Friday, October 8, 2010

Open thread: CTIP2? Not wild about your school? (Also, the school map has been pulled?!)

If you are a new kindergarten family for 2011 looking at public options, what's on your mind if you have CTIP2 status and have hesitations about your assignment boundary school? What do you think you might do over the next few months?

IMHO, there's no such thing as a bad answer to these questions at this point (although I have a feeling some others may disagree with me on that). Among people I know, reactions are all over the place. We are the first participants in this new experiment. As a PPS-SF representative put it at a recent kindergarten meeting, 10 years worth of school choice data under the old system is now out the window. No one knows how people will choose under the new system.

If you aren't sure about your CTIP1/CTIP2 status, you can check here (CTIP1 is in green). But if you aren't sure what your assignment boundary school is, it looks like you'll have to wait until November. The school district originally posted assignment boundary maps last month. But I just looked again a minute ago, and the maps page now says "When the new attendance areas for elementary schools are finalized, details will appear here. Please check back after November 11, 2010." So it looks like for some people, their school may change in the next month. Just gotta say...argh.

Update: The map from September, labeled "Final," is here. After some feedback and comments about the map issue, I called the district. They said that while many of the boundaries on the September map probably won't change much, there will probably be some changes to some areas, and the truly "final" version will be out in November. They didn't say which areas might undergo changes over the next month.

76 comments:

  1. We are right on the border between Peabody and Cobb, on the Cobb side. Not happy about the way the chips fell, and are touring parochials or looking at moving.

    But now maybe they'll redraw the border? One can only hope. Why are they still redrawing borders at this point?

    Thanks, BTW, for this post. This blog is best when it helps us know what's going on with the school district process. I've given up on finding out anything from the local news.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "No one know(sic) how people will choose under the new system."

    This seems to be the new mantra for avoiding questions about the data or studies used up to this point.

    It's fairly logical what people will choose: either the same as before, or higher, since there is no penalty for going 0/7 as before.

    The difference is that certain neighborhoods will get their choices, and others will not. The initial assignment algorithm is crafted to force people into their neighborhood schools, and the TTC mechanism for trading only works if someone wants to get into your school, so only students at popular schools will get to transfer. It's a "rich get richer" algorithm.

    I suggest people write to the school board and their district supervisors and request a breakdown for their neighborhood of the rate at which people will receive their top choices under the new system, based on previous years' application data. These studies were done for the district as a whole, but nobody broke down the totals to show what individual neighborhoods will get.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Thanks, BTW, for this post. This blog is best when it helps us know what's going on with the school district process. I've given up on finding out anything from the local news."

    The maps have not been pulled. They are to be finalized on Nov.11 and the idea was to get community input before then. Once again, more bad information from SF Kfile writers who have little or no understanding of the system. Just go to SFUSD's portal. It's all right there. If you are taking your advice from this blog you are going to regret it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It actually looks like it's some of both. I can find a map that says it's "final" for the September 28th board meeting at http://sfusd.ggnet.net/files/final-elementary-attendance-areas-map.pdf.

    But then when you go to the "School Boundary Maps" page that the poster pointed to, it says the maps won't be final until November 11. So I guess "final" wasn't final? Or is the "School Boundary Maps" page wrong?

    And re. 9:32:

    At least for us, the choices won't be the same. Our assignment school (depending on this map thing) is Grattan. We're more likely to get it than under the old system, which is good. But I also expect it'll have too many applications. And if we don't get it, then I feel like we'll have to look much further away for backups, because the surrounding schools will all be full from their neighborhoods. So I'm touring schools out near Ocean Beach as backups. Before, under the old system, I wouldn't have done that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The map on the district web site shows only K-8 and all-immersion schools (Buena Vista, Chinese Immersion at DeAvila and Fairmount) as being city-wide. Immersion threads at Alvarado, JOES, etc., and JBBP programs at Rosa Parks and Clarendon, are not mentioned as being city-wide. I thought all the immersion programs were supposed to be city-wide. Oh well. We're CTIP2 and Grattan, so can't complain, but there are so many kids in the neighborhood it's hard to believe we'd get it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here's a link to the draft map. The proposed changes to the elementary school attendance areas have already been voted on. There were some specific changes around big roads, but I don't think there was anything for Cobb/Presidio.

