. But if some union seniority protections can continue to be modified as they are beginning to be, and if the windfall SIG money is put to good use there is a better chance than ever before to make real reforms so we do not have to force people of all kinds to travel far to get a high quality education. This has largely resulted in discontent with little or no relative achievement gains to show for it in the main.

    ReplyDelete
  124. A couple of points, Don.

    1. Elementary schools, the CDC "tiebreaker" is only in effect for kids who attend the CDC and reside in the attendance area. This is a key difference, because it won't help "non-neighborhood" kids get into a school; it helps neighborhood kids who commit to public school "pre-K" stay in that school or area.

    2. Calling the high school SAS a "loss" isn't accurate. It's "status quo." I haven't heard so many people clamoring for neighborhood high schools though.

    I do like your "drop outs" comparison though. It's true that the district has to deal with two totally different groups leaving public school. I hope that this redesign helps some of the "drop ups" to stick around, but we'll see. I heard recently that man SF schools (public and private) start losing kids in the 4th and 5th grade, likely in part due to the "third bedroom" problem. Interestingly, the K-8 public schools don't have this problem (apparently).

    ReplyDelete
  125. If you read carefully I said-

    1. Elementary school - The small number of seats that will be available after preferences could and likely will leave many non CDC zone residents without spot."

    This is why I pointed out that SFUSD wanted to create SES diversity with this preference. I guess you skipped that part of my post. Also this is not a tie breaker situation like they had in Seattle which was controversial and part of the Supreme Court ruling.

    I agree that the high school issue isn't a loss in the sense that it is fundamentally unchanged. But if you hoped that SFUSD would change it then it's a loss. I think people should have a preference to go to a neighborhood school. But with many different high school options, many will not go local and that will free up space.

    Some have pointed out that the winner/loser analysis is unfortunate. But I think it is appropriate. SFUSD has to look at overall policy, but families themselves can win or lose, so I think the comparison is apt from a people perspective.

    BTW, I dropped out of the neighborhood schools campaign after I wrote the measure for them because they became too conservative for my tastes. It's going on the ballot next year. they already have the signatures.

    ReplyDelete
  126. OK, I see what you're trying to say. You think that neighborhood kids that aren't coming from the neighborhood CDC are unlikely to get into their neighborhood school. I don't think that's true. There are 40 CDCs and 75 schools, so for some schools it a total non-issue. What's the student capacity at the CDCs? They're for 3 & 4 year olds, so not everyone "graduates" to kindergarten every year.

    Plus, most of the high-demand schools with attendance areas have no CTIP1 tracts, so having this CDC preference for CTIP1s for, say Grattan, any kids getting into that CDC, will, by definition, not be attendance area kids, and so not get the CDC tiebreaker.

    (Also, I don't know what they did in Seattle, but the current proposal calls these "tiebreakers." So families will essentially be grouped by whether or not they have these "tiebreakers.")

    So I guess I see your point about potentially filling up a school with siblings, CTIP1s and CDCs, but I disagree that it's likely to happen. And I disagree about what the results of the CDC tiebreaker will be.

    ReplyDelete
  127. From sfusd Redesign webpage:

    "2. students who live in the attendance area of the school and are enrolled in an SFUSD PreK
    program in the same attendance area;"

    The preference is for all preK programs not just CDC programs. There are well over 60 with State and T1 schools included. See under school info. Although I'm not sure how many of these centers serve the last year of Pre K, but I would suspect most would.

    And they don't have to be part of a school only in the same zone. "Attached to the school" is a common misconception. Obviously SFUSD has some stand alone PreK sites. They are part of the equation for zone elementary for priority two.

    As for numbers, a few years ago there were around 6000 students served in these programs. If a third went off to K, that is 1,666 out of 5,000 kindergarten seats more or less. These are very rough numbers, but not unreasonable. The point being that there is a sizable number of Prek students and they will have the greatest impact on enrollment at sought after schools.

