San Francisco: a good model for DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in SF and have a DD in public elementary school. There ARE neighborhood boundaries. Had my DD gone to the neighborhood school she'd have been the only white girl in her class. The lottery system has recently been re-vamped. In the old system, we had seven choices (we got my first choice). Had I not requested any schools, DD would have been put in the neighborhood school. Instead, we leave at 7am to get to school at 7:50.

Now they've scrapped that old lottery system, and certain elementary schools feed into certain middle schools. We live by the SF Bay. Her feeder middle school is by the Pacific Ocean - so basically could not be farther away while still being in the city. She's not going there. I am applying her to other schools that are closer, smaller, and (I think) a better fit academically.

I do know of a lot of people who moved out of the city for school, but also know many people who are happy with the public schools their kids are in.

Can't imagine 50 minute commute to school works for most people. So tough!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Can't imagine 50 minute commute to school works for most people. So tough!

50 minutes is not outside of the norm for DC, especially if you rely on public transportation. Three quarters of the kids in public school in DC don't go to neighborhood schools.

There's an awful lot of private school kids who also travel great distances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in SF and have a DD in public elementary school. There ARE neighborhood boundaries. Had my DD gone to the neighborhood school she'd have been the only white girl in her class. The lottery system has recently been re-vamped. In the old system, we had seven choices (we got my first choice). Had I not requested any schools, DD would have been put in the neighborhood school. Instead, we leave at 7am to get to school at 7:50.

Now they've scrapped that old lottery system, and certain elementary schools feed into certain middle schools. We live by the SF Bay. Her feeder middle school is by the Pacific Ocean - so basically could not be farther away while still being in the city. She's not going there. I am applying her to other schools that are closer, smaller, and (I think) a better fit academically.

I do know of a lot of people who moved out of the city for school, but also know many people who are happy with the public schools their kids are in.

Can't imagine 50 minute commute to school works for most people. So tough!

Well, firstly, I don't have a car, so we have to rely on mass transit. But many of the kids at DD's school have parents who have cars, or live near other students whose parents have cars and they carpool. Secondly, lots of kids live closer. DD's best friend lives one MUNI stop away from school, and leaves her house at 7:30. I'm able to get to work by 8:30, which is super important. We've dealt with this going on six years now. Obviously it's different than it was when I grew up living in the suburbs, a block and a half from school, but it's fine. To be honest, I'm thrilled she can take the train by herself now, and I don't have to fetch her at school after work.

[Anonymous]

So, D.C. should consider implementing the SF system -- why,exactly? What is remotely appealing about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, D.C. should consider implementing the SF system -- why,exactly? What is remotely appealing about it?

The truth is that there is nothing appealing about it. DCPS just want to jump on every new train that is out there only to take us on a Hellish ride. The SF system is frustrating, chaotic, and pure Hell for parents. DCPS is already dysfunctional. If they for any second try to pull this SF crap, then you will see a massive exodus from DCPS.

[Anonymous]

It may not be remotely appealing to anyone living in NW DC or the good capitol hill elementaries, but the reality is most people in urban school systems are already doing some form of this, whether it is charters, choice/magnet schools, private school, or going to an out of bounds school. Breaking apart segregation via income makes sense to me and removing this notion that you have to buy into a million dollar house neighborhood to receive a quality education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, D.C. should consider implementing the SF system -- why,exactly? What is remotely appealing about it?

The truth is that there is nothing appealing about it. DCPS just want to jump on every new train that is out there only to take us on a Hellish ride. The SF system is frustrating, chaotic, and pure Hell for parents. DCPS is already dysfunctional. If they for any second try to pull this SF crap, then you will see a massive exodus from DCPS.

I tend to agree, but I bet dcps will incrementalise the changes. It is already basically like SF in DC eotp.

[Anonymous]

"Breaking apart segregation via income makes sense to me and removing this notion that you have to buy into a million dollar house neighborhood to receive a quality education."

...this idea doesn't make sense if it's been shown not to result in a better school system. By all reports, the idea has "not worked" in San Francisco (that is, the schools are not any better, in fact, they are worse), so the premise that it should be done here seems inherently flawed, imo. You could just as easily say that those in favor of such an idea are so full of resentment against the status quo that they cannot see the logical flaw in the proposal: because if you do it, things get WORSE, not better. As the author original author stated: going to a charter is an option that exists now -- and, imo, the presence of ever-better charters under our current system certainly isn't making it any worse.

[Anonymous]

...this idea doesn't make sense if it's been shown not to result in a better school system. By all reports, the idea has "not worked" in San Francisco (that is, the schools are not any better, in fact, they are worse), so the premise that it should be done here seems inherently flawed, imo. You could just as easily say that those in favor of such an idea are so full of resentment against the status quo that they cannot see the logical flaw in the proposal: because if you do it, things get WORSE, not better. As the author original author stated: going to a charter is an option that exists now -- and, imo, the presence of ever-better charters under our current system certainly isn't making it any worse.