    I also don't like the "10 years of data is worthless" BS. Rooftop will still be popular, as will the immersion programs. I will be interesting to see what happens to schools like Clarendon and West Portal, but really, the popular school will remain popular.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Seattle,

    Maybe the joyful 21st century learning the district loves to talk about imbues their public notification requirements under law with an improvisational approach but I always thought the 'fin' in final meant 'the end'.

    After your update are you starting to get the picture about SFUSD? You cannot rely on them. They passed a new assignment system in March. A few months later they canceled the middle school policy for the time being. Then they say they finalized the boundaries, but now they say they have not finalized them. And they can change them as they wish at any time to accommodate new factors as per the Board's SAS resolution.

    The point being if what you want is certitude - good luck.

    It is entirely possible given the challenges inherent in resolving the middle school pathway issues that changes would have to be made to elementary boundaries as well. For example if some middle schools grow via preferences to accommodate more of a particular cohort of students, the elementary boundaries might have to be modified to lower feeder input.

    The old adage about death and taxes applies in spades at SFUSD.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 11:10:

    Thanks for the link to the map--that's very helpful. :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. "since there is no penalty for going 0/7 as before"

    This brings a question to mind and I don't think this has been addressed anywhere. Does anyone know what the rules are with respect to waitpools, the number of rounds, who gets priority, etc. For example how do we know that there is no penalty or advantage for going 0 for 7 or 1 for 7 in terms of the wait pools?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't think they've officially published the waitpool procedure yet.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 11:07

    I don't think most people in the Grattan area will get in.

    They have a pre-k feeder system and cpt1 ahead of the neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Holy cow! They changed my boundary! We're in McKinley instead of Muir now! Whoot! Please, oh please, school board, don't change it again.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Since neighborhood kids can get bumped out of their neighborhood school by the sibling, prek, and ctip1 preferences, perhaps at Grattan, for example, parents should tour and list a several back up choices. Not only the K8's and immersion programs, but also regular schools outside of your assignment area. Cross your fingers that those schools have space for you or else the district will make the assignment. Don't stop at a list of 7. Make it a list of ten or more.

    ReplyDelete
  14. lordy, just look at this map. i don't know how the neighborhood schools people managed to make this happen. people will be moving within the boundaries for their desired schools. the rich get richer, and richer and richer. please don't believe the crap about ct1p1 people getting the poor west side folks' spots. blechh on this map. schools with many poor kids have a lot more work to do and need more resources---which they are losing out on each year as the budgets tighten. schools with high performing and higher income kids need less resources but have more in the form of the strong ptas.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "schools with high performing and higher income kids need less resources but have more in the form of the strong ptas."

    This is one of those statements that is repeated over and over so people take it for fact when it is entirely false. Low achieving school get far more per pupil than high achieving schools. This is a very well understood fact among school administrators. I am not commenting on the merits of that distribution. I am saying that an intelligent discussion cannot ensue if falsehoods are paraded as facts.

    Then there is this statement also from the previous anonymous post-

    "please don't believe the crap about ct1p1 people getting the poor west side folks' spots"

    That is exactly what it is. Is this person for real? What does he or she think the CTIP idea was intended to do? The purpose was to identify low achieving areas and give students within those areas a preference in higher achieving schools. Once again I am not commenting on its merits. I 'm just trying to keep it real.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's interesting- think ctip-2 people in the best situation have a very good- but not wildly popular- school. I'm actually relieved they changed the old boundaries so I'm out of grattan and now in Jefferson. Ironically, two years ago we sold our place and moved- from an area that was ctip-1.

    Bye bye, golden ticket. Who knew????

    ReplyDelete
  17. 7:12AM

    Whew! Your post had me worried that we might have shifted out of Jefferson's attendance area (we're closer to its western border). But it is still our attendance school. Yay! Now, of course, I hope we get it. I was quite pleased with the tour I took on Thursday.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Truthfully? We are looking much harder at private than we thought we would.

    ReplyDelete
  19. We're Muir. Miss CTIP1 by half a block. We moved here from the Bayview about 18 months ago because we wanted to be closer to the city's best schools.

    Luckily, we rent, so it's easier to move. We are looking. We checked out one place nearby (CTIP1) a couple of weeks ago, but the price seemed a little high for this area. When we asked about negotiating, they said the price reflected "the unit's favorable school selection status." So we're still looking. If we need to, we'll move back to the BV, where my boyfriend has family and friends who won't surprise us on the rent.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sanchez here. Killing time at Kinko's waiting for the copies, looking at this map and trying not to get upset.

    We are ctip2. Really, what are our options?

    I don't think the "10 years of data is worthless" stuff is entirely BS. Things will be different. We will give Sanchez a look (which we wouldn't have done before). But we will also tour, and probably apply to, every single citywide K-8, even Clare Lillienthal, which we wouldn't have done before because it's so far away. I don't think the citywide's will just be popular any more. I think they will be inundated.

    People like to talk about east vs. west. But I look this map and I see a new group -- a stretch of the central city (Cobb, Parks, Muir, Sanchez) with under-requested schools and lots of CTIP2 families.

    For us, we'll give the lottery one chance. After that, we may move. Friends of ours further to the SE are saying the same.

    And to the original writer -- did they say why are they still working on the map?

    Sorry for the long post. Lots on my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  21. To yesterday 9:11 and today's 12:44: No specific answer, other than many parts of the new system, such as the waitpool rules, are still being developed, and that everything should be ready by the enrollment fair.

    And yes, Don, I also thought that "final" meant final. Hence my surprise when I found a different "School Maps Boundary" page that said the map wasn't final. I didn't expect certainty from the district in terms of the lottery outcome, but now will take things like the certainty of the upcoming waitpool rules with an extra grain of salt.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I wonder what the new Sanchez is going to be like? Right now it is 80% hispanic, and its focus is on fostering english literacy to a student group that is primarily non-english literate (according to the published statistics.) Starting next year, the majority of its neighborhood is affluent non-hispanic. Is the school planning to change its mission to serve the needs of its new community? Has the principal or school board issued any guidance around this?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Looking at you, Cobb. Literally...at the moment I'm sitting in a coffee place right across the street from you.

    Our neighborhood school is Cobb. Not on the border, either...no new map will help us.

    And I just don't see going there. The Montessori fight last year was a major turn-off. To me, it meant that middlle-class families who want to make the school better are not welcome.

    We were driving in the inner Richmond yesterday and saw some For Rent signs in Peabody's area. But how much would that really help? At least I feel like the silver lining for us is that we know the reality of our situation up front and can make tough decisions (moving away, parochial/private) earlier. All you people in the Richmond and in the Sherman area...just remember that Cobb is sitting here, waiting to be filled with overflow from nearby areas.

    Last year, about six of our friends went 0 for 7 and got Cobb. Guess how many of them went there? Hey school district, how is that whole forcing-people-into-a-school-they-don't-want thing working for ya?

    And Cobb...all that junk you've got crammed into the window areas facing California Street isn't helping.

    I feel like if the school wants its new neighborhood to take it seriously, there needs to be more than tours. There needs to be a community meeting, where we can talk about whether we're welcome there and whether we'll be listened to.

    Thanks for the chance to vent!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Does anyone know why the two JBBP FLES programs are designated as city-wide but the Russian FLES program is not?

    ReplyDelete
  25. @4:41, no, and the whole Argonne situation is strange (that's also where the Russian FLES program is, yes?).