    There is a district average of about 60 students per K class. If siblings take 25%, and preK takes, conservatively speaking, another 25%, and if CTIP 1 children can take an unlimited number or seats and take their unknown percentage, it is easy to imagine that if you live near a desirable school your chances are far less than 50%.

    Also, just because any given school doesn't have CTIP1 tracks makes no difference. All public prek/CDC centers are largely low income regardless of area and there are plenty of low income people in every neighborhood to fill up these pre K slots.

    This analysis is mostly conjecture as is SFUSD's, but it is based on a plausible scenario. It only makes sense that the most sought after schools will see more siblings, CDC and CTIP1 students use the preference.

    There are many other issues and I am only trying to shed light on this one issue. Right now there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty.

    ReplyDelete
  128. One clarification in retrospect.

    A couple thousand Prek students could go to kindergarten. Even if the number were half it would have a substantial impact on some schools, especially given there is no limit to CDC applicants.

    ReplyDelete
  129. I have a couple of things to say.

    Kate - why did you post this ridiculous "summary" when it is wrong. There are no default assignments for K. Everyone fills out a list, same as before. Attendance areas/boundaries have been redrawn in the new system and your address will have a greater impact on your assignment.

    ReplyDelete
  130. MISREPRESENTATION AND THE BSC

    Regarding the postings in my name, particularly 11:22, who ever this person is he or she does not know my history. You can ask Rachel if I have ever attended a single Redesign committee meeting or had any influence downtown in this process. The one and only event that I attended was an outreach meeting at Wash with Orla O'Keefe presiding.

    On the other hand I have had a lot of contact with 555 regarding my uniform complaint against SFUSD for failing to do a BSC/SPSA last year. The result of that complaint has been significant. The Department Of Education has required that SFUSD redo the BSC so that it complies with the Ed Code. You might ask - so what?

    The SPSA is supposed to the prime tool that stakeholder representatives on SSCs use to plan and monitor the use of money, the data on student needs and the achievement results.


    Well, the BSC was a totally different document that failed to provide the necessary data on funding and student achievement. It was basically a political document designed to make social justice the focus of all school planning, but it did not meet the basic requirements of law(which are there for good reason).

    The former BSC kept important information about school funding results obscured from the public. It was not a transparent and accountable document has required by law. That is why the CDE took action.

    The Single Plan for Student Achievement/BSC, which is required to be updated annually, was effectively dropped last year and SFUSD has concurred with this appraisal in its findings of fact. Although that did not stop principals per district orders to sign assurances that they did update plans, contrary to reality.

    So SFUSD is now redesigning its BSC and merging it with the SPSA. They are in the process of drafting BSC 2.0 as they call it now and schools are under tighter orders to hold proper SSC elections and to draft plans in a timely and legal manner.

    One other positive result is that SFUSD is changing its calendar to do this in the fall after they get the lastest star test results, which makes a lot of sense.

    My question is this - where was the BOE while SFUSD administrators were failing in their fiduciary duty to use State categorical funds in the manner prescribed by law? Why does a parent have to make sure that the high paid administrators are doing their jobs?

    ReplyDelete
  131. God, is there a way to block his posts?

    ReplyDelete
  132. "BTW, I dropped out of the neighborhood schools campaign after I wrote the measure for them because they became too conservative for my tastes."

    Ya don't say Don. I never could have guessed you'd fall out with yet another group of people. Oh, except I predicted you would eight months ago when you were posting Students' First all over the comments section like a fanboy.

    ReplyDelete
  133. "Where was everyone when the SAS was being discussed. Probably at home hoping someone else would take care of the problem."

    In fairness, Don is right.

    There have been minor freak-outs on eastside parents email groups about the new system, and my reaction (as a E.side parent who did attend the meetings) is "where the f**k were you when I was posting to get your asses to those meetings".

