Thursday, March 28, 2013

CTIP1 - Was it a golden ticket this year?

Last year when I asked families about how they did in the lottery, anyone that was in a CTIP1 location overwhelming reported that they got their first choice.  This year, I have heard many CTIP1 families that have gotten their first choice, but most I have talked to got their 2nd or 3rd choice.  What are you hearing?

32 comments:

  1. I already posted this on the other "results" thread but we're CTIP1 and got our first choice. We wanted spanish immersion so did #1 BVHM, #2 Fairmount. I've heard of 2other families that did the same thing but got Fairmount. I think the difference was our daughter tested proficient in Spanish so that gave her an edge for one of the "bilingual spots." Just a guess though....

    ReplyDelete
  2. i know two families who MOVED to CTIP1 areas before the january deadline - one got clarendon, the other got rooftop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Moved or "Moved". I always hear rumors of people leasing cheap apartments and getting a power bill sent there. No one I know in CTIP1 is applying this year.

      Delete
  3. I know of two families who "moved" for the year and both got first choices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they haven't already been busted, and you haven't already, you have a civic and moral duty to report them.

      The district doesn't treat this lightly -- prosecution will result -- and rightly so. It's not a victimless crime.

      The rest writes itself really. IMHO this is ethically on bar with bike thievery, which in my book is a shooting offense.

      Delete
  4. In my kid's preschool class, among the parents I know, only 2 don't live in a CTIP 1 area and 6 do. All white and (relatively) wealthy people. Those living in a CTIP 1 area all got their first choice. The CTIP area system is clearly not working for the purposes the district designed it for: people leaving in CTIP 1 areas and really poor often do not apply to trophy schools because of their lack of diversity (I can understand why a Latino or an Afro-american kid parent does not apply to a school where is kid would be the only not-white kid...)...

    ReplyDelete
  5. just my opinion but it's plain wrong to work the system that way. It leads to so many people getting shut out or left with a less than desirable school because of it. There has to be a better way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes, the only way is to look at the family's income...

      Delete
  6. We live in CTP1. Did not work for us, several years trying. I think it really depends where you're applying. Only so many people can go to Clarendon and Rooftop.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Friend who lives in CTIP and is by no means high-income got her THIRD choice.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1st, 2nd, 3rd - even 4th & 5th choices are all amazing outcomes & families who get them should be thrilled. Until we're Finland & have perfectly good schools everywhere, there will be a system of winners & losers & strong incentives for the more-educated (about the process, I mean) to try to beat the system.

    Now that Our older son is in a school we're very happy wih (TECA- a charter w/ 1st-come 1st-serve enrollment) - the question I have is how to change the funding gap between schools. I know edMatch is working on the problem (& we're closing the gap ourselves by raising more $ @ TECA). Fundraising ideas welcome! :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. This CTIP1 conversation is very interesting. I can see why people would move to work the system, parents can act/feel quite desperate when it comes to doing the best for their kids. Even muppet admitted that when she moved to SF, she heard about CTIP1, and purposely bought a home there (although she does intend to live in it) so she'd get a better assignment for her child - and she has 4 kids so now she's locked up future spots for all those sibings! It doesn't sound illegal, but there's nothing in the current system to stop people who could live elsewhere from deliberately choosing to live in CTIP1 to get a better assignment. It's not as bad as having a dummy address in CTIP1 that's a fake, but it still strikes me as not what the CTIP1 rule intended. Also, income is not a great indicator either. It's wealth (how much you have in the bank or from family). Not sure how to track that for school purposes accurately. Whatever new rule put out there, the more people will try to find a loophole to get into Clarendon ...

    ReplyDelete
  10. It seems like this is only a problem with Clarendon and Rooftop. Do they get an overwhelming amount of CTIP requests compared to other high demand schools?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be nice to know but I don't think the school district releases that information (someone please correct me if I'm wrong--I'm very curious!!)