    Argonne is a good school, but with a weird schedule that doesn't work for a lot of people in our neighborhood. We can't figure out why it wasn't made city-wide. You either want year-round, or you don't, and if you don't, you really don't.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just to clarify (I just posted) lots of us in the Argonne neighborhood are in the weird position of being attached to a good school, but still trying to figure out how to get out of it because the logisitics don't work.

    I think people would like more city-wide schools. Why not Argonne? And take a school like Muir that most people don't want, add a program people do want, and make that city-wide too?

    ReplyDelete
  27. You people don't seem to understand that just because a school is your assignment area school does not mean at all that you are guaranteed a spot at that school. Someone mentioned moving, and renting near Peabody. That's a dangerous thing to do, Peabody only has a certain amount of seats, after siblings, and more people in the neighborhood assignment area than available seats. SO you disrupt your life, move, and then don't get in.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Agreed. Like the second Cobb person said, at least he/she knows what she is getting into right up front. Don't think you can save yourself by moving a few blocks away.

    Look at the assignment areas for Sutro and Peabody, or for New Traditions. These are small schools, with comparatively large attendance areas. Even if a decent number of those kids in those areas try for private, these schools will all be oversubscribed. And what's waiting to catch the overflow? Cobb and Muir. The district set this up this way on purpose.

    If you are in the border of a popular school, but have an unpopular school nearby, have few illusions about what the district really plans for your neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Round and round we go.

    If you live near a high demand school your chance of getting in may be no better than it was under the old system, especially if that school is centrally located. Siblings, pre-K and CTIP1 will fill the spots at the better schools. The neighborhood preference at 4th position is not much of a preference.

    ReplyDelete
  30. To 4:41 PM from yesterday: The FLES programs are totally weird, and The Japanese programs have a kind of "most-favored language" status, mostly due to its age (30+ years). Russian at Argonne, Italian at Clarendon and Spanish at McKinley are all second-class FLES programs, and so aren't citywide. Technically, the Japanese is a "bilingual-bicultural" program.

    Whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I don't have a child going into kindergarten in 2011, but this is what I'd do.

    My family is renting, so I'd move into a Golden Ticket area and tour a couple schools that would logistically work.

    I agree that it would be dangerous to move into a specific attendance area, because that's no guarantee.

    Yes, it's gaming the system, but this system is just ASKING to be gamed. It's interesting that people are already hearing "school selection" as a way to justify higher rents.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The Ctip-1 areas are going to be flooded with renters with children- resulting in a likely increase in test scores in ctip-1 areas due to an influx of middle class entrants. It's a win for the district, as the ctip-1 areas will appear to have suddenly had an increase in test scores, which may be falsely attributed to real change in the outcomes among the original residents. We own our condo- if I was a renter and was willing to leave my current rent-controlled home, I'd be thrilled about this. The real folks who are completely screwed are Ctip-2 homeowners with poor neighborhood schools. They are stuck, given the housing market, unless they bought at least 5 years ago. And, because they are paying a mortgage, they probably can't afford private or even catholic school.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Friends looking at apartments in the Mission this weekend, closer to the Potrero Ave. end, said they heard the same thing from two landlords and managers. Good school choice status was used to justify the rent price.

    Crazy. That part of the Mission, already balancing on the gentrification line, will tip because of this ctip thing. The people the school district wants to help won't be able to afford to live there any more.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Well if more middle-class and higher scoring students move to a current ctip1 area, it will eventually lose its ctip1 status--no more advantage for MS or HS applicants. I live in a SE ctip1 area (no benefit to us, child is already in MS) and it's no picnic. The housing projects are 2 blocks away, we hear gunshots at least 1 night/week, our car has been broken into twice in the past 6 months, and we can't let our child play outside unsupervised. If we could afford it, we'd move to the Westside.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If you are moving into ctip1, all you have to do to keep your area in a ctip1 status is to score poorly on the standardized exams. Be a good neighbor, and don't make the long term residents lose their ctip1 status.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Two can play that game. My ctip2 area could become a ctip1 area if we all cooperate.