    Neighborhood school advocates mobilized, and those benefiting from all-schools-are-citywide system sat on their asses. The BoE set up a more neighborhood weighted system because *that's what most of the people at the consultation meetings said they wanted*. The suck for East side parents could have been a lot worse, frankly - at least 25% of the capacity is staying citywide, and the BoE resisted efforts to make the K-8s neighborhood schools.

    ReplyDelete
  134. "But most of the residents there want the schools fixed and that is why there is much neighborhood schools support in BVHP."

    No there's not. 70% of BVHP parents send their kids outside the neighborhood, despite unused capacity at BVHP schools.

    ReplyDelete
  135. 3:09

    SE-side parent here. I attended several meetings and spoke out. I filled out all the surveys.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Who is Don and why has he hijacked this blog?
    And...should I care?

    ReplyDelete
  137. My way of dealing with it is when I see the name Don and then something realy really long (which always seems to be the case) i just don't bother to read it and go to the next entry.

    ReplyDelete
  138. "Where was everyone when the SAS was being discussed. Probably at home hoping someone else would take care of the problem."

    This is someone else writing in using the name don. I did not post that or some of the other posts attributed to me.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Suppose the southeast parent does not care to send her child to a low achieving neighborhood school in the southeast. Well, neither does the westside parent. So between the southeast parent who lives in the southeast and the westside parent who does not live in the southeast, who should get the school assignment into the southeast? Fairness says the southeast parent should be assigned the southeast school, because of the greater transportation hardship for the westside parent.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Fairness....so easy to figure out what that is, eh? My kids definitely think they know what is fair or no fair, and they are so good at arguing...."No fair, Mom!"

    ReplyDelete
  141. Don-
    You really are beyond the pale. You're too much! We want to get information about the new SAS, not to hear you blubbering about whatever you did to the BSC or your vendetta with Kevin Truitt.
    This is what happens in a free country. The totalitarian states are lookin' better by the minute.

    ReplyDelete
  142. 3:02
    You got that right! This Don character has either quit or got himself kicked out of so many groups that I couldn't count: Laurel Hill-OuT, Alamo SSC-Gone after a meeting, PTA-same, Students First-do I need to go on? Trust me, I know. A word of advice-GET A LIFE! Yes Don, you AND your sockpuppets!

    ReplyDelete
  143. Overall I like Don's POV. Instead of constantly attacking him why don't YOU just skip over what you don't want to read and stop cluttering up the thread with your pointed personal attacks. Some of us are trying to have a conversation and you attack dogs are the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  144. hey 11:29

    You don't know what you are talking about. You just a personal problem of some kind.

    ReplyDelete
  145. "You just a personal problem of some kind."

    Learn how to write a simple sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Ahh verbs, what would we do without them?

    ReplyDelete
  147. below average readers can fill in the blank when someone inadvertently misses a word. On most blogs people don't get bent about simple omissions of this kind. This sort of histrionics is super uncool in the blogoshere.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Please ignore Don's sockpuppets!

    ReplyDelete
  149. hey 10:31!

    haha. You just a personal problem too! Get a life don! Your sockpuppets don't fool me!

    ReplyDelete
  150. ...now he will say it was not him but the "other " Don

    ReplyDelete
  151. "Fairness says the southeast parent should be assigned the southeast school, because of the greater transportation hardship for the westside parent."

    Except that the SE is distinctly poorer and darker than the westside. c.f. Brown v. Board of Education.

    ReplyDelete
  152. "Overall I like Don's POV."

    Not surprising, as you're posting from the same IP, arentcha?

    ReplyDelete
  153. 1:04

    I believe you are addressing my neighborhood school fairness arguement that school assignnent should not create transportation problems as it makes the hard decision to assign a low achieving school to parents who do not want to go there.

    I believe you reference Brown to argue that inconvenience for the westside parent could be outweighed by the need to integrate.

    I agree, and we were in that situation when the NAACP sued the school district for discrimination. Today, however, the court orders from that lawsuit have expired.

    Today, we are not in a Brown situation. We are in a voluntary integration situation. The rules are much different. In fact, race and ethnic identity cannot be a consideration under Prop 209.

    So how much voluntary racial integration can you really do and how do you do it? And if you do voluntarily integrate with CTIP, is it troubling that you have to lie about it, that my purpose is racial integration, but, wink, wink, CTIP is merely academic integration, and even second hand at that, since everyone in the census tract is given the CTIP1 preference, not just the actual low scorers. It's a mess.

    Deviations from a neighborhood school policy means problems of our own creation. Explain why they are necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  154. I agree. You uninformed parents hiding behind the shield of anonymity are the real problem! Come to the community input meeting! Speak up as I have. Did I mention that I filed a uniform complaint against the district, and WON? I probably could change the makeup of the feeder patterns if I wanted, but why? I like Presidio's feeders, and I want to speak up and make sure it stays that way. Please don't blame us westside residents for your misfortunes. There's nothing keeping you from moving to the west side. Again, MOVE. I welcome your attendance at the "road show" events. Thank you 8:46am for your open mindedness.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Keep up the good work Don. Don't worry. We'll support you!

    ReplyDelete
  156. Put a sock in it.

    ReplyDelete
  157. If people want to post in my name - go ahead if that makes you happy.

    I never filed any uniform complaint against the district as regards the SAS. The uniform complaint process is strictly for issues involving categorical programs.

    As usual someone else is posting with my name. Probably the same person that said I was very involved in pushing for neighborhood schools during the redesign process. I never went to a single BOE committee meeting. I had nothing to do with it. I did draft the most of the nonlegal text for the Quality Schools For All ballot measure for next year. So I was involved in that way, but that has nothing to do with SFUSD.

    I did file a uniform complaint about the legal failures of the BSC and the CDE came down hard on SFUSD. That is why they are in the process of redrafting the BSC to oomply with the legal requirements of the Single Plan for Student Achievement.

    The Balanced Scorecard is not an SPSA. An SPSA is fundamentally about achievement as the name says. The Balanced Scorecard was about equity, Goal#1. Now SFUSD is merging the BSC with a new SPSA. The template is being created by RPA downtown. The whole thing is being kept a big secret because to redraft the BSC implies that it was a failure.

    ReplyDelete
  158. You got issues? Why take it out on don? It's Rachel Norton who's responsible for the student assignment mess. She's a patsy for the administration. Doesn't have the guts or the inclination to stand up to them. She ran as a moderate and voted as a radical. When she runs again she'll turn back into a moderate. She doesn't even send one of her own children to public school, but she wants to tell you where to send your children to public.

    ReplyDelete
  159. "don" (not the same person as Don), although I think it's perfectly reasonable to hold all the current BOE members responsible for this disaster of an assignment policy they came up with, I don't think it's fair to criticize Rachel for sending her autistic child to a special school at her own expense if she felt the child's needs were not being me by SFUSD.

    ReplyDelete
  160. 8:21
    You're an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Why does everyone in CTIP1 get the preference and not just the actual low scorers? Why can't low scorers in CTIP2 get the preference, if the goal truely is academic achievement?

    The answer is that the goal is not academic achievement. The goal is really school assignment decisions based on race. Why can't we tell the truth and say that is the purpose of CTIP? Answer: We would be admitting to a violation of Proposition 209.


    To clean up CTIP, I think you have to be rigorous about limiting the preference to only the low scorers. I think you might be interesed in income diversity and base decisions on income and actual test scores. I think you should tell the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  162. fed up with West side complainersAugust 29, 2010 at 8:33 PM

    CTIP1 preference will be meaningless without transportation from public housing (where, face it, coincides with the CTIP1 areas) to high-performing schools across the city.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Don did you check out Glen beck and Palin at the Lincoln memorial? It was awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  164. don-thank you. It's refreshing to finally hear an intelligent person on this thread.

