San Francisco: a good model for DC?

[Anonymous]

How different is this from the NY model from which I understand that you either go neighborhood or apply to a certain number of schools. I know NYT has had some crisis pieces that this has not worked for some kids who have parents that don't know how to work the system.

It seems to me that SF, NY and DC are all facing the fundamental disparity issue. Rich people don't like poor people around emphasizing how much privilege they have. Middle class at best can barely hold on and have to move. If you are poor your just screwed. We are just depending too much on our schools to straighten out fundamental changes in our economy and values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How different is this from the NY model from which I understand that you either go neighborhood or apply to a certain number of schools. I know NYT has had some crisis pieces that this has not worked for some kids who have parents that don't know how to work the system.

It seems to me that SF, NY and DC are all facing the fundamental disparity issue. Rich people don't like poor people around emphasizing how much privilege they have. Middle class at best can barely hold on and have to move. If you are poor your just screwed. We are just depending too much on our schools to straighten out fundamental changes in our economy and values.

In SF, there is not the option to stay at your neighborhood school. You have to enter the lottery like everyone else - people living in the neighborhood aren't given a preference at all. The lottery system is very complex - you rank your top choices out of all the schools in the city (this means parents may tour 10-20+ schools before they rank them) - and even then, you might not be assigned one of your ranked schools. So there is no way of escaping the stress in this system. I do agree with your second paragraph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are wrong to assume my post suggests any proposal to fix PG. I am simply pointing out that the PP before me is lumping the "suburbs" all together as if the problems and strengths are the same one suburb to the next. That is so totally wrong it undermines her whole point.

Other than that, I don't know the dynamics specific to PG co schools' problems as well so I do not have a specific answer to propose. I just know that poster was NOT talking about PG or PG-like counties and doesn't care what happens to them because that was clear from her post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I know it's Christmas, but hoping sometime after the eggnog haze wears off someone can answer this question because it's hard to buy into "the SF system is TERRIBLE!" when so far no one has specified what exactly is worse and how the new system caused whatever is worse.

[Anonymous]

Please read this: http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Policy%20Brief%202-%20Student%20Assignment%20Policies%20in%20Other%20Cities_Final%20Draft.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I know it's Christmas, but hoping sometime after the eggnog haze wears off someone can answer this question because it's hard to buy into "the SF system is TERRIBLE!" when so far no one has specified what exactly is worse and how the new system caused whatever is worse.

I'm the one who lives in sf and has a dd in their public elementary school. I'm seeing a lot of misinformation here. I have neve r heard of kids not being assigned to ANY school. The kids who live in the truly rich neighborhoods - pacific heights, nob hill, etc - go to private school, but e kids in the regularly well off neighborhoods like noe valley go to public school.

What I have noticed is that in our particular case, is that I picked a school that was very diverse in terms of race, nationality, culture, income, etc., but because so many people heard such. Great things about this school also, e more savvy people were picking this school too. So when dd arrived, there are no black kids in her class. She is the only white kid to get free breakfast. It's now a less diverse school. The majority of dd's classmates are middle class here, but would be well off anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

What I have noticed is that in our particular case, is that I picked a school that was very diverse in terms of race, nationality, culture, income, etc., but because so many people heard such. Great things about this school also, e more savvy people were picking this school too. So when dd arrived, there are no black kids in her class. She is the only white kid to get free breakfast. It's now a less diverse school. The majority of dd's classmates are middle class here, but would be well off anywhere else.

I was under the impression that what's bad about the SF model is that it's completely random, with no considerations given to geography, and no one can really "pick" anything

So the real issue is that everyone is kinda well off? That would make sense given the cost of living there.

But now my question is, why are we talking about the SF model again??? The possibility of adopting here seems about as remote as the city is from DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I know nothing about SF, but "breaking apart segregation via income" through a citywide lottery for DCPS would be an incredibly stupid thing to do in DC. The result would be to destroy the good schools that are there now, and would do nothing to improve the failing ones. schools in upper NW and CH are doing great because there is a high number of kids from well educated, committed families. mostly IB for those schools (although not always - Hearst is a great school with a majority of OOB population). a citywide lottery would destroy these schools (making them less useful to poor kids from failing schools), and would certainly not improve the failing schools. I live in CHCH (not rich, rented for ages in a 2bd apt with two kids, finally bought a small fixer upper that will never be fixed), two parents working full time and two kids, DH works in Rockville and drives there with the only car we have, our families live thousands of miles away, so no help from Granma in picking up the kids from school. we have already a very hectic and stressful life, and our kids' elementary school is less than 5 min away by car, 15 on foot. there is no way in hell we could (and would ) drive one kid to Anacostia and the other to Georgetown if these are the lottery picks (or even both to the same school in similar locations) every day back and forth during rush hour. it takes 30 minutes on Sunday, with no traffic for us to drive to Union Station. from our home to a school in Capitol Hill or Anacostia the commute would be probably over an hour (just to the school, then we would have to drive to work). if this type of proposal is approved, we would apply to a charter and if we did not get in, we would move to MD. we are not selfish, we are realistic. simply because we are barely making now as it is, and driving the kids all over town would simply not be a viable option for us (and BTW, if I liked driving for hours every day, maybe we would have bought or rented in far out counties where schools are good, cost of living lower). I think there are plenty of other families in our situation. they would pull the kids from DCPS and go private, charter or move. driving a good chunk of the families who are contributing to make good schools good our of DCPS does not sound like a winning strategy.

