.jpg)
A beautiful day in the neighborhood.
Neighborhood schools are a fine thing, in the general sense. They make families’ lives easier, reduce our carbon footprint, give us more time to live our lives, and encourage neighbors to get to know each other.
There’s a new passion for neighborhood schools among younger parents, and at least one community organization, called Plan C, is pushing for an assignment system that stresses them. And that’s all understandable.
But some of the advocacy blames the current all-choice assignment system for problems in our school district, and applies magical thinking to a future based on neighborhood assignment, speculating that it would inherently improve all schools, build parent involvement and enhance communities.
Those attitudes need a reality check – it’s not helpful to go into a project with unrealistic expectations and a lack of sense of history.
The fact is, only 10 years ago, most SFUSD assignments were to default neighborhood schools. Most families had certainty and a guaranteed school of assignment. But here’s the dash of cold water: A large number of middle-class families did not want the neighborhood school they were assigned to. In that era – this was the case in the 1990s, when my family first applied to SFUSD kindergarten (for fall 1996) – the official word was that families could only get their school of assignment or an alternative school (an official SFUSD designation for about 15 schools that had no neighborhood assignment area). Some alternative schools were highly popular and oversubscribed (Argonne, Buena Vista, Clarendon, Claire Lilienthal, Lakeshore, Lawton, Rooftop). A few were unpopular with middle-class families at the time and viewed as not a feasible option to the equally unpopular neighborhood school of assignment (21st-Century Academy, Charles Drew, Harvey Milk).
So families in my time understood that our choices were limited to our mandatory assignment-area school or a lottery for a prized, oversubscribed school that was nearly impossible to get into. (Some parts of the city were “satellite zones” for schools outside their neighborhood, a bizarre twist to the setup that mostly affected low-income areas.)
This was the setup that drove so many families off to private schools or suburbia.
Just before our day, another family-unfriendly policy made things even tougher. In the early ‘90s, families had to be officially “released” from their neighborhood school of assignment before they could apply to an alternative school. In that era’s version of a “diversity index,” they would not be released if they added diversity to the school. So even more families waved bye-bye to SFUSD because of that.
Then there was the era of camping out. In the ‘80s, alternative school enrollment was first-come, first-served. This meant that families lined up on the playground several days before the magic moment when applications were due. My cousin and his wife, taking shifts with my aunt and uncle, got their kids into Claire Lilienthal that way. All the best people did it --Nobel laureate Harold Varmus, for one, camped on the schoolyard to get his kids into Lakeshore (you read it here first).
Under that system, probably fewer families fled the district, because if you could just handle the logistics of the campout, you did have certainty. Needless to say, this system favored the resourced and comfortable. That’s why Ramon Cortines, superintendent here from 1987-’93 and now head of L.A. Unified, banished it by fiat, to howls of outraged from middle-class parents.
Through all these systems, the consistent thread was lots and lots of middle-class parents' not wanting – absolutely refusing – their neighborhood schools. The middle-class values system at that time (at least the ’80s through 2000) held that convenience must take a backseat to concern for the quality of our children’s education.
Things have changed. I follow the chatter among younger parents, and I get it. For one thing, the term “carbon footprint” was unknown in my day and earlier – and there are other shifts in values and ideals at work.
For the record, my family’s neighborhood school of assignment was then-unpopular Miraloma, around the corner from our house. We refused it and fought successfully to get into Lakeshore, about a 15-minute drive from us.
Here are three points, and then I’ll dispel a few myths (as I perceive them), because I do think the neighborhood schools push needs to be grounded in reality.
- This seems obvious, but: How you feel about neighborhood schools largely depends on what schools are in your neighborhood. The notion that everyone covets assignment to the nearby school just because it's nearby is not based on reality.
- Those younger than I am may not be aware of this, but “neighborhood schools” used to be a racist code. Today, I don’t know any white parents who don’t want their kids in ethnically diverse schools, but a neighborhood schools system in a city of segregated neighborhoods does promote segregated schools. So this connotation is something to be aware of.
- A school board member recently made a comment at a meeting indicating that , as she perceives it, parents are willing to travel out of their way to get their kids to get to a school they prefer. Some younger parents were put off by that remark, assuming the official was out of touch and insensitive. But actually, that was exactly the case until recently. I can give endless examples of families I know spurning convenient nearby schools in favor of faraway alternative schools or distant private schools (at great expense, in the latter case). The values system until very recently viewed it as, basically, irresponsible parenting to put a priority on convenience over the perceived quality of the school. The change has been recent and sudden, so please cut veterans a little slack for not grasping that immediately.
Here are what I see as some myths and facts.
Myth: Of course all families would prefer their neighborhood schools.
Reality: See above.
Myth: All schools would be more successful if neighborhood families were assigned to them.
Reality: See above. And in fact, when we first applied, far fewer SFUSD schools were considered successful and desirable enough to attract middle-class families. The number has not just increased but exploded in recent years, under the all-choice system. I’m not saying correlation equals causation, but that’s the situation.