    8:54-you're an unintelligent idiot

    ReplyDelete
  165. 1:18 is Don again, sockpuppeting.

    On SFschools, Don invented several people, all of whom agreed with him and complimented him on his intelligence. If it wasn't so creepy, it would have been sad.

    One of his puppets wrote "your wit is wasted on this board, Don"

    gag

    ReplyDelete
  166. 8:33
    You describe CTIP as meaningless, because there will be limited transportation services to the westside, where the high performing schools are. The follow up should be, "Why support something that is meaningless? Why not eliminate an empty gesture if it will do no good, and might do some harm, that we cannot forsee.

    There are plenty of parents not in the westside who feel that they have unappealing options; they don't get CTIP1, do not have high achieving schools in the neighborhood, and they are squeezed out of the citywide programs that are in the neighborhood. If you say that you intend this for CTIP2 east siders, then I guess CTIP is not meaningless. You mean to do this to them and you should be honest about it. And you owe it to them to be caring about the lack of parental choice you have imposed on them. Limit CTIP preferences to the low scorers, to the actual inhabitants of public housing, to the actual darker and poorer. Do the least harm possible to those who are paying the price for the new student assignment system.

    ReplyDelete
  167. 7:50
    Is that true? OMG. Mental.

    ReplyDelete
  168. 8:33
    But there will be busing from those areas to coveted schools. They are limiting the busing, but making it a priority from low SES areas to better schools.

    ReplyDelete
  169. I want to thank all those who are writing in as my sockpuppets both for and against.

    ReplyDelete
  170. There was a blogger named Don
    Whose sockpuppets seemed rather wan
    So he said put a sock in it
    And I’ll add the mock in it
    Now even Rastas say he’s the mon.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Don,

    What a complete AS$ you are!! Move!! I've lived in S.F. all my life. I've lived in m neighborhood for over 40 years and bough a house here too. It was and is a fair neighborhood. Unfortunately, it is in a crappy school district area. Your idea is that I should MOVE to ensure that your child gets a good school priority. AS$H@LE!!!!

    Just wait a few years for the parents to start howling about the bad scores that we have in these schools. The NAACP will come a marching!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  172. Oh, so you think your child should come first elsewhere because you don't like your neighborhood school and that it is quite all right to kick out someone else's child who lives near the school you covet.

    Sticks and stones..Blah blah blah

    ReplyDelete
  173. Hang on. What's the deal here?

    Fact 1 you don't like your neighborhood school.

    Fact 2 you fell entitled to a seat at a better school

    Fact 3 you're OK depriving another family of their seat at that better neighborhood school

    And Don is the asshole?

    ReplyDelete
  174. Could we PLEASE just ignore Don and his sockpuppets and stick to the SUBJECT?

    He does this on every group he jumps in on, takes over the discussion, and makes it all about him (which I am doing now, but only to plead for an END to it).

    ReplyDelete
  175. IMO, CTIP1 preference allows Garcia and the BOE to claim that their new plan will lead to greater equity and opportunities for all when, at the end of the day, it's basically a neighborhood school plan that will dramatically increase segregation.

    ReplyDelete
  176. There are problems with every system but a public neighborhood schools system that assigns students without regard to race/socio-economic 'status' is the best approach in my opinion. After many decades of public education in this country, neighborhood school assignment systems are the default approach in the overwhelming majority of communities.

    So, let's stop the bickering and focus our energies on creating and maintaining good schools throughout the district and let's shatter whatever roadblocks get in the way.

    Finally, whether you like Don's opinion or not he has a right to voice it. He has obviously put a lot of thought into the issues. Rational adults that disagree with a point of view should voice conter arguments rathr than make personal attacks. (Sidenote: I do find the posts made by 'don' to be quite different that the posts made by 'Don'. If someone is impersonating someone else on these boards, that is pretty twisted.)