    ReplyDelete
  37. 'I also don't like the "10 years of data is worthless" BS.'

    Well, we don't know how many choices people will list. We don't know how many CTIP1 families will opt out of their neighborhood school. We don't know what Round 2 is, etc.

    What we do know is which schools are *not* popular, so on March 2011 there will be a bunch of parents posting here saying "F**k! I got Bryant/Harte/Chavez!"

    If the new system is successful, then about more than 85-88% of families will get one of their choices. If it's a clusterfuck, then it'll be more like 80-82%.
    But given 12-15% of SFUSD's capacity is in schools that have low test scores, challenging SES for their students, and no immersion programs to act as magnets, we're not going to see
    +90% getting one of their choices.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Remember, SFUSD is writing the software program for the lottery, not the professionals who designed the algorithm. Don't count on it being ready AND debugged in time to be working properly or fulfilling the promises. Lucky if 50% get their choice.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hell, let's have all our kids leave their STAR tests blank. CTIP1 here we come.

    ReplyDelete
  40. If the incoming K class started that in 2011, we'd probably have CTIP1 status by middle school...hmmmm....

    ReplyDelete
  41. I don't know why you need to move to scary parts of the mission. Look at the ctip1 green zone carefully. There are plenty of nice blocks in lower height and western addition to move to. And they are ctip1.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "SFUSD is writing the software program for the lottery, not the professionals who designed the algorithm"

    I didn't think the Stanford Market Design folks had gotten to the algorithm design stage. I'd feel happier if they did.

    "Don't count on it being ready AND debugged in time to be working properly or fulfilling the promises. Lucky if 50% get their choice."

    Nah. In the end, the Student Assignment System is about putting kids into different buckets: given that 70-80% of SFUSD elementaries are ranked 5 or higher in API scores, it'd be hard for an assignment system to go to 50%. The SAS will change choices (I'd anticipate more folks choosing their neighborhood schools over the trophies), so I'd expect a slight rise in numbers of families who get one of their choices.

    However, if the new system attracts a lot of parents who'd otherwise only have applied for the privates under the old system, then I'd expect a drop in the numbers who get one of their choices this year.

    What I do fear is whatever contractor SFUSD uses will add tiebreakers to the outline (e.g. using rank of a school on an application as a tiebreaker) that the Stanford Market Design folks have given that will break the "strategically simple" design. That was the case with the previous algorithm.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The student assignment system is way way to complicated for any transparency to the process. Everyone should go to their neighborhood school with the exception of the alternatives that ought to remain by lottery. If there are not enough schools build more.

    ReplyDelete
  44. At this point, to be honest, the whole conversation about public schools (budget cuts, the lottery, the district firing the outside experts to build and watch the new lottery algorithm, how hard it is to get in anywhere, how bad the schools are, how angry everyone seems to be at each other, the nasty argument about Creative Arts on another post) is beyond depressing. This upcoming K family is either selling pints of plasma to go private, or moving. Sadly, see ya.

    ReplyDelete
  45. 2:04, I don't know you at all and maybe you'd be doing that anyway, but seriously, I wouldn't make decisions about schools based on this blog or any blog with anonymous postings. Not a great basis for decision-making. Check things out for yourself and talk with people in real life. At least, check out your neighborhood assignment school in real life.

    It will cost you nothing to submit an application--you don't even have to to tour or talk with people to do that. Seems silly to close off that option at this stage.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 2:50, it's 2:04 here again. Thanks for the encouragement. I went back and read what I wrote earlier, and it's a little on the drama-queen side.

    We had originally approached the public school process with a lot of excitement. But the last month (all those things I mentioned, plus the map isn't even final) has been a big bucket of cold water in the face. Maybe we're just in shock, or maybe that's the reality of the system and we just need to adjust to it.