Myth: It’s the uncertainty and the fact that no one is guaranteed a nearby school that has driven a high percentage (about a third) of San Francisco families off to private school.
Reality: That percentage has held steady since the early ’80s, during the time that most families were guaranteed their neighborhood schools. As an involved SFUSD parent for 13 years now, I’ve seen the assumption that “anyone who can afford it goes to private school” transform, in fact. It has been under the all-choice system that San Francisco parents have approached, if not reached, a tipping point at which families who once would have looked only at private are now open to public school.
Myth: If everyone were assigned to their neighborhood schools, parents would be more committed to getting involved at school, and communities would be strengthened.
Reality: The countervailing view is that families who have sought out a school and taken some trouble to get their kids into it, not to mention to and from school every day, have a greater sense of ownership and are more likely to be involved. At the very least, it’s a wash. Families involuntarily assigned to schools outside the neighborhood would be a different story, of course.
Semi-myth: Schools have become less diverse under the all-choice system, so neighborhood schools would not increase segregation and might even promote diversity.
Reality: It’s true that SFUSD schools have become less diverse during the era of the all-choice system, but that’s because the former system imposed racial enrollment quotas on each school. Those quotas were outlawed by the Ho court decision in the late ‘90s. The elimination of the quotas coincided with the all-choice system, but it’s the elimination of the quotas that increased segregation. And back when all families were guaranteed an assignment-area school, it was almost always the alternative schools – which were all-choice – that were the most diverse.
(I do have to note that San Francisco schools are far more diverse than schools in most big U.S. cities, where it’s routine to see schools that are 95 percent black or Latino. Also, the standard in SFUSD is that a school that is 60 percent or more of any one ethnicity is viewed as segregated. By private school or suburban standards, a mere 60 percent of any one ethnicity would be viewed as heartwarmingly diverse.)
All this said, I understand and support the desire for convenient, nearby, community-based schools. I think proximity should carry significant weight in the assignment process, except in the case of specialty programs such as language immersion schools. I do think it would be logistically impossible to guarantee access to popular schools, and I support a preference system for at-risk, disadvantaged families' school choices, though I don't have a simple criterion for identifying those families. Again, I just think the advocates for neighborhood schools need to be aware of reality and recent history, and avoid magical thinking.
The big picture: SFUSD schools are getting better and better, and the new interest among young parents is a positive sign for our schools and our community.
Comments
As a parent of 1 child soon to enter HS and another soon to enter MS and a resident of the South-East quadrant of SF, I am very disturbed about this new enthusiasm for neighborhood schools, which seems to be felt primarily by parents of incoming kindergarteners and Carlos Garcia, who would like to save the tremendous cost of busing students from our part of the city to higher performing schools elsewhere. I certainly don't see neighborhood schools as a means of achieving greater social equity in the SFUSD.
Awesome historical background! This is a thorny issue right now to say the least. For those of us who are new Kindergarten parents and are super keen on being able to walk our kids to school, it helps to know the history behind the issue. I think whatever the District has done the last 10 years it has created a ton of really great elementary schools. Now to make my life even more perfect here in the city, I'd like to be able to walk my kid to one of them. Times change, maybe strategies for achieving all the social goals we embrace need to change from time to time as well.
Very interesting and thoughtfully written. I tried (and failed) to get my son into our highly desired "neighborhood school" (West Portal) last year, and complained it was "so unfair" we didn't get in after round 1. Well, it was unfair -- to us. But I can appreciate now (even before reading this) that it would be unfair that people who weren't able to buy or rent in the area didn't have an equal shot at getting in. This article adds a nice historical perspective. Also nice to hear that SF schools are improving.
Thanks for the comments! Yes, I think the system needs to recognize that times and circumstances have changed. Two things are the environmental issue -- an obvious one -- and the fact that in the big picture, the '60s-'70s notion that it would work out to mix kids up via involuntary busing/crosstown assignments didn't quite happen. Remnants of that notion still exist in our assignment process.
My wife and I are expecting our firstborn in the next couple of weeks. For environmental and economic reasons we don't own a car. If we don't get him into a school close by how does the city intend for him to get half way across town in the morning?
Hi CarLess -- well, the SFUSD assignment process actually assigns students to the closest school to their home address that has openings.
This past year saw many, many families getting none of their choices in the lottery, and quite a few getting none even when they chose a second list of seven in the second round of the lottery. Eventually most were placed satisfactorily (I know a couple who are OK with their schools but really want to change for various reasons, and one "parked" in a private school hoping for better luck this year).
But those who didn't get their choices tended to be assigned, in clusters, to less-popular schools in their part of the city -- because those are the closest schools with openings. In the Glen Park/Noe/Bernal area, they all seemed to be assigned to Junipero Serra, near Holly Park. I don't know if ANY middle-class families who hadn't chosen Junipero Serra ended up enrolling there. However, it wasn't across town -- none of them objected to the distance. If distance is the big concern, it's not THAT likely to be an obstacle.