    ReplyDelete
  177. 3:40 IMO, an all-choice system is the best one. Perhaps we disagree b/c you live in the assignment area for a high-performing school and I in one for a low-performing one. But I agree with you that once this system is set in stone (which btw is not yet the case) we'll have no choice but to work within it.

    ReplyDelete
  178. 3:40

    The best approach is to clean up CTIP, if you are committed to the academic diversity approach. CTIP 1 applicants are likely to go to nearby CTIP 2 areas, not faraway CTIP 2 areas, such as the westside. What if the CTIP 1 preference only applied to the faraway west side? Then the southeast CTIP 2 areas would not be overburdened. Then you could dial up CTIP 1 to the bottom 30% or bottom 40% to see how things work out.

    ReplyDelete
  179. "IMO, CTIP1 preference allows Garcia and the BOE to claim that their new plan will lead to greater equity and opportunities for all when, at the end of the day, it's basically a neighborhood school plan that will dramatically increase segregation."

    It's a good thing you call it a humble opinion because it doesn't make much sense. Segregation,as the word is commonly misused, increased in general after the Ho decision. If we had a pure neighborhood system, the most impacted areas like BVHP would be far more integrated as its populations is currently. It is SFUSD and its policies that are creating segregation,if you want to call it that.

    Most districts and even the children in those districts are past the civil rights era mentality. It's some of their parents and tired politicians that are clinging to old failed ideas like busing. We don't even have the money to provide it anyway.

    Why have districts across the nation reversed course after the recent court decisions about government sponsored social engineering? Not because it was a big success in lifting test scores. The rallying cry is achievement. Diversity is old hat.

    You are wrong about the SAS. HS isn't neighborhood at all. MS is only neighborhood friendly to the neighborhood elementary schools,not the neighborhood children. And elementary school has 3 major preferences prior to the overall neighborhood residents.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Don,

    You're the one that doesn't make much sense. In fact, you ARE an asshole! You spread your crap all over every blog just to piss people off. You talk very authoritatively, yet the information you spew out is incorrect, as usual. You don't add much to any discussion, other than to draw attention to yourself. Since your kids go to west side schools, and your conservative group Students first continues to keep that the status quo, you've basically got it made, and now you are just taunting the rest of us with your crap. Don't you have a job? Please prove me wrong and tell me you contribute to society instead of living off the rest of us like a leech! I'm here to trade useful information with other people who are "in the same boat". You're set. We're not. Cut it out! Are you some know it all or something? Because you are leading people down the wrong path! Bloggers beware. Don's in the house!

    ReplyDelete
  181. There was a blog named Kfile
    Whose anonymous posters revile
    The freedom of speech
    They feign to preach
    Now the blog is nothing but bile.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Pathetically bad.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Don,

    A$$HOLE!! No, I don't think my kid deserves better but you do and don't have the BALLS to admit it. You don't give a rats A$$ that other parents are getting screwed so long as you are happy.

    Luckily, we make enough money to send our kid to private. Most likely to my husband's alma mate which is Exeter.

    ReplyDelete
  184. 9:32,

    Anonymous Dudette,

    Don't become of a slave to the dark side. This not becoming of your humanity. Congratulations on your financial status. Ain't America grand?

    ReplyDelete
  185. Here's one thing Rachel had to say about the low performing areas and the SAS:

    "and what this proposal (the SAS) would do is instead give them (ex.BVHP)strong incentives to stay closer to home (and remove the current incentive the choice system gives them to leave)."

    You see SFUSD policies have encouraged flight from areas rather than create incentives to raise up schools in some areas. It all fed into the developers game to remake certain areas under the cover of diversity.

    ReplyDelete
  186. I agree with Rachel's statement, but unlike Don, I don't see this as a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  187. I have been visiting various blogs for my research papers writing. I have found your blog to be quite useful. Keep updating your blog with valuable information... Regards

    ReplyDelete
  188. Cool! Author the best! Thank you!

    ReplyDelete