      Delete
    2. Interestingly, I think a lot of CTIP1 requesters are actually requesting the schools in their neighbourhood. Of schools outside CTIP1 zones, Clarendon and Rooftop do get a lot of CTIP1 requests. Partly, because of their central location and partly because they are really good schools.

      The district released very detailed information the first year of the new assignment program (for the 2011/12 school year) and you can see some of how the CTIP1 requests and assignments played out here: http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/enroll/files/2012-13/annual_report_march_5_2012_FINAL.pdf

      Delete
  11. We are in CTIP1, bought our home before we even knew how to spell "CTIP" and we got our first choice (Lilienthal). We have not heard of another family in CTIP1 who didn't get their first choice.

    I think the biggest issue with CTIP is the lack of outreach to parents who might not understand the system, and the second biggest issue is the lack of bussing. We are willing and able to drive our daughter just about anywhere in the city, but many people who live around us are not. Our daughter is in a private preschool where we've received lots of assistances applying to both public and private schools, but I'd be willing to guess that other preschool programs or Head Start programs don't have the same support for parents. Just an assumption, perhaps I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I know a handful of people with CTIP1 addresses, and all got their first choices.

    The problem with CTIP1 as I see it is that only people with flexible work schedules and access to a car can really take advantage of such a placement. If you live in the BV and get an assignment to Clarendon, the ride by bus is 40 minutes from 3rd and Palou. Add to that that it's a feeder school for Presido -- seems daunting at best.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe this should be obvious to me, but how is a neighborhood CTIP1? Is it just based on test scores, or demographics as well? Are they considered bad neighborhoods?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just based on test scores for that neighborhood. So, that is why it is flawed. Because you may have affluent, educated families whose children might score high on a test but they live in CTIP1.

      Delete
  14. We live in a CTIP1 zone. We did get into our first choice--a trophy school. Our family is not disadvantaged but we are squeaking by and cannot afford much for our kids. We are on the border of income that qualifies us for inclusionary housing but not much else in terms of assistance. I know that the CTIP designation is for the truly disadvantaged but in our particular case, I don't feel terrible that we have a spot at the trophy school. My older child attends an under-performing school and while I feel a strong desire to help build that school, which is improving by leaps and bounds, I have found that in order to make a living and stay sane, I cannot provide the amount of parent involvement that this school needs so I am sending my children to a more stable school. I am a bit ashamed to be turning my back on our current school, but I am also resentful that the success of this and other school success is so dependent on my direct involvement. I also choose the new school because it was the only one (we toured many of the trophies) that was worth switching for--we looooved it and could completely imagine our children thriving there. Otherwise, we would have stuck with the current school.
    That said, the CTIP designation does allow for some unfairness and ignores the fact that some neighborhoods have family shelters next door to million dollar condos. Our block falls just within the zone. Our neighborhood is filled with million dollar condos as well as the homes of homeless (living in temporary housing agencies), low and middle income folks.
    I also work with kids in BVHP and know that only the truly involved and committed disadvantaged parents are getting their kids into the better schools and accessing the bus services. That said, the schools in BVHP and other SE schools are extremely well run with excellent teachers. The problem is that they don't have the staffing and parent involvement that is needed for its very disadvantaged students. And it doesn't serve anyone to fill a school up with children who suffer the ill effects of neglect and trauma from living in poverty. I certainly see a need for parents who want to keep their children out of these hotbeds of troubled kids, to send their children to schools with kids from more stable backgrounds. Having been raised by working class immigrant parents in a low-middle class neighborhood, I am greatful that there was an avenue for the broke but smart kids like us who were motivated to go to good schools outside of our neighborhoods, even if it meant an hour or more public bus ride. I believe that the system needs to keep serving that population.
    But I believe that CTIP and whatever the previous system doesn't address the problem of underachievement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I am very happy for you and your family! You have a valid point about opportunity for all. Unfortunately you forget a very important issue that most people forget who are beneficiaries of the current system. That is that the "Trophy" schools cannot automatically admit more students to accomodate everyone. What that means is that neighborhood kids in these "trophy" areas get displaced and usually its a very poor performing, far-away school. That is called "Social Engineering" and it has proven not to work. Now I don't think that my child deserves to go to a "good" school like so many people believe in this city. I do, however, believe she does deserve to go to a school that is close proximity to where we chose with our own free will to live. It doesn't matter if you rent a studio apartment or you own a 5 million dollar mansion your child should be assigned to the closest school. We all have some sort of adversity in our lives that we can claim to make us more deserving of getting a break from the system. Some are more serious than others. The point is to make a transparent and fair system for kindergarten admittance and than we can start to bring the bad schools up. I am glad your taking advantage of what the school board has granted you. I would do the same if I were in your shoes.

