A place for parents educating their kids in San Francisco
Yes.If we only had exit polls to get a better picture of who was for or against Prop H. We will have to rely on how the vote went in the different areas of the City, making assumptions about who those voters were.
A yes/no discussion on this topic is a waste of time. There are larger issues at play regarding our public schools than school choice.Additionally, the discussion here on this blog is unlikely to be effectively moderated, as the moderator seems to be willing to tolerate untruthfulness, graft and undue influence, as long as it is "civil".It's always possible to be a very civil liar or very civil, but incompetent. Ah, the joylessness of the politically correct!Marnie Dunsmore(Stillhere)http://www.thesfkfiles-uncensored.blogspot.com/
Yes. It's long overdue.
Yes. But the Board of Education will ignore the will of the people.
I voted Yes (mail-in ballot). For such a progressive, educated, and racially agnostic city our schools are not nearly the level of quality they should be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I am voting NO, because as a SE parent, we are super happy with our current school ( no, we didn't get any trophy schools just a good one a few neighborhoods away and no we are not CTIP1).Our neighborhood school sucks and I don't want to send my kids there. It would take a LONG time until ours would be up to par with the currently considered " good" schools.As a parent I want what's best for my child and for us right now it's our current school. I don't mind the commute and hassle as long as the kids are getting a good education for the next 5 years.
No. Also, under NCLB, a low-income parent can legally request a transfer to another school if their school has failed to make adequate yearly progress. Gee, something the Prop H supporting folks didn't mention, eh? Did they even know about it?So, Prop H backers. If you do away with CTIP, then the district still *under federal law* has to offer those parents in the Title I schools failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress in any year places at other, stronger schools.So if you made the district replace CTIP....they're have to replace it with something looking a lot like CTIP.From http://ed.gov/parents/academic/involve/nclbguide/parentsguide.pdf: " A Title I school that has not made adequate yearly progress, as defined by the state, for two consecutive school years will be identified by the district before the beginning of the next school year as needing improvement. School officials will develop a two-year plan to turn around the school. The local education agency will ensure that the school receives needed technical assistance as it develops and implements its improvement plan." Here's the kicker:"Students must be offered the option of transferring to another public school in the district—whichmay include a public charter school—that has not been identified asneeding school improvement CTIP1 meets this obligation. Further, on budgets for Title I money:http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/no-child-left-behind-overview"The first year that a school is in school improvement (after it fails to make AYP for two consecutive years), the school district must offer children the option to transfer to a higher-performing school in the same district. The second year a school is in school improvement, the district must also offer children the option to receive supplemental educational services—tutoring and other outside-of-school services designed to improve academic achievement. School districts must spend up to 20 percent of their federal NCLB Title I funds on public school choice and supplemental services for students in schools identified for school improvement."
I'm voting Yes for exactly that reason. It will force SFUSD to look at the real problems and create more programs people want, and it is a statement against the Status Quo. I think it will make schools better on both sides of SF and make our air significantly cleaner and give families more time for what is important. Without this, I don't see much change happening. I think it's going to pass but I think it will be pretty close, within the 45-55 range. My prediction is it passes 53% to 47%.
Federal and State laws always trump local laws as in this case regarding choice. That is a given with the current assignment system and with any changed assignment system such as that proposed by Prop H. What is important to know about NCLB choice is that all a district must offer to opt out is a school not in Program Improvement and transportation to that school, if it can afford to so so. That's the legal requirement. Prop H is an important first step to greater local control. Vote Yes on H, but follow up and replace the Board of Education to a man - or woman in 2012 and beyond. Next year replace four of the current commissioners with advocates for student achievement. SFUSD is so focused on how to assign students they have taken our eyes off the ball for 90% of our schools. The war over assignment has to end to bring peace to the District. Neighborhood schools is the tried and true answer. Diane Ravitch said, "we abandon neighborhood schools at our peril."
"So, Prop H backers. If you do away with CTIP, then the district still *under federal law* has to offer those parents in the Title I schools failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress in any year places at other, stronger schools."Create those "other, stronger schools" within the school zones where families live. That is what a truly just school system would do. A just school administration and just city would set policy to make this happen.We would not, as we have now, sacrifice 35% of the city's incoming kindergarten class every year because we can't figure out how to to create enough school quality close to the neighborhoods where children live.The teachers union, the Board, the Superintendent, are condoning injustice to save pensions, administrator jobs and a teacher work day that is too short. Yes, I know not all teachers are slacking off like this, but too many are.Additionally, we have an expensive and separate afterschool program that requires a separate pension system. The school day should be structured to fit with normal working hours 8-4, and teachers should collaborate to run the aftercare program until 6. Alternatively, if we had neighborhood schools, parents from the local district could run the aftershool program. It's laughable that the funding per child for a few hours of aftercare costs the same as the funding for an entire day of middle school. Laughable.So don't tell me that NCLB mandates will be unworkable under a neighborhood system.It can be done.
12:45 is me, Marnie, again.Gee, I should start billing.
For what? Wasting my time?I'm voting no.
No No No.I live in BVHP (since 1999) and have absolutely no intention of sending my son who turns 5 next year (or the one who turns 2 next year) to school in the neighborhood. there are so many reasons for this. first, i want language immersion and that option doesn't exist in my neighborhood. second, i want access to the resources that exist in other schools with far wealthier student bodies. the fact is that neither my family nor my neighbors have access to the deep pocketed networks that can raise 150-250K a year to add teachers and enrichment programs and i have no intention of allowing my children to be shortchanged by that fact. and thanks to CTIP1, they won't.third, i want a school with a culture of achievement. i realize that academic performance is highly correlated with the socio-economic status and educational attainment of the parents so my kids are OK on that score, but there's also a question of influences, peers, and an overall atmosphere that must be conducive to learning.i completely understand the perspective of the parents who want to send their kids to good neighborhood schools AND those who expect every school to be a good one. but that's simply not the world we live in right now. and in a time when the schools are seeing deep cuts i have absolutely no confidence that the resources to improve the schools in my neighborhood will be forthcoming when my kids need them. so while a nice aspirational motherhood and apple pie thing calling for all schools to be equally good might be doable, calling for all neighborhood schools next year is not.
RE: NCLB transfers. Don covered this on other posts last year or maybe two years ago. It was not ignored. It is not changed by anything SF is doing about the new SAS. It is always an option for someone trying to get our of his low performing school. No one on this blog has informed us that they have tried it with 555 Franklin. Please ask the school district to give us info on how many requests have been made, and what accomodations have been made, and all the extra work parents can put them to. Inquiring minds want to know.I would replace CTIP, but Prop H does not replace CTIP.
If Garcia continues with his slash and burn approach to the defunding of the 90% school budgets for the benefit of his self-proclaimed small scale reform effort, that is, if the Board continues to sanction this policy, you could very well see a petition campaign to reorganize the District into two or even three separate unified school districts. This could well be the democratic result if the BOE continues to ignore the will of the people.
I agree, let's get that 35% into the District. SFUSD should serve all, not just the lucky few. Yes on Prop H.Very few will demand a transfer, if some do and there's a spot, great, but it's a tedious process and most won't. Prop H is only a first step but a good one. It will get the board on the right track.
Yes on H,for obvious reasons.
No. School choice is not an easy thing, but it gives more impetus to school improvement than shoving people into neighborhood schools.
"Create those "other, stronger schools" within the school zones where families live."Let's get some history here. We had a neighborhood+citywide system (like the current one, but cruder in the geographical preferences, and with non-contiguous AA's). Under that system, the alternative schools were seen as the only "acceptable" schools by your typical middle-class parent.Then Superintendent Ackerman introduced the citywide lottery.It took citywide choice to create the buzz about the Miralomas, the McKinley's, the Grattans, and to give SE parents the option of attending other schools that created the impetus to create magnet immersion programs in the Mission, Potrero, Excelsior and OMI.And we saw ~5% growth in Kinder applications.Citywide choice gave us the situation where your neighborhood school is seen as desirable. Ten years ago, Noe Valley parents turned their noses up at Alvarado. Now things have changed. Choice brings change.
"We would not, as we have now, sacrifice 35% of the city's incoming kindergarten class every year "Disinformation again from the Prop H'ers. You know and I know that 81% of incoming kinders got one of their choices.
But many don't even apply. They can't be bothered with that under the circumstances.
Just as 11:37 and 12:56, I also voted No on H. We live in SoMa and have tried a neighborhood school close to the projects in exchange for immersion. It didn't work out. Lack of safety and a non-responsive, extremely weak principal were the two main reasons we left. We got into a trophy public school that requires 2 hours of bus commute and wait time each way. We have nothing against Prop H. In fact, if we lived in the neighborhood of better schools, and in light of the ordeal of commuting, we would be in favor of H. But alas, all schools are not created equal and we'd rather have a chance in the lottery system than be stuck in an undesirable neighborhood school.
"It is always an option for someone trying to get our of his low performing school. No one on this blog has informed us that they have tried it with 555 Franklin."A few families used this option for our school (first year that we've been identified as in PI). They were mainly families who were commuters and who weren't too happy with our feeder middle school. They received some choice assignments - Clarendon, West Portal. And BVHP parent: Bret Harte is offering Spanish Immersion this year (new program). You would also be amazed at the amount of money that gets poured into your neighborhood schools. It pales in comparision to $200K in PTO funding.
"Disinformation again from the Prop H'ers. You know and I know that 81% of incoming kinders got one of their choices."No.Here's the calculation that the SFUSD should be doing to estimate the number of families that get none of their choices:81% of kindergarten applicants get "one" of their choices, meaning that 19% of applicants get "none". Let's make a simple assumption that parents want both of their children to go to the same school. So once rejected from the SFUSD, it's not difficult to figure out that the family that can't get their first child into the SFUSD will not apply for their second child either.The average family size is 2 children per family.So the real % of rejected children per year is 2 x 19%.Of course, you have to renormalize accepted children against the total population (accepted and rejected)81%/(81%+2x(19%)) = 68%.In effect, accounting only for younger children that don't apply to the SFUSD because of their older rejected siblinds, the real rate of for getting "one" choice it 68%.Meaning that 32% of children do not get *any* school that their parent has selected for them.32%.That doesn't account for families that never apply because they know that school quality in SF is generally low and their chances of success in the process is poor.So the real number of rejected FAMILIES is then 32% or greater. In the Southeast of the city, it is very much greater than 32%.Keep shippin' the Koodaid!Marnie
I'm voting Yes on H personally. I saw a commercial that shows kids leaving SF and another that says a 7-year old girl was taking a transfer bus to get to school. This is a $20 million lawsuit in the making. It's just unsustainable, kids shouldn't be on transfer buses at age 7.
Vote No on Prop H — neighborhood school assignment is only great for those lucky (or rich) enough to live in a few neighborhoods.
No. There aren't enough spaces at the schools to guarantee every one in their neighborhood a space at the schools nearby. The current system already factors in neighborhood and area.
The current system doesn't factor it in much and punishes success. For instance, if you go to a low income pre-school you get into your neighborhood school automatically, but if you make too much to get into one, you can't. Some kids were forced 5 miles or more fromhome, there is no guarantee of even anything nearby. Yes on H.
Yes and my neighborhood school is sub-par at best but if my neighbordhood actually attended the school, I think parent involvement and student achievement would be far better. The whole idea of it takes a village does not work when kids are spread out all over the city. Frankly, I would prefer to move than to deal with the uncertainty under the current system.