    We will definitely check out some public schools. What I probably need to do, honestly, is read this blog less and visit schools more. :)

    ReplyDelete
  47. 3:06 pm -- I think a lot of folks are making wild assumptions about how likely CTIP 1 and neighborhood kids are to fill up at the "nicer" neighborhood schools. I think people are forgetting that a lot of central areas are filled up with Prop 13-protected older homeowners. We live up in the Clarendon zone and I can't think of a home in my area with a 4 year old. And my area is also a bit out of the way for CTIP 1 kids to be coming into. I think middle class parents just need to do more hunting for neighborhood schools that are relatively far away from CTIP 1 zones and that have lots of older homeowners in the area.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Most of Peabody's Zone supposedly doesn't have a lot of young children either.

    ReplyDelete
  49. 3:06-

    This blog can be a great source of stress.

    Don't believe everything you read on it and trust your gut and what you know about your child's and your families' needs.

    ReplyDelete
  50. If you check out the SFUSD SAS webpage, under Maps and Data it says:

    The following SF City Planning Neighborhoods have significantly more student residents than seats available:

    * Bayview (elementary and middle)
    * Crocker Amazon (middle)
    * Downtown/Civic Center (elementary and middle)
    * Mission (elementary)
    * Ocean View (middle )
    * Outer Mission (elementary)
    * Parkside (middle)
    * Visitacion Valley (elementary)
    * Western Addition (middle)

    For SFUSD to go to a neighborhood model they would have to build new schools or expand old ones. This would cost a great deal of money. SFUSD has been under pressure from the various quarters, including the Grand Jury, to sell surplus real estate. The proceeds of such sales could be used to upgrade capacity where capacity needs fall short. Building new facilities is also a big plus for redevelopment in BVHP.

    The new SAS feeds into a long term capital plan to manage SFUSD's tremendous real estate surplus that is valued between 1 and 2 billion. I'm not saying the SAS is only about money, but it is a big factor that is never discussed in the public domain. Richard Blum's real estate arm and a very large bank are major players in backroom deals that drive policy.

    A real neighborhood schools policy would require a significant expenditure on infrastructure that was unwound during the consent decree era of outsourcing to other neighborhoods. There is no political will to raise capital via bonds and the District is broke. The sale of real estate is the only fundraising avenue available to SFUSD.

    ReplyDelete
  51. There has been lots of talk of moving into a CTIP1 area. I'm just wondering as to whether the SFUSD has issued any kind of policy in regard to residency requirements. How long does one need to live in the area to qualify? Does one need to remain in that area after enrollment? The CTIP1 preference is begging to be "gamed" by people, and I wonder what the SFUSD is doing to minimize its abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  52. There are no rules yet, and any rules they make can be changed at any time. What else is new?

    ReplyDelete
  53. From a school tour this week -- not only is the map not yet finalized, but which schools are "city-wide" isn't finalized yet either. Nothing should be considered final until mid-November.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Re: moving into a CTIP1 area. So what? This is exactly what people do under any residence-based system--they look for rentals or property in a good school area. I'm sure there will be people doing that to get into Alamo or Jefferson or Feinstein too. Are they gaming the system? What about the people who move to Rockridge and Montclair in Oakland just for the schools? Or the ones who move to the burbs for the schools? Are they also gaming the system? The system is what it is, and people respond accordingly. As long as people aren't faking an address, I don't have a problem with them actually becoming part of the neighborhood--and hopefully contributing to it.

    I just don't get why people see that as "gaming" the system--unless you are an advocate for pure lottery or even just the old system with socio-economic factors like free lunch and CalWorks qualification. I was fine with that system, but many people here wanted neighborhood preference. Well, now we have that. CTIP is a form of neighborhood preference. And if people want to move to my CTIP1 neighborhood, where I have lived for over 20 years, I welcome them.

    Eventually, the district may move those lines based on academic performance, so it's not a sure thing, particularly on the margins of some of these areas, the gentrifying edges. Probably Sunnydale will remain CTIP1 though. Any takers?

    I just don't see too many people doing this. It uproots your life, costs money and effort, and is not a sure thing. Those who do, come on down and join the neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
  55. 12:21,

    "CTIP is a form of neighborhood preference."