In any case, yes, the environmental concern is yet another good reason to want a close-by school. But as I explained, my post gives the history showing that even in the fairly recent past, families tended NOT to want their neighborhood, schools, so this is a new development.
(A technicality, BTW -- the city doesn't run the school district; it's a state agency.)
I enjoyed your article. I went through the painful school assignment process six years ago. Ultimately, we ended up with one of our top choices after much stress by changing schools one month into kindergarten. We were even close to bailing out of SF for Marin (Yuk!).
I am very curious to see what the new assignment process will look like. I hope it will be a system that takes into account verifiable information (I heard numerous stories of people who gamed the old system) and that highly favors sustainability. I am looking forward to the meeting tomorrow night to hear about the new plan.
I agree.
Excellent historical perspective. As a resident of the south eastern quadrant, I lived thru the 90's lottery system. Unfortunately the neighborhood schools here are less than adequate, one is in danger of closing. It would be no great "privilege" to send my child to a failing neighborhood school. It comes down to who has enough money to afford the best properties near the best schools.
The problems and nuances you laid out are only worse once you get a child through elementary and middle school in San Francisco. SF high schools are desperately lacking in resources, talent and real vision. Instead they are bogged down in arcane ‘state’ policies which don’t serve our students, labor force or our community as a whole. To illustrate, look at the amount of remedial courses offered at local junior colleges because kids in Oakland and SF just aren’t getting the basics mastered. The truth is the majority of students who have kids in SF eventually move away because it’s so difficult to achieve balance life because of cost. If you’re fortunate enough to scrape out a decent living (over $70,000 a year for the average family of 4) then you take to the ‘burbs’. Kids here in the City don’t have safe places to play, grow and develop once their past the ‘nanny’ stage (no nannies here).
We’re a City of Yuppies (a term from the 80’s from a product of the 80’s). We’re so worried about being equitable we’ve created greater inequity where it counts with our kids. I’m raising three kids here in the City and feel completely disenchanted from experience at how much worse our schools are once you pass elementary school. Middle schools are run-down (look at Hoover and that’s a good school), understaffed and once you get into high school run by people who may not be able to function outside of the sheltered world of SF Public Education. The fact is SF has only one good public high school and that’s, Lowell (SOTA is hit miss depending on the year and Wash/Lincoln don’t score over 800 on the API). There plenty of choices at the elementary level and that is because there are so many ‘new’ parents that duke it out in the City at this stage, but most of these parents and families will move away. Elementary education at the private level is even affordable if you consider a basic Catholic education (like Gavin Newsome, the Pelosi’s, Hongistos and Alioto’s of the world). It’s when you get to high school that things get desperate, and isn’t that what determines much of what your early adult life offers you? Look at the numbers, API’s for SF high schools have not exceeded the 800 threshold for over 20 years outside of Lowell and only gotten inconsistent at best through ‘All Choice’ (lack of Choice) system.
Folks, we don’t know what to do! We have a daughter assigned to Mission High School and fear not that she’ll be unsafe but that she may not get the basics! Basics like algebra, English Lit., sports, music, history, geometry and sciences. We have a daughter that was assigned there in 2006 and missed Algebra and was given IMF – some backwards approach to teaching kids ‘real life’ math created in theory by some Ivy League scholar but applied by some State trained bureaucrat like Ackerman or Garcia. And worst is on less than $100k with an unemployed spouse, one step kid in college, one in high school and a ‘gifted’ kid at an affordable private school, student loans of my own I’m paying off and two jobs that I’m working, how am I going to afford $30k a year for a decent high school? How?
I guess I will pick our belongings and rent a one bedroom apartment in Palo Alto where all the kids (Asian, Black and Latino) score above 950 every year.
H. Lara, I'm sorry to hear you're having an unsatisfactory experience with San Francisco schools. Many families would disagree with your perception that "there's only one good school" -- I'm a SOTA parent, and I know many kids who have had excellent experiences at Balboa, Lincoln, Washington, Galileo, Raoul Wallenberg -- and Mission too, and I'm still leaving some out -- and have done fine in college.
Many people disagree that focusing on the API is a valid gauge of a school's success. Because test scores correlate very, very closely with income, wags refer to the API as the "affluent parent index." And just for the heck of it I looked up Palo Alto Unified on the API website. Actually, I was assuming I would find that PA didn't have enough black or Latino students to have scores for them, but it does. Latino 746, African-American 700. Given that most people living in Palo Alto are very high-income, presumably most African-American and Latino families there are not the high-poverty families of color we see in diverse urban communities and would be expected to score higher than their urban counterparts. You get the idea.
Um I think SF's educational facilities are awful, and I'm not even from here. What's worse is that so many agree with em who were born and raised here. The dumbest people I've met went to Drew College, while I read essay in my english class fat city college of kids who graduated from Lowell, yet cannot manage to write a single grammatically correct sentence.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!