You guys are all arguing for no reason. Sadly, parents will only be 20% of the voters. It will pass or fail on the basis of a bunch of misunderstandings, guesses, lies (from both sides) and stupid signs (again, from both sides). The idiot masses will decide this vote, not informed parents. I have 3 kids in SFUSD and have decided I'm not even going to vote Yes or No. I'm going to leave it blank!
No On H. If John Muir was your neighborhood school, would you vote yes?
3;10. Just mark it no, Please?I get what you are saying, but with 3 kids in SFUSD, vote No.
I am 3:10. I don't like the No people because the board told blatant lies and it defends the status quo. My kids go to Alvarado and I've considered it and would rather they go to Lick than take a bus to Hoover. I don't like the Yes people either. I wish people in my neighborhood would embrace Lick as a community. But the Pro H people don't want more funding for the poor. I've spent a long time thinking about it and I won't be a stooge for the status quo nor a stooge for those who go to private school if they don't get their ideal assignment (Rees) and want a flat tax. Both sides disgust me and all Mayoral candidates disgust me. I'm actually going to go to the polls to vote Yes on A and leave EVERYTHING ELSE blank!
"Sadly, parents will only be 20% of the voters. It will pass or fail on the basis of a bunch of misunderstandings, guesses, lies . . ."Yes, we know. San Francisco doesn't care about families. As I've mentioned before, SF cares about pensions, compliant voters and cheap labor, but certainly not middle class families.Marnie
Being civil? hahaha
Even if parents make up a minority of the voters, at least the Department of Elections is an objective vote counter. We can more reliably say what people want, what the different areas of the city want, and, if we make reasonable assumptions about the vote in the various areas, what different groups want. It is all just advisory, anyway, to get a pulse of public sentiment. Everyone claims public support. Time to find out if it is real or not. Thanks to the hard work of Prop H supporters who put this on the ballot so that we can vote on it. We have never voted on neighborhood schools. This will be interesting.
Yes, but I would live in the dense fog before I moved to a neighborhood with bad schools. And no, I'm not rich. I like choice for special programs though, the city doesn't have enough money to offer every language immersion program every school for example. Hours at some schools are an issue too, but those should be standard across the system. Someone should study CTIP1 applicants who went to trophy schools. I'd be curious to know how many are affluent and wealthy. Beavan Dufty comes to mind and I'm sure there are others. That isn't acceptable. If we are trying to help the disadvantaged, can we at least target them properly.
Yes on H. A neighborhood school policy is the normal method of school assignment everywhere in the United States. It is only the compactness of SF that allowed us to try citywide choice. Voting against Prop H will not give you back citywide choice. That ship has sailed. The issue with Prop H is which tie breaker should be stronger: local school or CTIP1? Vote yes for a stronger neighborhood policy than the half a loaf the current SAS gives us. As simple as that.
Civil? With those unpleasant Krause and VanZandt people from the forum ridiculing everyone they can?
"Yes, but I would live in the dense fog before I moved to a neighborhood with bad schools. And no, I'm not rich."It shouldn't matter where you live in the city. "I like choice for special programs though."For most, choice for special programs doesn't exist, whatever "special programs" means. "Choice" is a stealth word that the District uses to fool people into accepting this broken system."the city doesn't have enough money to offer every language immersion program every school for example."You're right. We don't have enough money to manage all these language programs. Isn't the mandate under law (federal or state) to deliver the gen ed curriculum? Do city schools not receive most of their funding by way of the state and federal government, with the caveat that the state curriculum will be taught?"Hours at some schools are an issue too, but those should be standard across the system."Yes. "Someone should study CTIP1 applicants who went to trophy schools. I'd be curious to know how many are affluent and wealthy."How many more studies and years and children are going to be lost in the labyrinth that in the SFUSD before we do something?"Beavan Dufty comes to mind and I'm sure there are others."True. Bevan Dufty, and many others. We don't need a study to tell us that. Next year, the number of non-poor CTIP1 applicants will be higher, as more will use CTIP1 to bypass a broken system."That isn't acceptable. If we are trying to help the disadvantaged, can we at least target them properly."Good idea.But how about the not so disadvantaged? Should they have to pay $460 a month for aftercare? Should they have to pay a tutor to teach their kids math in middle and high school because the SFUSD hasn't implemented a curriculum that can teach kids math? Just how long is this going to go on?-Marnie
Clearly Voting Against Prop H is voting for the Status Quo and against any meaningful change any time soon. I agree with Marnie.
I voted N despite the fact that it would help my property values (we live in the Clarendon zone which isn't a real one for neighborhood people because CTIP 1 families fill it up). But I am furious about CTIP 1 zone current configurations in the Western Addition, the Mission, and the Tenderloin. I think they should be more narrowly tailored to truly low SES folks. Exclude buildings built after 1979 (apart from rebuilt public housing), exclude buildings that are TICs/condos, but do something! It is grossly unfair to give this giant perk to upper middle class families in those areas -- like Dufty (and even Dufty will admit this)! I really hope SFUSD gets this message!
No, for all the obvious reasons.
If you wanted to deliver a message to SFUSD, you should have voted Yes on H.
I'm kind of in the opposite boat. I have a son and live in Potrero and was going to vote against it but then I heard some kids get sent 5 miles from their homes and are on 2 or 3 buses. I think they should tailor the districts but I think they should do what they used to in 2002, try to mix it up but guarantee a choice within maybe 2 miles max for elementary, 3 for middle and high school. When I met someone who lived near the beach and was sent to Visitation Valley, and then another who was sent to Denman, I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, a long forced drive and a bad school. I'm voting Yes on this one.
5:21 - so only those that tend to be poor live near Vis Valley and Bayview - only THEY should have to go to those schools?Seriously, Prop H is about mythological "feel good" apple pie ideas about neighborhood schools and is being promoted largely by folks that live in the parts of the city where the largest portion of in-demand schools are (Omar, go figure, sent his kids to KIPP, boarding and other private schools - so using him as an example of the swell of SE residents is ridiculous.)We had a neighborhood school system 10 years ago - when we had a higher percentage of private school kids in SF! People on this list don't have all the facts and are blind to the history of enrollment in SFUSD.VOTE NO ON PROP H.
I remember that, I knew a woman who rented on 47th and Judah so she would be more than 3 miles from any bad schools then ended up moving anyways. I still think it's a good idea, they should prioritize within maybe 2 or 3 miles over sending you 5-10 miles away, if 10 is possible, maybe corner to corner. I might have voted No on H but now there are no limits and they are sending too many kids clear across town on dangerous buses. I don't agree with that.
They can't go back to what they did in 2002.There are about 20% more kids in K-5 now than 10 years ago.There's no more room for "choice" and keeping kids close to home.Again, we can't go back to the 2002 assignment system.Marnie
I agree Marnie, that's why I'm voting Yes on it. Sibling, location, then other factors, it will actually be really good for the bad schools as it will force the middle class who is close enough to actually volunteer and be involved into the schools. A middle class family in Bernal that spends 10 hours a week commuting can save the money, cut down traffic and spend that time as a dedicated neighborhood parent/volunteer.
Omar admitted that he wouldn't actually send HIS kids to the neighborhood schools, so WTF?
No way. The district has already spent too much time and money configuring and reconfiguring enrollment to try to serve the greatest number of families in the best way possible. The current formula is based on exhaustive professional analysis--I believe they had some Stanford researchers working on the algorithms. It isn't perfect--nothing ever will be because no matter how you slice it, not everyone can attend Clarendon!--but it may be the best scenario available at this time. The last thing anyone should want is for the district to spend more money on consultants, which is what they would have to do if they felt pressured to reconfigure this yet again. This factor--the waste of time and money--is probably why the teacher's union and every other group that understands school financing is opposed to this.
Marnie wrote:"There are about 20% more kids in K-5 now than 10 years ago." Absolutely wrong, as usual. There are about 1,000 LESS kids in k-5 than 10 years ago, 3.5% LESS than in 2001.I hate it when people just make shit up, so annoying.
San Francisco is 7miles wide and & 7miles long. It is physically impossible to be assigned to a school 10 miles away and still remain in the SFUSD. Please stop with the hysteria and misinformation. Prop H is a self serving attempt of the "I've got mine, too bad for you" variety. Will it pass? I really doubt it.
Will vote for it. It's time to stop playing the shell game and moving children all over town and actually demand excellence for all children at all schools. It's also so incongruent with the city's "green" policy to have a system like this- my ideal system would do 1) neighborhood preference 2) low federal poverty level 2nd for remaining spots PLUS actual funding for busses to take these kids to school. I think people dont realize how sad the current system it- ctip 1 kids who are high income getting preference??? I'm amused by the folks suggesting this is racist- in fact, they seen to be the same people that must not want their own kids to go to school with the low income kids in their neighborhood.
Dear 6:45 PM:I hate when people make "shit" up too.The kindergarten applicant pool has grown by 22% between 2005 and 2011. Check the School Enrollment guide for 2011, page 5:http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/enroll/files/Post_March/Update%20March%2023%202011_Revised.pdfGranted, the total number of San Francisco families is dropping, but that is because of the increasing exodus of families during the middle school years and beyond.-Marnie
New Blog Post:The 81% Lie:http://thesfkfiles-uncensored.blogspot.com/2011/11/81-lie.html-Marnie
Marnie,You wrote: ""There are about 20% more kids in K-5 now than 10 years ago."That is entirely wrong.2001: 26,878 students2011: 25,954 students20% more? Gee, I don't think so.Some people have a hard time with Math.
She rips off the sfkfiles name? Really pathetic.
While I think the intent of this post was to gauge how people would vote on this proposition, I think it's too heated of an issue for "tempers" to not flare up. How about we just wait and see what happens next week? I will not say how I am voting, but I do think it will narrowly pass because (a) as someone else previously noted, the actually affected parties (ie, parents) make a small percentage of the voting population in SF and (b) most people in SF (eg, those who don't have kids yet; don't have school-aged kids; those who will never have kids) are "transplants" and where "they" came from neighborhood schools are the norm.
Comments here are no gauge, it's those same two guys from the forum posting over and over again.
That Marnie person should check her "research"http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Enrollment/GradeEnr.aspx?cChoice=DistEnrGr2&cYear=2010-11&cSelect=3868478--SAN+FRANCISCO+UNIFIED&TheCounty=&cLevel=District&cTopic=Enrollment&myTimeFrame=S&cType=ALL&cGender=B
9:10:I checked your like. There's no obvious school population data there.In the reference I've already posted, they clearly indicate that the kindergarten applicant pool has increased by 22% between 2005 and 2011. I don't have a reference for 2000 or 2001. In any case, it's irrelevant. We can't go back to the "choice" assignment system we had in 2005 because we have more students, and less schools in the Southeast of the city.See page 5 of the school enrollment guide:http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/enroll/files/Post_March/Update%20March%2023%202011_Revised.pdf
Correction:"check your link."
All propositions are a compromise. I have taken a lot of flack for writing what some people call a poorly written reform. This measure is one thing and one thing only. It is a call to support the needs of children in their own communities and not use them as tools for political purposes. I fought long and hard to include many more balanced reforms in this measure, though I ultimately could not include them due to worry from others about upsetting the union and jeopardizing the whole. Look where that got us. The union stands in the way of almost every effort to change the status quo. What skin do they have in the assignment system? How does their endorsement against H benefit their membership?As for Joanna Rees co-opting this measure with $125K, if she wants to support Prop H with her own money, that is her right and I am appreciative. I have only briefly spoken with her and I don't know what may be her motivations. One can imagine the list of possibilities. But she definitely has a history as an education advocate.