    Could you explain this comment? To me CTIP is exactly the opposite of neighborhood preference. It allows students from outside the neighborhood based attendance zones to get placed in advance and possibly to the exclusion of neighborhood residents.

    Unless we find common ground on the basic definitions and concepts of the SAS, having a discussion on the subject will only result in confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I don't envision CTIP as a form of neighborhood preference. But I do agree that moving is not gaming the system. Did anyone say that it was?

    ReplyDelete
  57. 2:21, not a sock puppet of Don, but he is right here. People want CTIP 1 to get a preference into schools not in the CTIP 1 neighborhood. These are census tracks where there is a lot of poverty and kids haven't performed as well and SFUSD is trying to give them a break like they did in the old system for low income (free lunch), public housing, and CalWorks. Unfortunately they got rid of that which really did benefit those intended to and it is not benefitting people who are middle class who live in those areas. They probably did this because if most people who are middle class were sent to some of these schools as a neighborhood preference people would have been really mad and vocal. This is a way to silence some of that anger and help some kids who are disadvantaged. If they truly wanted to help the kids who are disadvantaged they would have kept the income qualifiers because there are kids from all over the city who need help.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Not sure if this has been mentioned, but I wonder whether the sibling preference might have diminishing impact a few years down the road. After a few years most of the kids in a school might be from the assigned attendance area anyway, so the number of students with younger siblings from outside the attendance area will be small. This could mean that living within an attendance area of a desireable school becomes more of a sure thing eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  59. About gaming the system, I think that if people are actually moving into the CTIP1 neighborhoods, that is up to them. Some of those places aren't pretty, but a critical mass of such new neighbors could change the neighborhood.

    And if we lived in an ideal world, this is what would happen.

    However, I could easily imagine people simply renting a room in the CTIP1 blocks without actually living there.

    This would undermine the process in many ways.

    For one, it would eventually raise the scores of the CTIP1 blocks; consequently, these blocks would become CTIP2 blocks. The problem, however, is that the original residents would no longer get the benefit of whatever this system was structured to provide.

    And of course, this system was not designed to benefit those who could afford to rent an empty room.

    This is indeed why I think that this system is open to "gaming."

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anyone who had that kind of money to throw away would just go private.

    ReplyDelete
  61. What kind of money is that? Do you mean to say that the public schools are only for the poor?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Yes, there are very few wealthy families in SF public schools, they tend to be cloistered the so-called "elite privates." Exceptions might occur if i.e. the child has special needs and therefore cannot get into or is kicked out of one of the privates. IMO these "elite privates" do not offer a superior education, simply the opportunity to be with the same (upper) class of families.

    ReplyDelete
  63. It's not a lot of money to get the Golden Ticket. To trick the compute, you only need to pay rent in a CTP1 housing unit long enough to get the two address documents that SFUSD requires at registration. So maybe $2000 or possibly $3000 for rent, but not more. Compare that to private: $10-25K/year x 13 years! And when Buffy and Biffy show up in Sept with a different address, who checks and who cares? There isn't a big red stamp on the enrollment form the says "CPT1." That is confidential information. You live in San Francisco, which is the only address fraud that SFUSD prosecutes. If asked about your new address, "We moved over the summer" is all that you need to say. Not against the law to move within San Francisco. You will keep your mouth shut about gaming the system.

    ReplyDelete
  64. That's $2K-3K total for rent (not per month), and you will never actually live at the address, so no furniture/moving expenses, just leave the refrigerator and lights on to provide a believable utility bill.

    ReplyDelete
  65. 8:10,

    Have you ever heard of the middle class? Granted it has been shrinking, but for the time being we still have one. And for your information there are plenty of non-rich kids in private schools.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I think middle-class CTIP 1 people in the SE of the city will be unpleasantly surprised to find out that we are ALL applying to the one true trophy GE program in the area, Alvarado, or to the immersion programs in our immediate radius. We do have a slight edge in citywide schools and immersion programs, but it will not enough to give the majority of us a seat. We're in a better position than CTIP 2 people in our section of the city, but we hardly have a golden ticket. So I don't think it's worth moving, unless out of the city.