The lottery in San Francisco has only been going on for a few years. The neighborhood model has been going on for 100+ years. Wait five years and see what's going on in the school system. Any urban school system is going to be difficult to navigate and difficult to figure out how to meet the needs of such a diverse group of people. I have heard that some of the elementary schools in San Francisco are excellent, but you have to be extremely diligent. There certainly are aspects of this model that work for some people, and not all parents are disgruntled. This doesn't sound substantially different from people who live in Chicago, New York, or DC to me, just they have completely taken out the notion of boundaries rather than paying lip service to them. It seems to me that if you want to be freed from the tyranny of choice and bureaucracy when it comes to schools, move to the 'burbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

...this idea doesn't make sense if it's been shown not to result in a better school system. By all reports, the idea has "not worked" in San Francisco (that is, the schools are not any better, in fact, they are worse), so the premise that it should be done here seems inherently flawed, imo. You could just as easily say that those in favor of such an idea are so full of resentment against the status quo that they cannot see the logical flaw in the proposal: because if you do it, things get WORSE, not better. As the author original author stated: going to a charter is an option that exists now -- and, imo, the presence of ever-better charters under our current system certainly isn't making it any worse.

The lottery in San Francisco has only been going on for a few years. The neighborhood model has been going on for 100+ years. Wait five years and see what's going on in the school system. Any urban school system is going to be difficult to navigate and difficult to figure out how to meet the needs of such a diverse group of people. I have heard that some of the elementary schools in San Francisco are excellent, but you have to be extremely diligent. There certainly are aspects of this model that work for some people, and not all parents are disgruntled. This doesn't sound substantially different from people who live in Chicago, New York, or DC to me, just they have completely taken out the notion of boundaries rather than paying lip service to them. It seems to me that if you want to be freed from the tyranny of choice and bureaucracy when it comes to schools, move to the 'burbs.

Except there's nothing significantly different in a "suburban" school model and a city's -- they are both school districts, with the same class/economic problems that exist anywhere. Just take a look: there are plenty of under-performing schools in the suburbs, based upon the conditions present in their respective school districts. If you take away the "in-boundary" system for establishing a school's student population, you ruin the conditions that make a school "good" -- and the families with means to move simply move to a place where a higher-performing school population is assured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NO! I know someone who didn't get into any school in SF she applied too. It was TWO weeks before her daughter could get "assigned" some random school.It was an epic cluster fuck.

Yes! This is very common. It's a much more stressful process than in DC. No guarentees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

...this idea doesn't make sense if it's been shown not to result in a better school system. By all reports, the idea has "not worked" in San Francisco (that is, the schools are not any better, in fact, they are worse), so the premise that it should be done here seems inherently flawed, imo. You could just as easily say that those in favor of such an idea are so full of resentment against the status quo that they cannot see the logical flaw in the proposal: because if you do it, things get WORSE, not better. As the author original author stated: going to a charter is an option that exists now -- and, imo, the presence of ever-better charters under our current system certainly isn't making it any worse.

The lottery in San Francisco has only been going on for a few years. The neighborhood model has been going on for 100+ years. Wait five years and see what's going on in the school system. Any urban school system is going to be difficult to navigate and difficult to figure out how to meet the needs of such a diverse group of people. I have heard that some of the elementary schools in San Francisco are excellent, but you have to be extremely diligent. There certainly are aspects of this model that work for some people, and not all parents are disgruntled. This doesn't sound substantially different from people who live in Chicago, New York, or DC to me, just they have completely taken out the notion of boundaries rather than paying lip service to them. It seems to me that if you want to be freed from the tyranny of choice and bureaucracy when it comes to schools, move to the 'burbs.

Do you realize it takes a second to realize you don't know what you are talking about? SF has had a lottery for at least 2 decades, and has been a complete failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

...this idea doesn't make sense if it's been shown not to result in a better school system. By all reports, the idea has "not worked" in San Francisco (that is, the schools are not any better, in fact, they are worse), so the premise that it should be done here seems inherently flawed, imo. You could just as easily say that those in favor of such an idea are so full of resentment against the status quo that they cannot see the logical flaw in the proposal: because if you do it, things get WORSE, not better. As the author original author stated: going to a charter is an option that exists now -- and, imo, the presence of ever-better charters under our current system certainly isn't making it any worse.