" I still think it's a good idea, they should prioritize within maybe 2 or 3 miles over sending you 5-10 miles away."They considered zones in the SAS redesign. The problem was that you couldn't balance out programs and SES without the zone boundaries cutting west-east and the zone boundaries getting too large. This city has good north-south transportation links, but poor east-west transportation links. So zones don't fly.
"I think they should do what they used to in 2002,"The current system is like what they did in 2002. Only then the CTIP1-like areas were done by zipcode rather than census tract. This had some unintended consequences, as Bernal was in the same zipcode as the Mission, and it adversely impacted Flynn, Serra and Revere.
"Here's the calculation that the SFUSD should be doing to estimate the number of families that get none of their choices:"The average family size is 2 children per family."So why don't you multiply the 2 children in the 81% of families who got accepted? Oh, because then when you renormalize you'd get back at 81%.Typical. You guys torture the data until it confesses anything, rather than accept what's in front of your eyes.
"the city doesn't have enough money to offer every language immersion program every school for example."Where's your data that the immersion programs cost more to run than Gen.Ed programs? There's no extra staff in the immersion programs compared to the Gen.Ed. programs. Remember that 30-60% of the intake into immersion are ELLs, who would be in bilingual/biliteracy programs anyway.
I live in CTIP1, but I made over $500k last year.Most likely, I'll send my daughter to Burke's or Nueva (like me, she's very smart), but if by some fluke she doesn't get accepted into those schools, it's nice to know that I'll be able to send her to Grattan, Clarendon or some other good public school (at least for a couple of years, while I make alternative arrangements for her education).Still, the fact that a handful of people like myself can game the current system doesn't justify voting for Prop H. It's nothing but a self-serving ploy to rig the city's educational system to the advantage of families that live in neighborhoods that happen to have good schools (i.e. wealthier neighborhoods)--and anybody with half a brain can see that. Which is why it's going to go down in defeat.
"RE: NCLB transfers. Don covered this on other posts last year or maybe two years ago. It was not ignored. It is not changed by anything SF is doing about the new SAS."I don't think you're understanding.Anyone following the SAS redesign realized that there were tradeoffs (between certainty & choice, between proximity and diversity). The frustrating thing with Prop H'ers is that you guys either ignore or are unaware of these tradeoffs by telling yourselves anecdotes in lieu of data, or crossing your fingers and hoping, or using the cop-out that "it's only advisory." Right now, NCLB transfers aren't an issue for SFUSD because we have a choice system. Under the old diversity index system, and under CTIP, anyone whose neighborhood school is poor enough for an NCLB transfer who wanted a different school probably would get a different school. So NCLB transfers would not occur much under the current or in the old citywide system.But under a neighborhood assignment system, for example, the 70% of BVHP families that go out-of-neighborhood to other schools (because they CHOSE other schools, folks) stay in neighborhood. But guess what: under NCLB, they don't have to. They can go down to SFUSD, and get essentially the same result as they'd get from CTIP1 with slightly more hassle. Now, either those transfers will bump already assigned students or the class sizes increase. In any case, it'll be less predictable and manageable: what if they ask for a transfer mid-year? How would that work? Your response is "oh don't worry that won't happen" because you believe think parents in BVHP, the Mission, or the Western Addition aren't savvy enough to ask for the NCLB transfer they're entitled to. Exactly how confident are you of that in this city known for its activism?On improving schools: I believe the best way to improve schools is to let students and families vote with their feet. We've seen the turnarounds in schools like Miraloma, Flynn, Fairmount, Monroe, Webster, Alvarado when they had to compete to get families under the choice system and introduced magnet programs to draw families back. It's a lot easier to force radical changes needed in a school when you're in a change-or-close situation.
Don, it's funny, you have a good point. I consider myself very, very liberal. I used to always support the teacher's union, but now I see them opposing every good idea that comes along, testing, Joanna Rees trying to reform DC and doing a good job until undermined by their rejecting a plan which could have made them more money. They just are on auto-reject of all new ideas. This group obviously went out of their way to avoid crossing them, but since it was a threat to the status quo and they had all the dues sitting around collecting dust, they had to oppose it. As for the guy making 500k, how about sending your kids to public school for 13 years? If you're for integration, why would you send them to an elitist school like Burke which is all rich or well-connected or both? That's certainly not showing you as believing all kids deserve an equal shot at a good education and the schools should be integrated? I wonder if you're for real. I'm for integration, but you need to pay for the bussing or zone it. Telling parents they have to drive kids 5 miles is the wrong way to do it. Every child should be guaranteed to go to one of the closest 5-6 schools, and 2 middle or high schools, and capacity should be added if necessary. Remember, the board wants to look good by switching students. If they regretted forcing kids East and only did it due to the number of spots, they could have kept Cabrillo open and one other in the Sunset, then they could have let just as many in from other areas and still kept hundreds of families on the West Side happy.I think the board and union are like the mafia, drunk on power and playing God, ruining lives and leaving pain in their wake. They don't want a solution, they want Power.For me that's reason enough to vote Yes on Prop H. I see No on H as basically saying there will be no reform of any significance in San Francisco, I see it as saying we will never reform our schools and help minorities to close the achievement gap. We'll just keep doing the same thing and calling it something else.So I vote No on Status Quo, Yes on H.
"Most likely, I'll send my daughter to Burke's or Nueva (like me, she's very smart), but if by some fluke she doesn't get accepted into those schools,"You should read the Yelp page on Nueva first, though. Couple of well-written testimonies from former students that aren't flattering, especially on their math teaching. Don't know about Burke.Agree with you about the unpleasantness of Prop H's appeal to the "I've got mine screw you" sentiment.
"Every child should be guaranteed to go to one of the closest 5-6 schools, and 2 middle or high schools, and capacity should be added if necessary."Again, zoning was considered in the SAS and had to get ruled out because you couldn't draw clusters or zones that were equitable (in quality of schools) diverse (in SES) and practical.Oh, and I love the "capacity should be added as necessary". If capacity could be added to schools as wished *then everyone would get their choice in the lottery*. Again, neighborhood school advocates pretend tradeoffs in the SAS don't exist. It's infuriating and mendacious.
You people should have combined it with a 10% across the board raise for teachers, and not merit pay, just automatic, irrespective of performance, LOL. You will lose big time because you didn't appease the union, it's not enough not to upset them, HAH! That's why D will fail and C will pass, maybe. The Union has an army of people, real and unreal, who vote in unison. It's not like the parents in the Avenues, who will support this but maybe 70-30. They have a block who will vote in unison, every man and woman. Many of the cops and firemen and other City workers maintain false SF addresses as they know no one will check on them since they control who checks what, so they can vote for the Unions on any vote. These people will vote 100% No on H!There were only 142,000 in the last election. This is a Mayor's Race, so let's say we get 180,000 voters this time, considering many are kids, illegals, criminals, or won't bother. Out of those, probably 40,000 will automatically vote in Unison, Yes on A, Yes on B, Yes on C, No on D, or maybe No on C, hoping both fail and they can give up nothing, and definitely No on H. Every single teacher, cop, union member or member of a liberal organization like the Green Party or connected groups of companies that receive City Contracts.So there are 40,000 No Votes before we start. Of the other 140,000, I predict 60% will vote Yes, but still, that's only 84,000 votes. The Union will score 56,000 plus the 40,000 automatic votes that vote how their told, including many who actually live in the East Bay. That leaves us at 96,000 to 84,000. No on H wins.You messed up, nothing can be done in isolation against the Status Quo. The Board does a lot for the Union, they don't negotiate, they don't challenge seniority, they rubber stamp anything the union wants. To win you'd need 70% of the votes outside of the 40,000. It's just stupid to go against the union. You should have tied this to a companion measure or an add on giving all teachers a 10% raise and more sabbaticals. They are supposed to give teachers every 7th year off at 3/4 pay but aren't really doing so, they make them apply, and reject some. That would have led to it passing, an end to sabbatical denial, 10% across the board raise, raise for cops, firefighters and medical personnel and other government workers, connected to a neighborhood guarantee for parents. You can't do these things in isolation. You messed up. Next time give something to the Union.That's my prediction, you just lost! You would need 65-70% of the non-40,000 automatic votes to have a chance, and you won't get that.
I hope you're right , 1:23!
I'm voting NO. Rees is bankrolling it just supporting it to make her house worth more money.
9:25, try this link.All the information and data can be found on the CDE website.The person stated that enrollment was up 20%. It is untrue, and wrong.http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Enrollment/GradeEnr.aspx?cChoice=DistEnrGrd&cYear=2010-11&cSelect=3868478--SAN%20FRANCISCO%20UNIFIED&TheCounty=&cLevel=District&cTopic=Enrollment&myTimeFrame=S&cType=ALL&cGender=B
If she got that simple fact confused, makes me question all her other "data".
Yes.Putting the local school preference above the CTIP1 tie breaker does not trap the CTIP1 into the local "failing" school, where the school in question flunks NCLB minimums. They can still choose a school with space, outside of thier immediate area. Their golden ticket is only silver or bronze now, but it is still a ticket out, out to somewhere with space. Prop H says that the space goes to siblings and locals first, so maybe you will not get a Clarendon or Miraloma, but something a little less sought after. The silver or bronze ticket is still a terrific deal. School assignment has to weigh a lot of competing interests. Fair and reasonable people can weigh things differently. I happen to weigh it more for the neighborhoods at the ES level. CTIP1 is not harmed by missing out on Clarendon and Miraloma. The locals there deserve a shot at their own school. The principle of the local school preference meaning something applies to all the attendance area schools, but Clarendon and Miraloma are the most concrete examples of the need for a stronger neighborhood policy. I do back away from neighborhood schools at the MS level. No more draft for the SE CTIP2 to stay in the SE and perform turnarounds. For MS, I go with the all volunteer army. I have to make those schools good enough for you to stay? Why did I not go all volunteer at ES? The wild wild West of the citywide lottery crapshoot produced too many casulties: too many very long commutes to low scoring schools. I know it feels unfair to draft you, in the SE CTIP2 to do all the heavy lifting. I stop at MS.
1:23,Whether going against the union is stupid or not, we did what we believed in. Your democratic recipe not to upset the union's status quo is cynical and it is what is wrong with the political process. Yet you seem to revel in your downcast appraisal. You say to give something to the union. Why? It is the union that is the problem. We cannot offer to give more money to them without increasing class sizes. Anyway, the union would not have bought into that. And consider that measures elsewhere in the country have asked for more choice and the unions went against that.But as for your statistical analysis, we will see come Tuesday. Win or lose we put this topic on the front burner. We engaged in the process and a ragtag group of parents with no financial backing did something positive to represent a large segment of the views of this city. What have you done?Regarding the misinformation about NCLB choice, all SFUSD has to do is offer a non-PI school. It isn't much of a choice. That's why very few people opt out under this provision and the Obama administration is even considering dropping choice. If there is one thing I've learned on SF Kfiles it is how deeply uninformed most parents are about education finance, law and politics.
Yes, especially you.
