+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. #21
    I wonder if they'll adjust the system in the second and third round, considering how disastrous the first round results seem. Or like any bureaucracy, they'll wait until next year while our children this year suffer as the guinea pigs.

  2. #22

    The Case for School Equality

    A guest post on Rachel Norton's blog:
    Every year a significant number of San Francisco families are denied access to a viable public school option for their kids. In some cases it is the result of sheer misfortune as a result of the lottery system. In other cases it is the “misfortune” of living in an area with an undesirable attendance area school and a preference system that favors you going to that school, not escaping it. In all cases, it is unfair.

    Neighborhood School Assignments Will Not Work Unless Disparity Between Schools is Reduced

    I disagree that because only 24% of people selected their neighborhood school as their first choice that parents do not want a neighborhood school system.

    Just about every parent I know dreams of being able to walk to, or be in close proximity to, their kid’s school…assuming of course its a good school. But, under the new assignment system you still have the same set of desirable and undesirable schools in place. You can’t expect people to automatically want to go to a struggling school simply because it is now their “neighborhood school.” And it is unfair to place the burden of turning that school around solely on the families that live in that attendance area.

    Data does not accurately reflect demand

    The preliminary data shows that the neighborhood school assignment system did work in neighborhoods where the school is desirable: Clarendon (62 first choice requests from the assignment area), Sherman (51), Miraloma (47) just as examples. Even in desirable neighborhood schools not considered the top 14 most requested schools, the data shows that the number of applicants who requested those schools as a first choice exceeded the capacity of the school: New Traditions, Grattan, Sloat for example. High percentages of offers for these schools went to attendance area applicants, demonstrating that there is demand for quality neighborhood schools, despite the fact that data indicates system wide a low percentage of people listed their attendance area school as a first choice

    True demand for neighborhood schools is not accurately quantified in the preliminary data. For example, many parents in the Grattan attendance area who I know listed Rooftop as their first choice. Rooftop is one of the cities top schools and is a K-8 (as opposed to Grattan which is a K-5). Given the close proximity of Rooftop to Cole Valley parents considered it a great “neighborhood school” option (even though it wasn’t their attendance area school and expressed their preference for a K-8. They did so because the new lottery system did not penalize them for the order in which schools were listed.

    read more>>

  3. #23
    The more time I've let passed since the assignment letter, the more frustrated I've become. Just why did SFUSD feel like they need to overhaul the assignment system. Under the old system, at least we all had just about equal chances of getting the good schools. Now, the CTIP1s have the golden tickets and leaving the scraps for the rest of us. How is that fair, especially when so many CTIP1s are gaming the system? It's no wonder people lose faith in the public school system.

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts