Thursday, September 12, 2013

Gateway High School has *new* October 4th application deadline

This week SFGate reported that Gateway High School  moved its application deadline for next year’s ninth graders to October 4th.  This change was not announced publicly and will catch many high school applicants by surprise.  Any eight graders interested in that school should check the Gateway HS website for application materials ASAP.


Rachel Norton also has a two-part story on her blog beginning here.

Are you a Gateway family? Do you want to be a Gateway family? How do you feel about this?

8 comments:

  1. I have a kid at GMS (not an 8th grader) and knew nothing about this until I saw this post. I hope it's not a way to give preference; I'd rather have no preference for GHS than have it feel underhanded and sneaky, which this does. Spreading the word to my circle so they know about he October deadline!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of all the inequities in the SFUSD, why does this warrant 2 posts from Rachel Norton? How about getting fired up about the non transparency of the admission process for all of the other schools? I don't think what Gateway is doing is fair....but it really isn't out of line when you look at admission policies for the whole district.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't know what to think because I don't have all the facts. It very well may be that this was done strictly to give Gateway applicants the upper hand. It certainly appears that way from what little we know and it bothers me that we know so little - why a decision like this had not been properly vetted within the school community and the chartering authority.

    That being said, I was shocked when Rachel Norton said on her blog that she wished she hadn't voted to approve the middle school charter
    after hearing about this. Despite what may or may not be an unfortunate, albeit legal, decision by GPS, advancing the application deadline for the first round at GHS is hardly a good enough reason to have regrets about voting for a school (GMS) that has effectively served so many students over the last 2 plus years. Commissioner Norton clearly is mad and feels deceived, but we need policymakers who are calm and collected and don't act out of anger and a bruised ego. My impression is that she cares more about her beliefs in access and equity than about the outcomes of real students over the last two years at GMS, otherwise why would she vocalize that she would trade them away? She expended most of her time as a Board member in creating an assignment system where access and equity was the primary goal and now she sees everything through that singular prism. But access and equity is code for diversity and when it comes to diversity Gateway schools are as diverse as they come.

    This incident highlights a larger truth about SFUSD and its leadership. It
    shows us that it cares more for its policies than it does for it students. They believe that access and equity trumps student achievement. They'd rather have no highly successful Gateway schools than allow them to breach their preferred idea of what constitutes access and equity, which is, after all, just a subjective notion. Ask any parent applicant who has gone zero for 20 and ended up in an unrequested school across town if they believe in the equity notions of SFUSD.

    Let me just say this: if I knew for sure that the new deadline was set
    solely for the purpose of giving the 8th graders at GMS an advantage, I would not agree with it, not because I don't necessarily think they shouldn't have an advantage (it is only natural that they'd want to continue on with GPS), but because any priority should be given in the light of day with the full knowledge and approval of the communities involved. But let's remember that it isn't just Gateway that prefers a feeder system.

    When Rachel Norton said "there is one thing we know at SFUSD, it’s all the ways an assignment system can lead to unintended consequences. “Learn from us,” I pleaded. What Gateway wants to accomplish–as stated by Ms. Olken–is laudable but it will not happen with their current policy."
    If Ms. Norton has regrets about how the assignment system worked out, why is she holding out on us. SFUSD press releases seems to imply it's a giant success.

    Lastly, she says what Gateway wants to happen is laudable, so what's the problem?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't know what to think because I don't have all the facts. It very well
    may be that this was done strictly to give Gateway applicants the upper hand. It certainly appears that way from what little we know and it bothers me that we know so little - why a decision like this had not been properly vetted within the school community and the chartering authority.

    That being said, I was shocked when Rachel Norton said on her blog that she wished she hadn't voted to approve the middle school charter
    after hearing about this. Despite what may or may not be an unfortunate, albeitlegal, decision by GPS, advancing the application deadline for the first round at GHS is hardly a good enough reason to have regrets about voting for a school (GMS) that has effectively served so many students over the last 2 plus years. Commissioner Norton clearly is mad and feels deceived, but we need policymakers who are calm and collected and don't act out of anger and a bruised ego. My impression is that she cares more about her beliefs in access and equity than about the outcomes of real students over the last two years at GMS, otherwise
    why would she vocalize that she would trade them away? She expended most of her time as a Board member in creating an assignment system where access and equity was the primary goal and now she sees everything through that singular prism. But access and equity is code for diversity and when it comes to diversity Gateway schools are as diverse as they come.