November 3, 2011 11:55 PM"Where's your data that the immersion programs cost more to run than Gen.Ed programs? There's no extra staff in the immersion programs compared to the Gen.Ed. programs. Remember that 30-60% of the intake into immersion are ELLs, who would be in bilingual/biliteracy programs anyway."I don't think I need data to support my idea that every school in the district can't offer French, Mandarin, Cantonese, Spanish, Japanese, etc immersion programs. Many schools only have 2-3 incoming k classes. Where would all these programs go?I like that the city offers language immersion, but I think it is pretty obvious that every school can't offer every language as immersion. Therefore, we need some sort of choice for people that are interested in these programs.
Yes. Neighborhood schools would actually provide more choice for many. Just choose your neighborhood and you have your school. I guess if you own and your house is underwater this might not be an option though. Or if you are renting at way below market. There are plenty of decent schools in affordable neighborhoods.
1:23,You gave a rather complete if subjective analysis of the voting dynamics to pushpoll your own views against Prop H. Considering that your suggestion to win was to offer the union a 10% raise in salaries, (raises that you did not tie to the underperforming schools for some strange reason), it seems very incomplete for you to have overlooked the funding source for the additional annual $35,000,000 or so to fund your whimsical 10% union increase. Are you a union shill?
My non expert thought is its going to pass because most people grew up going to their neighborhood school and most people voting do not have school aged children so don't really think through the implications in a real life scenario (i.e. our neighborhood school is failing). Also, it is a greener option than busing kids all over town or even worse for some, having the buses that they take everyday crowded by a bunch of kids.
Cross posting some comments (not mine) from Norton's blog***********************The lottery system is rigged. If S.F.U.S.D. was more honest, it would put each child in a hat and draw them out as equals, with each having the same percentile chance of getting into a school as the child next to them or across town. If a system is rigged, you will have conflict.To argue No on H because “We spent a lot of time on it and it’s a “Republican agenda” is shocking devoid of a substantive expected from people in charge of educating.Perhaps the most laughable argument is parents have “choice” No we don’t, we have a chance, not a choice and the chance is weighted disproportionally.Yes on H ***********************I could not disagree with Rachel more and while I respect her hard work, I find her stats misleading. Additionally, I listened to her discussion on this topic on KQED and was really really disappointed in her attempt to link Prop. H to some Republican conspiracy. The latter discredits her arguments and politicizes such an important topic. Do you really believe all the parents that were collecting signatures are part of a larger Republican conspiracy? ************************Proposition H may not be the ultimate answer, but turning a blind eye to the problems of the current system “because you just went through the process” will only perpetuate the flawed status quo and keep a great number of S.F. parents outraged and frustrated. At the very least, please consider instituting CTIP1 caps for next year. (I suggest no more than 10 non-sibling spaces for a school the size of Clarendon.) Alternatively, group CTIP1 and local families into the same lottery tiebreaker. To be clear, I am not asking for a guarantee of admission for local families — just something more fair, and you don’t need to turn the entire system upside-down.
1:23 here, you just tax the rich like Joanna Rees. Charles Schwaab, the Gettys, and the Republicans who paid for all this measure from Wells Fargo who wants me to pay $5 to have a bank card. I'm actually voting for Prop H because I think more than a 15-minute drive is too far to force om someone, some of my single-mother friends have kids and no cars and were hurt by this, and it adds to City Traffic. I don't have kids but hope to someday find a decent guy and have some, if there are any left or just have one myself. I'd like to be able to save for a house or rental and know where my kids will go to school.I just think you should fix the sabbatical system and teachers should earn more. You should raise the income tax on multi-millionaires. I'm no union shill. I was a teacher and was laid off and I was doing a good job and some teachers who were awful were retained over me. I hate the union policies regarding seniority. I just think they're too powerful, you'll never change this City until you have the guts to take them on. They have 40,000 automatic voters, and I know for a fact many of them are false. Get a ballot measure to decertify the union on there and I guarantee you'll see an increase in teaching quality.Are you kidding? I'm for Prop H. Have you seen Dan Kelly and Ken Tray on TV? If Ken Tray ever got a date I'd slap the woman who was with him, I never saw a more disgusting-looking loserish man. I saw them and I saw you tell off the board. I was laughing my ass off. I just am being honest, they're the elephant in the room and have 40,000 automatic votes which is unsurmountable. If Dan Kelly and Ken Tray ran the world we'd all be in trouble. If they had an original thought I'd faint. Yes on H but it's not going to pass and you should have appeased them to make it pass. The sabbatical fix, make sabbaticals full pay and cover the cost of relocation to another country, plus a raise, you'd have had it. The rich make so much you could tax them one way or another.
1:38 is the VanZandt person pretending to be someone else.The awful writing style is easy to identify.
Let me take this opportunity to thank those courageous parents who put this on the ballot. They are a shining example of parent participation and child/family advocacy. Yes on A.Yes on H.
I think there's a simple concept no one gets. If you go out of your way for people who have no option and their only option is to move to a suburb with worse schools such as Daly City, Oakland, San Bruno, then in the process you make it extremely difficult on people who have options to move to a suburb with better schools, Marin, Belmont, Walnut Creek, you're going to retain residents who cause social problems (crime, graffitti, violence, lound music) and drive away those who spend far more money in the community and don't cause social problems. You're going to drive away those who would test high and attract those who would test low. In short, you're rewarding poverty and punishing success. We'll lose our best residents to Marin and keep our worst. If more successful people move here, they will spend more money, create more jobs. A person on food stamps doesn't buy a ticket to the opera, spend money in shops and restaurants. We would do well to work harder to retain successful people and become an upper middle class City, not drive out people who spend more, score better and commit less crime. This City has it backwards. It's a simple concept.
Yes on A. Yes on H.I agree. There is one problem with the bloggers who criticize everyone who did this, they did nothing. They could have gotten signatures for a measure for what they believe in. These people revel in tearing things down, not building things up. They did nothing positive. They just waited for someone else to do something, then attacked it. A was put on by the Supervisors, it's a good measure but these people didn't do it. If they all got together and put something on the ballot measure to pay for tutoring for the poor or focus on closing the achievement gap with targeted funds (that you can measure in terms of results, not just throwing money at it) I'd vote for it. But they did nothing, just criticize those that did.
NO on H. Under prop H, there will still be 20% of the applicant pool that won't receive an assignment that they find acceptable. They will just be the ones who live near a school that doesn't work for them. Prop H is not about quality of schools. The girl taking the Bus to the Marina is 7 and was placed there by the old system, not the current one. Locals already have a strong preference now; Bayview kids can go to the Bayview if they want--they just closed a school there, so it makes me think they must not want to. She would not be put in a school that far away under the new system. This measure is about those schools affected by CTIP1 (Clarendon, Miraloma, Grattan). It will really only benefit them. And comments like 11:17 make me sick to my stomach--I can't in good conscience align myself with this type of person.
Why are liberal-minded people all for local control and grassroots action, but against the same when it comes to neighborhood schools and the power of community in school turnaround? One reason - the bigotry they falsely attribute to the proponents of Prop H is their own. It is they who do not want to attend schools with people of color, they who want choice so as to escape the underperformers, they who espouse diversity except when it comes to the school in their own neighborhoods.
Regarding Kate's comment about the lack of diversity and the tiny AA community at Alamo and elsewhere in the Richmond-Alamo is a welcoming community and most members of AA community can get a slot any year they want to under the past and present systems. The point is not that Alamo has a low AA population. It is that the AA community does not want to go to Alamo, a school which is more representative of the Asian community of the avenues. The African American Democratic Club endorsed Prop H because it wants schools close to home where most AA students feel a stronger bond with the communities in which they live, not because the Club thought it was a racist measure.It is very insulting and despicable behavior to imply that parents from Alamo, parents like myself, who put this on the ballot did so to keep out blacks. We have about 2 black kids at the school. It is neither a good nor a bad thing. It's called choice, what the opponents of this measure espouse. Get in touch with your roots, Kate. Your barking up this tree is like howling at the moon. Crazy.
Yes on H. The African American Democratic Club is endorsing it, go to their web site. This will help everyone. Kids shouldn't be on buses, and don't tell me this system didn't cause 10-year old girls to take 2 buses because I know people whose only choice was Visitation Valley middle who have 1 kid in pre-school and could not possibly physically be in both places at once, so it is driving out nice people who simply cannot possibly be at a pre-school at 8:30 in the Richmond, a school in Visitation Valley at 8:40 and at work by 9.The fact is, under the current system most whites of the middle class in Bernal Heights are opting out and going West. This would actually make the schools there more diverse. Minority kids in the East could go to a school with whites who are close by and whose parents volunteer and are involved. If these people are so liberal, they wouldn't abandon a diverse neighborhood to drive and go to a school in the Avenues.If they could guarantee only poor blacks and Hispanics get into Avenue schools I'd be all for it, but it's mostly the midle class avoiding the poor. This status quo is causing more segregation.And any language or alternate school will still be open to all.Yes on Prop A and Yes on Prop H!
Don, my problem with the neighborhood schools concept is that it removes parent choice and instead puts one at the mercy of whatever home they bought/rented. I'm not here to debate the wisdom of purchasing homes, but I do know too many people in SF who bought their homes WAY before they ever thought of kids -- and they become stuck. Or they rented, had kids, thought they'd buy one day and then they are out of a job and can't buy. Or are too scared to buy. I also basically agree with SFUSD that low SES families should get some kind of preference. I think CTIP 1is overbroad, and I'd wish I were hearing more from SFUSD about that issue. But bottom line is that I think SFUSD's assignment system should not be entirely upended, for a switch to neighborhoods that is going to hurt poor people and screw folks who, for whatever reason, are stuck where they are.
You greatly underestimate the logistical elements of being a single mother. I do live in the Avenues, in a 1 Bedroom Apartment that costs $1100. I'm not rich. I don't own a car and make less than $40,000. I have tried to get better jobs, but I can never put in the time needed to get a promotion and the economy is terrible. I have to do homework with my daughter and take care of all of her needs by myself, including doctor's appointments, dental, everything. I have to pay for childcare and am constantly sleep-deprived and struggling to keep both my job and my sanity quite frankly. I have almost no free time. If I hadn't gotten into a school in my neighborhood, I would have to spend 20 hours a week on the bus with my daughter. This happened to a friend of mine. This would absolutely ruin my life, health and sanity. It did do this to my friend. I am voting Yes on H. And if I lived in the Mission, I would be happy for my daughter to go to school there and would not spend 20 hours on a bus to bring her out here. Most of the parents from far away who send their children to Feinstein have cars and a lot more money than I do. You don't realize how difficult it is to raise kids in this era when a man abandons you, which is why so many people don't have children. You should be encouraging people to have children. My daughter is half Peruvian and I would gladly send her to a Spanish immersion school if I lived near one, but if I moved to the Mission my rent would go way up do to rent-control and I couldn't make ends meet. Please vote Yes on H. I got lucky but many don't. We should all have a convenient way to get our children to school and home safely.
1:13--you will like rent control once the families start moving to the neighborhood to gain access to the school. In a few years the sibling claims from out of neighborhood students will dwindle, and Feinstein will be only accessible to locals. Once people figure this out they will be moving to neighborhoods where they can have a better chance of getting a spot. This means higher rents, and higher property prices out there. You are lucky to have rent control.
When is a neighborhood school system unfair? When the courts say it is. And we had our desegregation plan for many years. The court approved the expiration. A neighborhood plan today is totally legitimate. And so we do have a local school preference in the new SAS. It just isn't very strong. Half a loaf, if you well. Putting a lie to neighborhood schools for Clarendon and Miraloma, and potenially elsewhere. Prop H says to correct that lie. Make it real.
