^^That is why I am worried about Bowser embracing a city wide lottery to rally her base. What is to stop her?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IIRC, a couple years ago there was an article about SF losing families. Problem is that DINKs, gay people without kids, and single families aren't going to vote to help schools. It's a non-issue for them. There have been lots of people threating to leave the city and responses saying that it's fine because it makes room for them. What happens if families are outnumbered? Will politicians ignore the majority in favor of the families left in the city?

A friend who finally left SF for the suburbs over the schools, said it was increasingly clear that city hall's core constituency was gay men with dogs.

Families should seriously consider the outcomes of being out voted by people without kids. Some seems so flippant about it without considering the consequences.

Anonymous wrote:IIRC, a couple years ago there was an article about SF losing families. Problem is that DINKs, gay people without kids, and single families aren't going to vote to help schools. It's a non-issue for them. There have been lots of people threating to leave the city and responses saying that it's fine because it makes room for them. What happens if families are outnumbered? Will politicians ignore the majority in favor of the families left in the city?

A friend who finally left SF for the suburbs over the schools, said it was increasingly clear that city hall's core constituency was gay men with dogs.

Forget the undergrad papers, then. Check this out for a more balanced and accurate reflection of why SF is not a model we should choose to emulate:

http://elizabethweise.wordpress.com/

30% of San Francisco children attend private school--one of the highest rates in the country. Other major urban centers, including New York, don't even come close. Is that really what we want for our city?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, here is the link: http://web.williams.edu/Economics/Honors/2007/Fernandez_thesis.pdf

My goodness, a 7 year old paper written as some random senior's undergraduate thesis!!!! Well there it is, irrefutable proof! What more evidence does she need?? (because my 6th grader made a diorama proving the same!)

LOL. Yeah, remembering the effort I put into my (self-important/grandiose sounding) law school article . .. not impressed/interested AT ALL in ANYTHING by an undergrad/someone without serious creds behind his/her name.

IIRC, a couple years ago there was an article about SF losing families. Problem is that DINKs, gay people without kids, and single families aren't going to vote to help schools. It's a non-issue for them. There have been lots of people threating to leave the city and responses saying that it's fine because it makes room for them. What happens if families are outnumbered? Will politicians ignore the majority in favor of the families left in the city?

And anyway, I trust a Williams undergrad honors thesis more than I do those consultant yokels masterminding "controlled choice" here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, here is the link: http://web.williams.edu/Economics/Honors/2007/Fernandez_thesis.pdf

My goodness, a 7 year old paper written as some random senior's undergraduate thesis!!!! Well there it is, irrefutable proof! What more evidence does she need?? (because my 6th grader made a diorama proving the same!)

Want to dig up something better? I am all ears.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, here is the link: http://web.williams.edu/Economics/Honors/2007/Fernandez_thesis.pdf

My goodness, a 7 year old paper written as some random senior's undergraduate thesis!!!! Well there it is, irrefutable proof! What more evidence does she need?? (because my 6th grader made a diorama proving the same!)

What more evidence does Abigail Smith want against city wide choice?

Plan B!

Sorry, here is the link: http://web.williams.edu/Economics/Honors/2007/Fernandez_thesis.pdf

This thesis indicates that city-wide choice in SF served to make the worse performing schools even worse off. That makes sense to me. With citywide choice, those who get a good choice by dint of luck benefit. Those unlucky ones who can afford it leave the city. That leaves the unlucky poor ones stuck at their crappy schools, that just get crappier.

Choice seems to just cover up the fact that you need more than socio-economic integration to improve education in gentrified cities.