    This incident highlights a larger truth about SFUSD and its leadership. It
    shows us that it cares more for its policies than it does for it students. They believe that access and equity trumps student achievement. They'd rather have no highly successful Gateway schools than allow them to breach their preferred idea of what constitutes access and equity, which is, after all, just a subjective notion. Ask any parent applicant who has gone zero for 20 and ended up in an unrequested school across town if they believe in the equity notions of SFUSD.

    Let me just say this: if I knew for sure that the new deadline was set
    solely for the purpose of giving the 8th graders at GMS an advantage, I would not agree with it, not because I don't necessarily think they shouldn't have an advantage (it is only natural that they'd want to continue on with GPS), but because any priority should be given in the light of day with the full knowledge and approval of the communities involved. But let's remember that it isn't just Gateway that prefers a feeder system.

    When Rachel Norton said "there is one thing we know at SFUSD, it’s all
    the ways an assignment system can lead to unintended consequences. “Learn from us,” I pleaded. What Gateway wants to accomplish–as stated by Ms. Olken–is laudable but it will not happen with their current policy."

    If Ms. Norton has regrets about how the assignment system worked out, why isshe holding out on us. SFUSD press releases seems to imply it's a giant success.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You asked, " How do you feel about this?" As a Gateway family, I told you and I expressed my honest and heartfelt feelings that the date change was not only wrong , but Rachel Norton was wrong as well to react the way she did. Rather than allow me to express my view you censor the comment. So what you really meant to say was - How do you fell about this, but answer truthfully if it involves criticizing the expressed views of member of the board of education. SF K Files is a sell-out to SFUSD.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry typo - DON"T answer truthfully if it involves criticizing SFUSD

    ReplyDelete
  7. You asked, " How do you feel about this?" As a Gateway family, I told
    you and I expressed my honest and heartfelt feelings that the date
    change was not only wrong , but Rachel Norton was wrong as well to react
    the way she did. Rather than allow me to express my view you censor the
    comment. So what you really meant to say was - How do you fell about
    this, but don't answer truthfully if it involves criticizing the expressed
    views of a member of the board of education. SF K Files is a sell-out to
    SFUSD.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't know what to think because I don't have all the facts. It very well
    may be that this was done strictly to give Gateway applicants the upper hand.
    It certainly appears that way from what little we know and it bothers me that
    we know so little - why a decision like this had not been properly vetted
    within the school community and the
    chartering authority.



    That being said, I was shocked when Rachel Norton said on her blog that she wished she hadn't voted
    to approve the middle school charter
    after hearing about this. Despite what may or may not be an unfortunate, albeit
    legal, decision by GPS, advancing the application deadline for the first
    round at GHS is hardly a good enough reason to have regrets about voting
    for a school (GMS) that has effectively served so many students over the last 2
    plus years. Commissioner Norton clearly is mad and feels deceived, but we need
    policymakers who are calm and collected and don't act out of anger and a
    bruised ego. My impression is that she cares more about her beliefs in
    access and equity than about the outcomes of real students over the last two
    years at GMS, otherwise why would she trade them away? She expended most
    of her time as a Board member in creating an assignment system where access and
    equity was the primary goal and now she
    sees everything through that singular prism. Access and equity is code
    for diversity and when it comes to diversity Gateway schools are as diverse as they come.



    This incident highlights a larger truth about SFUSD and its leadership. It
    shows us that it cares more for its policies than it does for it students. They
    believe that access and equity trumps student achievement. They'd rather have
    no highly successful Gateway schools than allow them to breach their preferred
    idea of what constitutes access and equity, which is, after all, just a
    subjective notion. Ask any parent applicant who has gone zero for 20 and ended
    up in an unrequested school across town if they believe in the equity notions
    of SFUSD.



    Let me just say this: if I knew for sure that the new deadline was set
    solely for the purpose of giving the 8th graders at GMS an advantage, I would
    not agree with it, not because I don't think they should have an advantage (it
    is only natural that they'd want to continue on with GPS), but because any priority
    should be given in the light of day with the full knowledge and approval of the
    communities involved.



    But let's remember that it isn't just Gateway that prefers a feeder system.



    When Rachel Norton said "there is one thing we know at SFUSD, it’s all
    the ways an assignment system can lead to unintended consequences. “Learn
    from us,” I pleaded. What Gateway wants to accomplish–as stated by Ms. Olken–is
    laudable but it will not happen with their current policy."

    If Rachel has regrets about how the assignment system worked out, why is she
    holding out on us. SFUSD press releases seems to imply it's a giant success.



    Lastly, she says what Gateway wants to happen is laudable, so what's the
    problem?

    ReplyDelete