Is there a moderator? It seems like the same person is writing most of these posts, pretending to be different people. Why not make people register?
2:43--I am talking about the merits of Prop H. Please comment on the merits of the issue.
Yeah, focus on the issue! It is important! Yes on Prop H! And I am registered!
It's too bad that the board will just ignore prop H if it passes.
I'm not sure about that, the board made a big point of claiming they had community meetings and that the Citizens of San Francisco supported their plan. If the election proves otherwise, they would lose their basis. If they didn't raise neighborhood schools higher in the process, they'd probably all lose the next election. Then again, if Prop H fails they have nothing to worry about and will just maintain the status quo.
It wouldn't surprise me. There are a lot of dishonest snakes on the current board. We know what's best for you, they'll say, we will do what we want no matter what you think. Father knows best. They showed their true colors when they knowingly lied in saying it could cause kids to switch schools mid year, hoping to sleazily siphon off a few votes. The union won't be 100% against. I'm a teacher in SFUSD and am going to vote Yes on Prop H, just to show my displeasure with this current unimaginative board. I read this whole discussion and the most accurate thing I saw was that if they had an original thought, it would be amazing. I became a teacher to be part of improving education for the vulnerable and instead I'm propping up the status quo. I worked my ass off and got laid off due to the seniority rules. I know that's not all the board but they support it, and I was a way better teacher than several who were retained. That policy is NOT about helping children in any way. It hurts children. I have a job now but not at the school I was at last year. I couldn't imagine 7 more unimaginitave bureaucrats resistant to anything suggesting change. Yes on H just to spite the board, even though it might hurt the school I'm at, hopefully it will force the locals with money to come here, we could use them. I teach at Cobb by the way. Somehow it's evil for people to want to go to school close to home but it's liberal and wonderful for everyone in this neighborhood to go to Burke, no one criticizes that at all. Bizarre.
Unbalanced people like that teaching? Scary.
It's not real, it's not a teacher -- it's that Kevin/Justin/Don/Floyd/Charlie weirdo again.
Yes on H. 5:14 makes a good point. It's telling that the African American Democratic Club is endorsing Yes on H considering what happened to Cobb. You have the choice to go to school in rich, liberal Pacific Heights, so everyone runs away with any power, what good is it? It isn't and never was about helping underrepresented minorities, it's about allowing anyone with power in the East to have choice to opt out of going to school with minorities while claiming they're liberal. Same with Cobb, I think it's telling that the liberal cognoscenti of Pacific Heights won't send their own kids to a local school because they aren't comfortable with their kids going to school with African Americans. That's why blacks see the truth and are endorsing H. The liberal cognoscenti of Pacific Heights and Bernal Heights are just as racist as any redneck in Texas ever was.
OMG, they keep harping on about the African American Democratic Club endorsement. Big deal, that makes, uh, what -- 3 endorsements for the yes on prop h campaign?Pathetic! African American Democratic Club Restaurant Associationandthe SF Chamber of Commerce.Compare that to the dozens of organizations and groups that oppose Prop H.VOTE NO ON H.
Bay Guardian Thinks Readership StupidSo I'm in my local cafe and I pick up a copy of the Bay Guardian just to see what the lunatic fringe is up to. There on the front page is the "clean slate clip-out guide", SFBG's endorsements. Curious as I am to read the explanations behind the one-word endorsements, lo and behold, there are none. After all, why should SFBG provide lock-step card-carrying progressives any rationale to vote when they need nothing more than an order from on high to cast one. Of course, it is always possible that the progressive cognoscenti have already poured over the issues and come to an informed decision, in which case there would be no need for the clip-out guide. But there it is. I guess sex ad space is more valuable to the readership than actual political analysis. Ain't freedom grand!Anyway, I did find some endorsement info on-line and this is what SFBG had to say about Prop H:"Prop. H is a policy statement that would have no immediate impact — but it's still dangerous. It's an attempt to undermine the School Board's assignment policy, a system worked out over more than two years after dozens of hearings and meetings. The current system isn't perfect — but there's no way to create a perfect way to assign kids to schools in a city where some neighborhoods are still segregated by race, the quality of local schools is unequal, the district offers special programs at school sites scattered across the city — and parents want the right to chose schools outside their neighborhoods.So the assignment process allows parents to chose seven schools, weighs the demographics of the family and makes an effort to both ensure diversity and give as many families one of their choices as possible. It works more than 80 percent of the time. Prop. H would mandate that geography — proximity to a school — was given the highest priority in assignment. That means kids in rich neighborhoods would go to better schools — and some schools would be effectively re-segregated by race. It's a terrible idea, and needs to be defeated. Vote No. "Hi, it's me again. Well, at least they are more honest than Rachel Norton. They don't say it will create chaos and tear children from their beloved schools, though they do call Prop H "dangerous". They say it will have no immediate impact. But the informed analysis ends there. They cite the new SAS with the wrong figure for parent choices. They say the new SAS weighs the demographics when it doesn't and they say schools are segregated by race when by the Board's own tacit admission they are in fact segregated by choice. At least that is what the BOE must think since it claims (falsely) that 80%of applicants get one of them. I suppose if I ordered everything on the menu I'd expect to get something, too.If BVHP got neighborhood schools the wildly diverse community might actually integrate the schools, but that is not likely to happen when the progressive establishment wants choice so that they do not have to send their kids to school with underperforming kids of color in the SE. No wonder the left wants choice under the guise of diversity and no wonder the African American Democratic Club supports Prop H. I'm sure the white progressives establishment is crying foul. Suckers!Thanks for the analysis, Bay Guardian. I'll use my clip-out guide for confetti.
Newsflash: Pacific Heights isn't liberal.
I was shovked to receive the "No on H" pamphlet from the 3 BOE members (Murase, Kim-Shrill, and Norton) with quotes like, "Parents want choice," and "Parents want to pick a school that is right for their child.". Was I dreaming? Was this deja vu? I remember hearing PPS and many parents, like myself, using those exact quotes as we begged the BOE and SFUSD to discard the middle school feeder proposal. Huh! They didn't listen. They voted unanimously to support the MS feeder plan. And quelle surprise! They are throwing my own quotes back in my face with the same passion that I used last spring, to no avail. Is this a joke? I am not laughing!
I'm laughing. That is hilarious. They support choice, except when they support local preference except when they don't. When you split the baby no one likes you. Then they lie about choice acceptance, lie about Prop H,ignore student achievement and say that there is segregation in the same breath as that which they tout the fact that 80% get a school of choice. I guess people are segregated by choice. Hence Prop H.
Jeff Adachi for MayorSee the videohttp://thesfkfiles-uncensored.blogspot.com/
Please note:the link given above is nothing to do with sfkfiles, the person just stole the name.
8:18You are absolutely right - the MS feeder plan takes away choice and those board members thought THAT was a good idea. I support choice for middle schools -NO ON PROP H
I have to say I am disappointed by the lowlife behavior of the No on Prop H crowd. Now I was forced to send my daughter 4 miles from my home instead of a school a block from our house, damaging my quality of life. So I volunteer, and spend my own time and money paying for and putting up signs. No on H people think that it is morally justifiable to take down the signs. Now I have to go out and ask the store owner for permission, or the property owner. If you want to put a No on H sign up, you have every right to do so if you get permission from the owner. However, many No on H supporters in multiple neighborhoods are going around in the middle of the night and tearing my signs down. I paid for these with my own mony and spent my spare time putting them up. I have a right to do so under the 1st Amendment. You are morally bankrupt if you think it is justifiable to go around taking down signs because you hope Prop H fails. Between that and the intentional lies, many of the No on H have this holier than thou attitude that they know what's best for all of us and will tell us all what to do. I must drive 16 miles a day and spend an hour in City Traffic because it's best for society, rather than study with my daughter or sleep or work, driving to Hoover while another family demographically no different from ours drives from near Hoover to Presidio. Now they feel they have the right to waste my personal time and money because they think they are right and to tear down my signs, and these are in multiple neighborhoods. It is illegal to take down signs of the opposition. I wish I could catch someone doing it just once, it's a felony and I'd do an arrest. It's extremely immoral and shows a basic lack of ethics, and I know it's multiple people because it's happened in several neighborhoods and I find the signs with the tear marks. I've seen No on H signs and would never dream of ripping them off. The behavior of these people is truly insane!
hypomanic episodes are so disturbing
Jeff Adachi sends his kid to a private school in Atherton. Why would anyone with a child in SFUSD vote for him for mayor?
I agree. Adachi shouldn't win. Yes on H. We need people to stay in SF and send their kids to public school in our City. It is physically impossible for many to stay in public school when they get a forced extra 2 hour per day commute (30 minutes back and forth, drive and pick up) so we're forcing people into this. Many more people want their kids in public school. If we get a higher percentage of people into public school, the schools will improve and be more diverse. Yes on H! No on Adachi!
Adachi has a right to do what he wants. Lowell is better than where he sent his daughter but she didn't have the grades, she has some learning issues. ADD. He shouldn't be forced to do anything, for it is his and his wife's choice.I am not sure on H but I know Joanna Rees challenged the Union Leadership to a public televised debate on H and they turned her down. In my view, that shows she has the facts on her side and could effectively rebut the opinions of the No on H debaters. For that reason and the reason that the African American Democratic Club wants it to pass, I'm leaning towards Yes. I just hope they keep enough schools immersion or alternative so everyone can either choose their neighborhood school or an alternative that meets their needs. When someone refuses to debate, it shows they don't feel confident in their views and are just hoping people don't think about it too much and maintain the status quo. A vote against H really is a vote for the status quo. I'm also sick of all the traffic in the mornings. Getting that many people off the road will help a lot.
I am voting NO on Prop H. Supply and demand for good GE seats does not coincide with arbitrary neighborhood boundaries. Failing GE schools are concentrated in a few areas of City, creating much discord between "have" neighborhoods and "have nots.". Real estate should not dictate educational opportunities in a small, self-contained city like San Francisco. The City-wide K-8 and immersion schools prove that parents are willing to drive to all four corners of the City for a program that they deem desirable. Distance NEVER hurt enrollment in Claire L, for example, quite possible the school with the worst commute (split between two campuses) in the City, yet year in and year out, a top lottery vote getter. Bottom line: parents would sure as he!! drive 30 minutes each way to a elementary school that is perceived to be great (not to mention a good night's sleep, each and every night, because I would not have anxiety attacks over educational stress). With neighborhood policy, parents would be conscripted to bust a55 for 5 hours a week turning around a failing school without remuneration or guarantee that effort would be worthwhile (and, of course, many sleepless nights).
Why you should considering voting for Jeff Adachi:San Francisco faced a budget deficit this year and had to close summer school programs and bus routes. San Francisco has one company, Recology, that collects their trash. Last year, Recology made $275 million in profit. Jeff Adachi wants San Francisco to collect back some of this profit in franchise agreements so that we can fund our schools, parks and other services.SF Pension costs will increase from %277 million now, to over $700 million in the next six years. Jeff Adachi is the only person who has a viable plan to address this pension liability.Ed Lee wants the city to approve a bond to repave our streets. If we approve this bond, we will borrow $245 million to repave our streets, but we will have to pay an additional $200 million in interest on top. Does it sound like a good idea to pay out $445 million to get $245 in street repavement? Without doing something about pension liabilities and faulty bond measures, funds for social services such as schools, summer school, old age programs, parks, street and sidewalk maintenance, and many other services, will dry up in the next ten years.Is this the kind of city you want to live in?Jeff Adachi is the only leader running for mayor that has a comprehensive plan to tackle these issues.See the video:http://thesfkfiles-uncensored.blogspot.com/-Marnie(by the way, I don't benefit in any way by telling you this. I've never met Jeff. I'm not working on his campaign. My family is well off and we can easily move somewhere else if the city goes broke. I am simply telling you this because I believe in a just and well run city.)