The lottery in San Francisco has only been going on for a few years. The neighborhood model has been going on for 100+ years. Wait five years and see what's going on in the school system. Any urban school system is going to be difficult to navigate and difficult to figure out how to meet the needs of such a diverse group of people. I have heard that some of the elementary schools in San Francisco are excellent, but you have to be extremely diligent. There certainly are aspects of this model that work for some people, and not all parents are disgruntled. This doesn't sound substantially different from people who live in Chicago, New York, or DC to me, just they have completely taken out the notion of boundaries rather than paying lip service to them. It seems to me that if you want to be freed from the tyranny of choice and bureaucracy when it comes to schools, move to the 'burbs.

Except there's nothing significantly different in a "suburban" school model and a city's -- they are both school districts, with the same class/economic problems that exist anywhere. Just take a look: there are plenty of under-performing schools in the suburbs, based upon the conditions present in their respective school districts. If you take away the "in-boundary" system for establishing a school's student population, you ruin the conditions that make a school "good" -- and the families with means to move simply move to a place where a higher-performing school population is assured.

You canNOT talk about DC suburbs as if they are all alike. There is PG... and there's Fairfax. It is NOT true that they have the "same class/economic problems that exist anywhere" - tell me what those problems look like in Fairfax compared to PG?

At least you make it clear from the 2nd part of your statement that you don't give a rat's a$$ about the low SES students in Southeast DC. Because in boundary is not helping make conditions in Anacostia schools better, so your statement only applies to the areas that already have "good" DCPS schools. You are only concerned about maintaining the "good schools" where the parents "have means to move to where a higher-performing school is assured". I think that sucks and is self-serving beyond belief, but at least you're not pretending to care about low SES kids like many here do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Breaking apart segregation via income makes sense to me and removing this notion that you have to buy into a million dollar house neighborhood to receive a quality education."

...this idea doesn't make sense if it's been shown not to result in a better school system. By all reports, the idea has "not worked" in San Francisco (that is, the schools are not any better, in fact, they are worse), so the premise that it should be done here seems inherently flawed, imo. You could just as easily say that those in favor of such an idea are so full of resentment against the status quo that they cannot see the logical flaw in the proposal: because if you do it, things get WORSE, not better. As the author original author stated: going to a charter is an option that exists now -- and, imo, the presence of ever-better charters under our current system certainly isn't making it any worse.

What specifically is worse in SF schools now, and how did their current system cause it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

...this idea doesn't make sense if it's been shown not to result in a better school system. By all reports, the idea has "not worked" in San Francisco (that is, the schools are not any better, in fact, they are worse), so the premise that it should be done here seems inherently flawed, imo. You could just as easily say that those in favor of such an idea are so full of resentment against the status quo that they cannot see the logical flaw in the proposal: because if you do it, things get WORSE, not better. As the author original author stated: going to a charter is an option that exists now -- and, imo, the presence of ever-better charters under our current system certainly isn't making it any worse.

The lottery in San Francisco has only been going on for a few years. The neighborhood model has been going on for 100+ years. Wait five years and see what's going on in the school system. Any urban school system is going to be difficult to navigate and difficult to figure out how to meet the needs of such a diverse group of people. I have heard that some of the elementary schools in San Francisco are excellent, but you have to be extremely diligent. There certainly are aspects of this model that work for some people, and not all parents are disgruntled. This doesn't sound substantially different from people who live in Chicago, New York, or DC to me, just they have completely taken out the notion of boundaries rather than paying lip service to them. It seems to me that if you want to be freed from the tyranny of choice and bureaucracy when it comes to schools, move to the 'burbs.

Except there's nothing significantly different in a "suburban" school model and a city's -- they are both school districts, with the same class/economic problems that exist anywhere. Just take a look: there are plenty of under-performing schools in the suburbs, based upon the conditions present in their respective school districts. If you take away the "in-boundary" system for establishing a school's student population, you ruin the conditions that make a school "good" -- and the families with means to move simply move to a place where a higher-performing school population is assured.

You canNOT talk about DC suburbs as if they are all alike. There is PG... and there's Fairfax. It is NOT true that they have the "same class/economic problems that exist anywhere" - tell me what those problems look like in Fairfax compared to PG?

At least you make it clear from the 2nd part of your statement that you don't give a rat's a$$ about the low SES students in Southeast DC. Because in boundary is not helping make conditions in Anacostia schools better, so your statement only applies to the areas that already have "good" DCPS schools. You are only concerned about maintaining the "good schools" where the parents "have means to move to where a higher-performing school is assured". I think that sucks and is self-serving beyond belief, but at least you're not pretending to care about low SES kids like many here do.

So how would you propose to "fix" the alleged problems in PG County public schools? Bus them to Fairfax county (even though many schools in Fairfax county are also under-performing)? I think the entire premise of such thinking is deeply flawed. You can't fix class/economic problems through bussing or boundaries. You can address such evils as discrimination, when and where it happens -- but to equate low-performing school populations with malevolent discrimination is illogical.