this system may work elsewhere, but not in DC. we have family in the Midwest, in a town of about 100K people, little traffic and so on. in order to have higher SES diversity, a couple of years ago some kids were moved from their neighborhood HS to different HS in town. our nephew was one of the kids who had to change school, going to a HS on the other side of town. the family was not happy, but they accepted the situation. he was 16, was driving and the move to a school the other side of town resulted in a commute of 15-20 minutes while the original was only 5. so not too bad. In DC, a drive to the other side of town would take over an hour in traffic. people who have the means to avoid it, would most likely do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I know nothing about SF, but "breaking apart segregation via income" through a citywide lottery for DCPS would be an incredibly stupid thing to do in DC. The result would be to destroy the good schools that are there now, and would do nothing to improve the failing ones. schools in upper NW and CH are doing great because there is a high number of kids from well educated, committed families. mostly IB for those schools (although not always - Hearst is a great school with a majority of OOB population). a citywide lottery would destroy these schools (making them less useful to poor kids from failing schools), and would certainly not improve the failing schools. I live in CHCH (not rich, rented for ages in a 2bd apt with two kids, finally bought a small fixer upper that will never be fixed), two parents working full time and two kids, DH works in Rockville and drives there with the only car we have, our families live thousands of miles away, so no help from Granma in picking up the kids from school. we have already a very hectic and stressful life, and our kids' elementary school is less than 5 min away by car, 15 on foot. there is no way in hell we could (and would ) drive one kid to Anacostia and the other to Georgetown if these are the lottery picks (or even both to the same school in similar locations) every day back and forth during rush hour. it takes 30 minutes on Sunday, with no traffic for us to drive to Union Station. from our home to a school in Capitol Hill or Anacostia the commute would be probably over an hour (just to the school, then we would have to drive to work). if this type of proposal is approved, we would apply to a charter and if we did not get in, we would move to MD. we are not selfish, we are realistic. simply because we are barely making now as it is, and driving the kids all over town would simply not be a viable option for us (and BTW, if I liked driving for hours every day, maybe we would have bought or rented in far out counties where schools are good, cost of living lower). I think there are plenty of other families in our situation. they would pull the kids from DCPS and go private, charter or move. driving a good chunk of the families who are contributing to make good schools good our of DCPS does not sound like a winning strategy.

this system may work elsewhere, but not in DC. we have family in the Midwest, in a town of about 100K people, little traffic and so on. in order to have higher SES diversity, a couple of years ago some kids were moved from their neighborhood HS to different HS in town. our nephew was one of the kids who had to change school, going to a HS on the other side of town. the family was not happy, but they accepted the situation. he was 16, was driving and the move to a school the other side of town resulted in a commute of 15-20 minutes while the original was only 5. so not too bad. In DC, a drive to the other side of town would take over an hour in traffic. people who have the means to avoid it, would most likely do it.

Thank you PP for your examples And reasoning. I think you hit the head on the nail. Yes- you wound prefer to stay in the city. But making city wide lottery might make it hard to keep doing so.

[Anonymous]

To the poster claiming these issues don't exist in the suburbs and so on, may I be so lame as to point to the show Friday night lights? Small town America, socioeconomic status still a big deal. A big city it does not take for this type of disparity to exist. I then submit, DC is not some special exception where boundaries should disappear. Unless you mean to say every city everywhere would benefit from this type of lottery chaos.

[Anonymous]

So why are we debating the SF system in the first place, again? Consensus seem to be (and I'd agree) that if we got rid of boundaries in D.C., parents of academically-achieving kids would move out immediately and the whole "rank your 20 favorite schools" thing would be chaos. Why would anybody want that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why are we debating the SF system in the first place, again? Consensus seem to be (and I'd agree) that if we got rid of boundaries in D.C., parents of academically-achieving kids would move out immediately and the whole "rank your 20 favorite schools" thing would be chaos. Why would anybody want that?

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why are we debating the SF system in the first place, again? Consensus seem to be (and I'd agree) that if we got rid of boundaries in D.C., parents of academically-achieving kids would move out immediately and the whole "rank your 20 favorite schools" thing would be chaos. Why would anybody want that?

Agreed.

I don't think anyone wants this, I think we, the DCUM population is afraid it might happen anyway.

[Anonymous]

The policy brief gives absolutely no reason to consider the SF model. It says clearly that SF's approach in the past (effectively removing boundaries) did not achieve it's intended goals.

They then changed their policies to give a low (heretofore effectively zero) weight to being in the neighborhood of the school. However, they applyapply the following tie-breakers in order for elementary schools:

Sibling attending school?
NCLB child?
Come from an area with worst test scores in the city?
Are you in the attendance area?
Randomness?

Are you f*ing kidding me? That's how lottery priority is determine!?!

Adopt this and we can count the tire tracks on the street as people flee DCPS and DC.

[Anonymous]

DME is looking at SF because diversity and equality is what. They are aiming for. So what city's model do you propose?