Prop H --> the best way to keep the serfs OUTSIDE the castle gates!
Yes on H! It's quite simple, parents and kids need time. It is better to go to an average school and turn it around and have that time to study than drive an hour a day. With neighborhood schools, everyone who wants to will have a chance to go to a school close to home. If you don't want to, there are plenty of schools which will be open enrollment, but everyone should have a right to the closest non-immersion/alternative school to their home if they so desire.
Let's make this conversation a lot more useful and have everyone state his/her position on Prop H, followed by the API ranking of their attendance area school. It should be easy to predict. No on Prop H. My AA school ranks 1.
I'm a San Francisco teacher who rarely takes my union's voting advice, but on this issue I strongly agree: vote NO on H.If H passes, and if the school board were to use it as an enrollment guide, schools and neighborhoods would slowly become even more stratified than they currently are. It would be terrible policy to encourage certain neighborhood schools to function as publicly-funded private schools (populated by wealthy, demanding, overly sheltered families, with much pressure on said families to donate ever greater amounts of money to fund deluxe extra programing) while other schools struggle to address the neediest populations in the city and in return get labeled 'failing schools'. There are flaws with the current enrollment model, but that's because it's the first year. In the long run, with some tweaking to make some schools more appealing than they currently are, it should help ameliorate the ugly disparities that currently exist between schools. Parents will solve travel issues the same as they solve start-time and childcare issues: by carpooling, adjusting work schedules, or applying the following year to a different school near their house that they hadn't initially considered.As for those of you H proponents who denigrate the current enrollment model as 'social engineering' or label those who are against H as clueless liberals: you aren't doing yourself any favors. If social engineering means providing equal educational opportunities for those who have historically been denied them, then I'm for it. We should learn from our history: 'separate but equal' is never, ever equal.
Dear supposed school teacher,If 80% of people get their choice of schools as the BOE claims, then it follows that most segregation must be by choice. To get rid of this segregation you have to get rid of choice. If neighborhoods are more diverse than the school within them, it follows that diversity would increase by neighborhood assignment. Most of the schools in the SE fit this description. The notion of increased segregation as a result of H does not comport with the well researched analysis of the consent decree monitor or the judge who both concluded that it was choice that increased segregation. Please stop the fear-mongering. Yes on H.
Don,You hurt Prop H's chances by posting so often. Do you want this measure to pass because you believe it has real merits, or have you gotten caught up in the urge to 'win'? Sometimes it reads like the latter: there are too many threads here started by you, and too many of the responses here come from you. Allow others to speak.
You decide how often you want to post and I'll do the same. In other words, mind your own business.
No on Prop HMy neighborhood school rating: 13rd year failing to make AYP
NO on HAA school ranking 8(re. Prop H, with proponents like these, who needs enemies?)
Yes, of course. As a parent of a 3 year old in the outer Richmond, I made a choice to rent in a neighborhood with a good elementary school, under the naive assumption that she would be allowed to attend the nearby elementary school. One way we can afford this is by not owning a car. We want our child to be able to walk to school. If she is not allowed to attend the local school, we will leave San Francisco and live in a city that allows children to go to the nearest public school. For any parent that does not like the local school, they can always try to attend another school even if prop H passes. However, if a childs education is priority, one always has a choice where to live to provide that; except now in S.F., were you don't have that choice. Our incomes are very low by S.F. standards, but we can still afford to live in a neighborhood with a good school by not indulging in other areas of life. Please let us stay in S.F., a city we now love, vote Yes on H and let us walk and stay in S.F.
Yes on H I am not extremely pro-H but think that it's implementation has the potential to make some schools more diverse.As an example, Glen Park Elementary has a great schools ranking of 4 out of 10, 79% of students in 2010 were free or reduced lunch. Glen Park has a median home list price of 859K with a median selling price of 1 million this past September.Local preference before CTIP1 preference was what was proposed by the Stanford consulting group which refutes the anti-H rhetoric about wasting money that was spent on the redesign of the student assignment system http://www.stanford.edu/~niederle/SFUSDBoardPresentationFeb.17.2010.pdfIn addition, choice is not eliminated with prop H recommendations but it does limit some choices in schools that tend to be oversubscribed. I do support what is also referred to as academic diversity (CTIP1) but wish there was a better system to truly identify students who would benefit from the distinction (I know, I know, the diversity index was too cumbersome). The system was built to be flexible as stated in the report. Shutting out area attendance students in a few oversubscribed schools could be mitigated by holding a percentage of seats for AA and CTIP1 which means that siblings would always be a mix of AA and CTIP1 in the future for any school (this is something that PPSSF noted had potential in the future of student assignments). It would potentially drive people to average schools and make them more desirable and increase the pool of highly regarded schools in the future (the McKinley, Grattan models).FWIW, my AA is great schools 4, no immersion, and median home price of 650K and I am looking forward to walking my kids to school next year.
Yes on H. Richmond. Alamo. And the people who go there from far are not African American or Latino, not a single one, every one is white or Asian and would have made their local school more diverse and better.Don't drive people like the previous poster out. That's exactly who we should be trying to keep in SF.
Prediction: tie. I read the other post and one thing is that no group is unilateral. I predict that of the 40,000 Union Votes, actually 85%, so 34,000 to 6,000 because a few teachers and others will support us, though not many. 140,000 other votes, 60% of those vote Yes, or 84,000 to 56,000. Therefore my predition is a 90,000 to 90,000 tie. It will come down to turnout, luck, and random variables. One X Factor is a Yes on H TV Ad campaign goingon this weekend. If that could raise the non-union/far left percentage to 65%, H could win by 3-4 %. But I think her commercial will be ignored for the most part and it will come down to voter turnout and how the robo-voters from Chinatown voted.I predict it will pass or fail by fewer than the margin in Florida in 2000, fewer than 500 votes. Let's get ..... READY TO RUMBLE!It could really go either way! I think this will be one of the closest proposition votes ever! I predict we will lose by 375 votes, but I hope I'm wrong.
As long as you lose ...
Why all this fuss about what the African American Democratic Club of San Francisco thinks? How many people belong to that club? 60?
Radicalized teacher of children said:"If social engineering means providing equal educational opportunities for those who have historically been denied them, then I'm for it."Opportunity is never equal because needs are never equal. If students perform well below average they need different interventions than those that don't. The law requires these interventions and the result of that is decreases in other opportunities (art, music, etc) given the union's unwillingness to change the length of the school day (your union). It is the union that is unwilling to budge one bit in order to make the school day long enough to have the equal opportunity it calls for. The left constantly beats this drum about lack of equal opportunity. They are in charge of the school system and the union here in SF. It there is indeed lack of opportunity whose fault is that?Almost one-third of SFUSD's budget is spent on compensatory education. No matter how much is spent there is never any substantive positive effect on the achievement gap. This is because there is never any real fundamental change - change that can only happen if the union agrees. You are part of the problem.
Are all those hostile posts from people telling other people: "you are part of the problem" from the same person?
No, I wrote the other one and am not Don. Lots of people are on both sides, stop trying to claim everyone for Prop H is the same person. Even if it loses, it will get over 40%, that's 72,000 people. It may win. Not every person is the same.I think people on the East who have money and power and have no interest in going to their own school are part of the problem. People like Duffty. People like LIsa. Many others who peple say will leave or go private if they have to go to a school near home, let me drive out an equally rich person in the West and force them to drive each or I'll leave, that's not liberal at all. That's not pro-integration.I also believe the union is much of the problem. Part of the reason their pay is too low is that they automatically knee-jerk oppose any pay that is merit-based, bonus based, or anything but automatic based on years and other bureaucratic functions (training, language). The public doesn't get behind increases because they are frustrated with the teachers' unwillingness to make an effort to improve education and their resistance to any and all reforms. Therefore they don't vote for it.(to be continued)
I would vote for teachers to earn 50% more, but I would get rid of seniority as the basis and get rid of tenure. Only a few teachers would be fired, but most would work harder if their job wasn't guaranteed, and reforms like school loop or staying later to ensure the kids get it would be embraced or the teacher would know they were not impressing the boss, the principal.The union succeeds in maintaining the status quo, using all their money to prevent any sort of change whatsoever that would help minorities. Most teachers don't encourage African Americans and Latinos to focus on working harder and doing what it takes to get a high GPA and better test scores, they encourage them to do their homework and try but not to really put in the effort that would make them top students (yes, like the average Asian, which I'm somehow bad for mentioning the group that has a technique that works even when the student is poor).Therefore the public doesn't vote for more pay for teachers. I think teachers should earn more than cops and firefighters (who should earn less or at least be more limited on "overtime".). So the union won this, they prevented Prop H from passing and got Prop A to pass. Prop A to me is bad law. It is far more crucial to hire tutors and motivational speakers and people to meet with parents and students in the minority communities and inspire them and convince them they can be anything they want to be but if they spend their school years watching TV and hanging out and studying less than an hour a day, they're not going to be any better off than their parents. That would be far more positive than money for construction and repairs, which will probably be spent so inefficiently without looking for savings that it will waste $1 of every $2 spent. The principals should have a budgeted amount which includes repairs, we shouldn't hock the City every time there is a building repair needed to the point of limiting future flexibility.If I saw a bond measure for a 10-year infusion of $80 million, paid for by a bond which would be paid by the future increased productivity of said students, to be spent on tutors, mandatory homework clubs for lower and average performers in poor-performing schools in the Geoffrey Canada charter mold (the school doesn't have to be charter, but the concept is if kids are failing they need to put more time in and get more help), counsellors, inspirational speakers and experts to study (and change) the reasons some groups study far less than others and than they should), I would vote for that every day of the week and twice on Sunday.It shows the limited thinking of the union. They put in another law which limits flexibility and costs a lot and which continually repeats itself, probably gives to overpaid union contractors for construction and well-connected firms, and stopped something that would have saved families a huge amount of money and time and helped them to study more.Achievement has nothing to so with who you sit near. It has everything to do with how hard you work and how much support you have when you get stuck and don't know how to do something. The union hasn't supported any positive change in the achievement gap and they won't, because any change which would positively impact AA or L achievement would cost them time or money and their #1 priority is stopping all change and keeping things the same. They've proved this for a long time. Congratulations Union. A won with 75% and H lost a close one. Everything has stayed the same, the achievement gap will be the same in 10 years, but nothing else will change either in your life or in the struggling lives of the minorities who depend on you! Very inspring. Congratulations on defeating H and passing A.
Lay off the coffee, man.
Hush, you'll just provoke another 1,000 words out of the speed-freak.
Yes on H.7:11 pm argued against H on the basis that an even stronger neighborhood policy would produce more stratification. 7:11 spoke about tweaking of the schools.Prop H is a tweaking. It is an advisory measure to make the neighborhood policy stronger. You can ignore it. You can also implement it by making the local school tie breaker beat the CTIP1 tie breaker. This IS tweaking. The response of the school board is that they worked very hard on the new SAS and Prop H is a distraction. They do not want to hear about changes. The tweaking falls on deaf ears.I get what you are saying about stratification (racial, econonic, and academic segregation). I balance that with the complete failure of the new SAS to have a meaningful neignborhood policy at areas like Clarendon and Miraloma. The new SAS there is a wrong that can be righted. There are plenty of acceptable schools with space for CTIP1 golden ticket holders without bumping out all of the actual residents of Clarendon and Miraloma. The wrong can be righted without undue harm to CTIP1.
