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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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 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.

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

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!

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

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.