      Good Luck

      Delete
  15. That said, the only other family that we know who lives in our neighborhood--they live in one of the million dollar homes--chose a scrappy immersion neighborhood school that is not one of the oversubscribed ones.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have 1 friend who lives in CTIP1 and she got her first choice school, Rooftop.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm not sure why everyone thinks there is ambiguity about the advantages of living in CTIP1. Everyone got their first choice unless they were competing against too many other CTIP1 students.
    I was at a public hearing before the new system went into effect and several of the people who spoke predicted that this is exactly what would happen. Amazingly, there seemed to be Board members who didn't grasp the implications of what they were doing.
    We would move to CTIP1 but it's too expensive. If you buy a place it's a minimum of about $900,000 and if you rent, its about $3000 for a 2 bedroom rental.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Does anyone see this as reverse discrimination?

    ReplyDelete
  19. No. I see it as a well-intentioned program to address decades of inequality in access to education.

    ReplyDelete
  20. An argument was made that the old system of affirmative action was reverse discrimination, because for example, Asian seats at Lowell used to be held to something like 55%, and now it's something like 85%. The numbers of white, black, and latino kids has dwindled since Prop 209 (is that the number? I think it is) was passed.


    Prop 209 was awful. I'm part of the generation that affirmative action really brought about great change. I thought it was a great way to approach the issues. I supported affirmative action.


    Cause remember, there was no affirmative action for actual grading and performance once you entered. Just entrance. Getting a seat at the table.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thank you for you reply Laurel. But how do you attempt to end discrimination with discrimination, which is what affirmative action is based on. There's no doubt that there were and still are injustice in today's society but when does this stop? We are doing the same thing by isolating one group over another when we are showing preferential treatment to a specific group. I agree with providing assisting to the underserved and minorities but not by taking away from a specific group of people based on where they live. This is is not a better or an equal option as you stated.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You are using the word "discrimination" a bit too fast and loose. Affirmative action was designed to address centuries of abuse toward African American people, from enslavement through Jim Crow through white flight -- and affirmative action did not last more than a handful of decades. Individual white people not getting what they want sometimes isn't systematic discrimination or injustice.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Respectfully, I disagree. It's not preferential treatment, grades, promotions, achievement. It is simple access.

    I am white. My closest friend in college was African American. We used to discuss affirmative action at length. I got in off high school grades and SATs, and she may have gotten in off a quota. But by the end of senior year, her GPS was 3.8 and mine wasn't even close to that. We shared the same major. She was just plain smarter than me and a much better student. I never forgot that.

    Under today's standards, she never would have gotten in that school, or thereafter because of her high marks, she earned a spot at an Ivy League grad school. The woman earned a PhD, and earned every last ounce of it. That process started when in 1981, the college mandated at least 20% AA students.


    Today, our old school has only 9% AA students, and we are lesser for it.

    "Earning stuff" isn't affirmative action. Getting access to stuff is affirmative action, and giving access to disenfranchised groups is the American Way. Thank God we still have some affirmative action left for economically challenged students (poor folks), otherwise, Berkeley would look even worse than it does. The SAT tests just don't work for lots of groups of people, it's a fact.

    You can't just educate a certain group of people and expect the society to thrive. You have to make the universities look like the public.


    You are free to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Indeed. I wish every school required history classes about the struggles of immigrant populations, and especially, the African American population. It's debt that can never be repaid.

    ReplyDelete