Prop A is spent inefficiently but I'm voting for it because our schools need repairs done. However, they should allow principals to seek competitive bidding. They would be more motivated to get the job done right but as inexpensively as possible as that would preserve their budget for more efficient uses. As for a bond measure for extra help for those who need it, I would vote for it. I'm also voting Yes on H, though I think it will only get 35% of the vote. Most people just read the handbook and vote for whatever the union wants. It really is depressing to be in a run down school, though I agree they should get it done less expensively and hire Latino workers who aren't legal if they can get the job done just as well and more cheaply. I know one school was paying $50 an hour to paint the school, to a contractor who was paying the painters $31. Just put it on Craig's List and interview and hire people with some experience and if they aren't good, fire them and hire another, and pay then $20 an hour with no benefits or $16 with health insurance. In this economy plenty of people would take that in a New York Minute! We need to safeguard public funds so there is more left over for things that close the achievement gap. We've gotten so used to irresponsible spending that we can't imagine any other way. Our government is addicted to inefficiency.
I sympathize with you for having your posters removed because I put up fliers in college for a pro-choice movement and opponents would just go around taking them down. I saw a poster in my neighborhood get taken down and can attest, there are No on H people going around and intentionally taking down signs. It is difficult to convince people to let you put up a flier, especially in the very conservative State I was in. No one has a right to do that irregardless of viewpoints. The owner does, but no one else. I still don't know how I'm going to vote on this one but I sympathize with you. I doubt the No on H movement codones this sort of behavior but there are bad seed in every group. Hopefully everyone will read the ballot arguments and decide how to vote based on that, as I'm still doing. Honestly I'm really on the fence on this one. I can't tell who is telling the truth and what the truth is, which is why I googled this site. I read this entire thread and still can't decide. Please tell me more what the effects of this will be.
They just come out of the woodwork, don't they?
One fact I would ask you to consider is that Joanna Rees challenged Dennis Kelly or Ken Tray to a televised debate on Prop H, a 60-minute debate with equal time for each side. They refused. The 11 people who signed the No on H in the ballot pamphlett (the board, Kim, Mar, Kelly and one other) all declined to take a lie detector test on some of their more egregious lies, in which case they could have made $1,000 had they passed. The only reason you can't watch a debate on H is that the opposition refused to partake in it, showing they don't feel they can win a debate based on logic and the merits of their case. Therefore, I would ask you to vote Yes on H. I always vote against the side or candidate who evades public debate.
And I must say, taking down signs shows a disrespect for the time and efforts of the opposition. I played sports and was always taught sportsmanship, respect the other side. I did put up signs which were intentionally taken down, which is illegal. If I had more time I'd park nearby and see who does it, because they have done it 3 times at a couple sites in different parts of the City. They believe it is morally justifiable to intentionally and illegally remove signs.
Cross-posting to set the record straight on some of Joanna Rees' misstatements: Misleading Rees claim No. 1:"I met 1,000 parents today, and if I had taken a poll, I bet 950 of them would say they weren't able to send their kids to their neighborhood school," said Rees, who recounted a block in Bernal Heights where 20 parents sent students to 20 different schools.Fact: This is clearly intended to convey that all those parents send their kids to 20 different schools because they can't get into the Bernal schools. That's eye-poppingly false. Parents can walk right in any day to enroll their kids in the three Bernal Heights elementary schools -- Paul Revere, Junipero Serra or Leonard Flynn General Ed. The parents who send their kids to 20 different schools have CHOSEN to send their kids outside Bernal to school.This is compounded by a strange piece of history. In the mid-late '90s, a bizarre SFUSD policy gave Bernal parents nearly guaranteed access to any school of their choice. There was a stampede out of Bernal to the most popular SFUSD schools (staying in the neighborhood was not a blip on the radar). That policy has long since ended, but it has lingering effects - younger sibs followed; different schools' reps as places for Bernal kids lingered, etc.But whatever the odd historical background, the basic fact is that Bernal families can get a seat in a Bernal school for the asking and are CHOOSING to send their kids elsewhere.Misleading Rees claim 2:But it was meeting a seven-year old girl from the Bayview, making an hour-long commute to school in the Marina on Muni by herself, that "pushed [Rees] over the brink on this issue..."OK, first, no parent should be sending a 7-year-old on Muni by herself, so let's make that point.Now, fact: If a Bayview family has a student assigned to a school in the Marina, it's because they specifically requested it and got it, PERIOD. Barring a strange glitch, there is no SFUSD policy under which a Bayview child is assigned to a school in the Marina. There are no schools in the Bayview that are not easy to get a seat in, and any Bayview family that applies for a seat in those schools is assigned to them.By coincidence, a Bayview family of my acquaintance DID have a child at Marina Middle School (presumably not the one Rees allegedly met, unless Rees knocked some years off her age for dramatic effect). When I first heard that, I thought wow, what a glitch, and offered to help them fix it as I've volunteered with PPS for many years.Nope; here was the story: The family had lived in an apartment off Van Ness, and the child was assigned to and attended Marina MS as it was the closest school. Then the family moved to a larger place in the Bayview. They could easily have gotten a place for the girl at any of the middle schools in or near Bayview (the now-closed WIllie Brown; ISA; Denman; Vis Valley), but the daughter refused to leave Marina, despite her long commute.This is the kind of situation in which a child would commute across town from the Bayview. Again, there are no Bayview schools that don't have immediate openings for anyone who requests a seat.And I have one more (three-part) question for Joanna Rees. She constantly says that she "had to" send her kids private -- and had to eat beans to do it -- because she couldn't get into the SFUSD school she wanted. This is interesting as Rees is famously a Master of the Universe, and a schlub like me was able to get my kids into good SFUSD schools, so she should have had no problem doing it. But here's the question:What school did Rees want? What school was her kid assigned to? What are the distances of those schools from Rees's place of residence (at the time)? I'm putting this question out there publicly and will await Rees' response.
Also, it's ironic. While Prop. H was written by a parent who lives near popular schools and is calling for guaranteed access to them (though his kids have gotten into them without the guarantee) -- some of the other advocates of neighborhood schools, conversely, bear out what we Prop. H critics say: Neighborhood often isn't the top priority.Jeff Adachi lives in SF but sends his kid to Nueva in Atherton (to be as far as possibly from riffraff like my kids). Previously, a major leader of the neighborhood schools movement was Ed Jew, though last I heard his "neighborhood" was behind bars. Yet he lived in Burlingame and sent his kid to private school in SF's Chinatown. It's so confusing.
The person who claims to have written Proposition H didn't want to send his kids to his assignment area school, which was right next to his house, but instead worked the system to switch to Alamo. So what he expects other people to do, willingly, he refused to do himself.
Putting up signs on telephone poles and street light poles is illegal. The Department of Public Works probably took them down. But, yeah, be paranoid.
It's Ok to put up "Lost Cat" signs, and things like that, but you must date them and take them down after 10 days.
I do not know about the particlars of the 7 year old who was on two buses, but I do know about the Muni violence on the J Church reported about 2 years ago. Muni passegners, including a 6th grader, were physically attacked. We need a strong neighborhood policy for the safety of the kids, especially at the ES level. Maybe even at the MS level, although I am tending towards citywide choice there with increased security at Muni problem areas.
This story about how I sent my kids to Alamo is fabrication.My closest school was Cabrillo. But I had learned that it was slated for closure within a year or two. For that reason I had no intention of sending my child there. The other school about the same distance was Argonne, an alternative year-round school that did not work for my family. The next closest school was Alamo which I signed up for. We didn't get it. We were assigned in Round 2 to Lafayette. After school started our number came up on the waiting pool for Alamo, which is 6 blocks from my house.
Marnie, huh?My comment wasn't a diatribe against Bernal parents at all. It's very likely true that they are sending their kids to many different schools outside Bernal. I know that's true of my many friends in Bernal. Why is it disrespectful to point that out? But it's totally false and misleading to imply that that's because they can't get into the Bernal schools. Bernal parents could get easily get their kids into the Bernal schools any time they chose.Junipero Serra and Leonard Flynn GE are open to any parents who don't want Spanish immersion, right there in Bernal. So the notion that their problem is that they can only get Spanish immersion in Bernal schools is invalid too.My statement is neither false nor disrespectful. It's true, factual and, as far as respect for Bernal parents goes, it's neutral. As far as respect for Joanna Rees goes, that's something else -- it's scathing. She's either outrageously dishonest or shockingly uninformed. If I run into her around SF in the next two days -- which is highly likely -- I plan to call her out publicly. In response to this comment: "It is up to public schools to ensure that good public school is available for all. That is what school officials and teachers are paid for.It is not up to *parents* to ensure that schools or good."This sounds good and it sounds simple. But in reality, schools that are overwhelmed by a critical mass of high-need, at-risk students become overwhelmed and struggle. That's true everywhere in the world. Except for the occasional newsworthy outlier, no school system, district or other entity has ever fixed that.
Charlie, I think you're probably thinking of the boy who was stabbed horribly on the 14-Mission, and he was indeed a Marina MS student who was riding home to Vis Valley. But he was at Marina because his parents chose it, not because he was forced. He could easily have gotten into Denman, Vis Valley, ISA, or (now-closed) Willie Brown.
Oh, or Everett or (now K-8) Horace Mann.
I believe the hypothetical point was if all Bernal parents wanted go to Bernal schools they wouldn't find seats. I suspect that to be the case, but since I have not researched it specifically, I couldn't say for sure.I agree that it is a simplification to assume that SFUSD is singularly responsible for not fixing underperforming schools, that it is a soundbite intended to highlight the district negatively. (That's pretty standard for political advertising, like it or not.)However, if we agree that they have failed as have all other districts (as you said, Caroline), what are they spending almost one-third of the district budget on? Where is the accountability for massively and endlessly funding programs that have not shown results? And to add insult to injury, now the Garcia administration is defunding better schools and has exacerbated this polarity of failure.Caroline, if SFUSD is not responsible and the union which you defend is not responsible, who is responsible? If you blame the student's parents you're a racist and if you say the parents should take charge, the education establishment will crush you, just as they are trying to crush us who support H. Caroline, who do you suppose is responsible? A vast sum of money goes down the education rabbit hole annually. Who is accountable for it? Should we all just throw our hands up in the air and say it is the end of public education and this country? I'm tired of the powers-that-be telling me they don't have responsibility and neither does anyone else. If that is the state of education in America we might just as well privatize it.
But Don, do you think the badly confused Ms. Rees is trying to say that the district should make sure there are enough seats in Bernal schools for all Bernal students despite the fact that Bernal families have made it very clear that they don't want those seats? They've shown amply over the years that they're more interested in a wide range of schools outside the neighborhood.That idea would require SFUSD to create new classrooms and even schools where there isn't demand for them. Surely a smart businesswoman like Ms. Rees would not view that as savvy planning. Either she's really, really confused or I am. I don't think that either school district or the teachers' union is responsible for a situation in which no school system anywhere in the world has found a way to make high-poverty schools “good.” We could discuss the reasons endlessly, and write books and create college courses about it. But it's not directly relevant to the Prop. H issue. I only explained the situation because Marnie seemed to be unaware of it.