    ReplyDelete
  67. And personally, I think a hotline for CTIP1 fraud is an obvious move. This system is indeed much more open to gaming. I don't think REALLY moving is gaming the system. But renting a closet and not living in it? Gaming. Sucky middle-class gaming at the expense of genuinely poor kids (because you don't know that the CTIP 1 space you took would have gone to another middle-class family). How people who do that kind of thing can live with themselves is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  68. If Supervisor Chris Daly can live on a couch in the Mission and have his family live in Fairfield, any CTIP2 family can learn to appreciate his creativity and family devotion and self sacrifice.
    CTIP 2 families will follow his example. If you can get away with living in the CTIP1 area for only a short period, do that, and no more. If you have to maintain two households for a short period, do that and no more. I imagine Chris Daly sleeps well. And with a smile.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Was there a problem with people temporarily renting rooms in Mission/Bernal when the 94110 zip code gave folks a leg up in applications to city-wide schools (back in the day when the only other option was your designated neighborhood school)?

    ReplyDelete
  70. We are in the Webster Assignment area. Huge assignment area, tiny school:( and actually not an easy drop off for us to get back to work in the mission and downtown using public transport. Not sure where we will start in our search, but I don't think it will be our assignment school.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Gaming??!! Like you've never heard of that before?

    You've got to be kidding me.

    We've had address fraud, income fraud, ELL fraud, language fraud and free lunch fraud.

    I feel tremendously stupid for having been honest on our school application. We're now stuck with years of private school tuition payments.

    I say go for it! Game the system whatever way you can, either by lying about your income on your preschool application or finding an apartment in a CTIP 1 area.

    Apparently, this city is only for the very rich and the very poor. Gavin said so.

    So get creative and get poor!

    ReplyDelete
  72. As an artist I can attest to that!

    ReplyDelete
  73. "This brings a question to mind and I don't think this has been addressed anywhere. Does anyone know what the rules are with respect to waitpools, the number of rounds, who gets priority, etc. For example how do we know that there is no penalty or advantage for going 0 for 7 or 1 for 7 in terms of the wait pools?"

    We don't know. Maybe by November at the time of the school fair there'll be more detail. But bear in mind you're in a beta-test

    ReplyDelete
  74. "Argonne is a good school, but with a weird schedule that doesn't work for a lot of people in our neighborhood. We can't figure out why it wasn't made city-wide. You either want year-round, or you don't, and if you don't, you really don't."

    There's a whole bunch of issues 0start time, year-round schedule, time of afterschool care, which, when we had the old all-schools-are-essentially-citywide system, weren't issues because, well, you could always choose another school, but now are issues because of the neighborhood preference.

    Just remember to thank your local neighborhood school advocate when you're rushing to get into work before 10 am before your boss freaks because your local school has a 9:30 start time. Never mind that a school 10 blocks further away with an 8:40 start time would suit you better, everyone should get their neighborhood school!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Wow. The slim CTIP1 zone on the north side is pretty much just the areas that have public housing. Yet the entire Mission District is green.

    ReplyDelete
  76. "This brings a question to mind and I don't think this has been addressed anywhere. Does anyone know what the rules are with respect to waitpools, the number of rounds, who gets priority, etc. For example how do we know that there is no penalty or advantage for going 0 for 7 or 1 for 7 in terms of the wait pools?"

    I went to a PPSSF meeting at a local library - and they said that there will be "no waitpools" (throw out your knowledge of the old system). You can apply to as many or as few schools as you want without penalty (but it seems to be to your advantage to put more down). They are not sure about number of rounds - but with each round (you resubmit your request) - the criteria will be the exact same, reapplied (sibs, CDCs, CTIP1, neighbors, etc.). Within each criteria level - the selection is random. Hope that helps.

    ReplyDelete