What? He claims the story of not wanting to go to his neighborhood school is a "fabrication", but then admits to not picking his neighborhood school. Yes, he had "reasons", but lots of people also have reasons they don't want automatic assignment to their neighborhood schools too. What a hypocrite!
Regarding the defense of choice, the District sent students of color out of their assignment areas for years. That happened over time with court orders, greater choice, state funded transportation and the upspring of alternative schools. In contrast they closed some schools and scaled back capacity at some others, radically reducing capacity in those areas. Now the choice proponents say - see, they don't want to go to school in their neighborhoods!- Well, golly-gee. You've left those school to hang out and dry. You created the problem of abandoned and devalued schools and now you want to say parental choice is a good rationalize for their failure. Nice trick. As for you, Moggy at 7:08, do you see the comments by Caroline? Whether I agree with her or not, she doesn't slink around under cover of darkness slinging dirt.She says what she believes in name. That is integrity. Who would send their child to a school slated for closure or are you just trying to score political points with the uneducated? Time and again you have proven yourself not only to be the nastiest person in San Francisco, but not too bright either. If you're fooling anyone I'd be very surprised at this point.
Yes, Don, everyone who thinks you are a hypocrite must be Moggy.
For the life of me, why hasn't SFUSD created magnet schools and programs in the SE? For so long now, families in the SE are NOT chosing their neigbhorhood school. Prop H, which recommends FORCING students to their neighborhood school, does nothing to improve those schools.http://www.thehdmt.org/indicators/view/88
If I am one I am out there in name for all to judge. As for yourself, you are just another nobody in a hood spouting off in your basement.
I wouldn't fault a parent who's avoiding a school about to close or even one rumored to close. That criticism doesn't hold water.
"I only explained the situation because Marnie seemed to be unaware of it."Just to let you know, Caroline, that I have responded to your comments on my blog.Also, based on last year's enrollment statistics, it does appear that it is you, not I, who are unaware of the current situation in Bernal.-Marnie
Marnie, the most recent available demand data show the the only Bernal school strand that has more first-choice requests than openings was Flynn Spanish immersion.
I love it how Parents for Public Schools offers help on navigating the "difficult process". There's no manner of navigation that can guarantee a parent they will even get anything within 3 miles, no matter how many choices they put down. There is no way to avoid the risk you could live at 47th and California and be assigned to Visitation Valley. What makes it more laughable is that Parent's for Public Schools has come out in opposition to Prop H. I guess they want to feel needed so they canhelp parents through this difficult and unfortunate process, but when it comes to it, they are in favor of the process and oppose attempts to improve it. PPS is responsible for this system, they are the reason many parents need advice and often get none of their choices. They even encourage Middle Class parents in places like Bernal to put tons of West Side Schools on their list so they can drive out a West Side parent who can't logistically drive that far twice a day and keep their job and care for their other children, while simultaneously making their own neighborhood school deprived of the middle class needed to integrate the school and improve it. PPS, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I'm definitely voting Yes on Prop H! Thanks for nothing PPS!
I have no idea why you are even posting!!! You are wasting your time moron! First of all, everyone on here knows Don, Charlie, Kevin, Floyd, Marnie, Jerry and whatever other name you use are all the same exact person. You have almost no supporters, not one of the board. Not one of 7, who were all elected by the voters of this City, by the same voters who are going to vote on this measure! You have nothing except a bunch of money from out of state Republicans paying desperate minorities to put up signs everywhere on trees and telephone poles, illegally I might add. You have the Chronicle against you, the only paper of import, the Supervisors, the Bay Guardian. You have the union against you, which is way more than 40,000 voters including friends and family and sympathizers. You have the Mayor saying he'll vote against it but won't officially say he's against it because he fears losing Republican money if he runs for governor. I've even heard private schools are pushing for a no vote because they love it that they get students and money from those who leave the public system because they lose the lottery, proving these people really are deeply racist.The only people who will vote for this are a few rich parents in the avenues who have no sympathy for anyone who isn't rich, a scattering of idiots who see a sign and vote, which can't possibly number more than a few hundred, and a small number of white supremacists who haven't moved to Idaho...yet. Maybe that and a few insane people or people who are senile and cross the wrong line by accident.If you get 20% I'll be shocked. You can't win pissing off the union, the Mayor and running on a pro-Jim Crow segregation ticket in this City. You act like it's going to be close and sock puppet each other while masturbating I bet, and pretending to be women to boot! You will not even get 20%. My prediction is that you will bet 16% of the vote, Prop H loses 84-16. And that's if you're lucky! You don't stand a chance. Anyone in the Union is against it, anyone not in the avenues, anyone who is anti-racism, anyone who reads the voter pamphlett, anyone who isn't white, anyone who has a conscience, anyone who is gay and wants to fight oppression. I can't think of anyone who will vote with you besides the few remaining Republicans in town. And no one votes based on signs anymore! Enjoy your huge 84-16 loss LOL! Outie!
"I wouldn't fault a parent who's avoiding a school about to close or even one rumored to close. That criticism doesn't hold water." But, if that school would be somebody's designated neighborhood school through a passed prop H, that family would no longer have that choice (or at least their lottery chances at avoiding that school and find another, more acceptable school in a reasonable distance would decrease, because it would already be filled with neighborhood kids), isn't that true? Or am I misunderstanding something??
I agree, under Prop H, there'd be no *choice*, because all the spots at the other schools would be taken already.
For those who don't know this, 1:25am is Kevin/Justin/Floyd etc. pretending to be a crazy person on the anti-H side, hoping to garner sympathy for the pro-H side.An IP address check will prove it. It's an offensive post and should be removed.
The problem with Caroline's comments in general is this: She wants to claim the moral high ground by saying that Prop H is a deceptive measure designed to convince an unsuspecting electorate, but she fails to address the outright lies that the union and people like Rachel Norton have engaged in in the Voter's pamphlet and elsewhere. This leaves me less than thrilled with her authority on the matter.
The deception is trying to pass a measure that supposedly goes into effect several months BEFORE it was even voted on. The wording is so awkward and badly written, lawyers could have all sorts of fun bringing the matter to the courts. If the authors wanted to not be subjected to such speculation, they should not have written it as demanding the policy go into effect MONTHS BEFORE the election.
Yes on H.The big picture is that Muni has safety problems. The details of travel by choice or travel by assignment do not change that. We should still not be putting kids on Mumi, if we can avoid it. Therefore, beef up the neighborhood schools tie breaker. Is is one thing to be lax about Muni violence before the attack. Once we are on notice, however, we should not be do negligent.
Five quick points.1. The timeline in H is of no consequence as an advisory measure. It was originally intended to go on the ballot in the last election. For some perspective - the Board passed a new SAS in March of 2010 and later postponed the MS implementation, doing so in violation of its own legal requirement to make changes 6 months in advance for the purpose of adequate public notice. Where is your outrage of a clear violation of law by the elected officials? In fact the only reason why they didn't postpone even later is because I repeatedly warned the Board that I would file a complaint with the CDE if they continued to flout their legal obligation that they had codified into law March 2010.2. Who is this person claiming that a whole slew of people are all one and the same? If you follow the commentary it is apparent that there are distinct personalities. This type of character assault is really getting old, especially from people who don't have the gumption to state their own name. 3. Regarding my own child's first assignment, the school closure issue has to do with poor implementation at SFUSD. No one should expect a competent school district to assign students to a school they intend to close. That is fraudulent behavior when it is not made clear to the public in advance.4. If Rees has a poor case for neighborhood schools, why did the union decline to debate her? 5. The name "Quality Neighborhood Schools For All" is a call to action. It is intended to say that we must create motivation at the community level. But that requires SFUSD to do its part and make the equity changes necessary to level the playing field. It is a long process that will not happen overnight. The measure's title was not intended to be read as "neighborhood schools are (necessarily) quality schools".
We can't stop here. This is bat country!
Don, looks like Caroline is winning this argument! Bottom line: parents want to choose. Parent choice improved schools for 10 years straight. Locking families into neighborhood schools screws those who are in poor performing schools. "Tweaking" point: yes, the current assignment system has problems. CTIP 1 is too broad as it gives advantage to high SES families. But the answer is not to go to neighborhood schools. The answer is to more narrowly tailor the CTIP 1 zones. Result: Vote no on H.
10:34 -Sounds like the Charlie Sheen argument.Winning !!!!!!!!!!!!!!If you say so. But why not wait one more day?
We need H. We need to keep families with options in this City and have more affluent families here. The more the better. This will add affluent East side families to the East side and prevent affluent families from going away or private. It will greatly improve City traffic flow and bring in a lot of money from Sacramento. It will also get more money circulating through the local economy as everyone who leaves private to go public will have more money to spend. It will be great for SF's economy, sense of community, friendships. It is hard on 2 kids to be friends, then have one move. It is hard on childcare arrangements. This will greatly improve our City. Yes on H.
Yeah, right, sure, (what planet are you from?) "Affluent" families needing a public education for their kids are just going to flock in droves to the Eastside, when they find out their kids will be automatically assigned to schools there. Pure unrealistic fiction.
They're already there and using the lottery to avoid sending their kids to diverse, local schools. They don't have to flock, we just need to end the lottery or limit it to those who would actually add diversity by being Latino or African American. For the schools on the East side to ever be good they need a mix of the poor in their neighborhood and the rich and middle class. Instead we have the hypocrisy of far left Pacific Heights sending their kids to extremely Republican private schools like Burke and supposedly far left Bernal Parents sending their kids to schools in the Avenues to avoid them going to school with poor kids. And don't say the schools are bad, I call bullshit. The teachers in those schools are as good as the teachers in the West and the white kids who do end up in those schools end up with the same average test score. These parents are scared to send their kids to a school that reflects the diversity of the neighborhood they chose to live in.
Ok, then send your kid to Malcolm X.
Ignore him, he's mental.
So are you saying no one under any circumstances should send their kid to Malcom X? And you're liberal? So Malcom X should only be made up of those who lose the lottery and don't care or have money or live close and don't care? You think it's unthinkable even if you live close? So even the well off nearby should not go, no one should go, according to you? We need to diversify all of our schools. Yes on Prop H.
Should we even have schools in SFUSD that anyone who cares about education views as unacceptable, that are exclusively for the poor and uninformed? That even far left whites will not consider, even consider it sarcastically liberal to not consider? The Pacific Heights liberals shun Cobb. The Bernal Heights liberals shun Malcom X?My question is is it healthy for our City to have schools that the general viewpoint is that only the poor and uninformed should go to? That it is unthinkable that anyone with any cultural capital of any sort should go to? I say if it is that bad, shut the school down, send the kids West if need be but don't force anyone anywhere far away if they don't want it. Build more in the West, if that's what people want. We need to shake up the status quo if there are schools everyone feels are unthinkable. That's just bad public policy. Yes on H, just to force change. The status quo of liberals shunning any school with too many minorities is just ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, you're a Republican if you live in Pacific Heights and consider Cobb unthinkable, or Malcom X. Definite Yes on H!
If you think affluent people are going to live in BV/HP and happily send their kids to Malcolm X, you're crazy. Prop H will cause more families to leave the city, and more families to send their kids to private schools. Anyone who can afford to move, will, and the schools that you are saying will improve -- will get even worse. Prop H is based on lies and BS.