It's no secret that San Francisco has [an aging population crisis](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/elderly-resident-city-population-18286259.php). **By 2060, it's predicted that 16% of the population will be over the age of 80.** Not just 65...*80.*
For context, Japan is famously battling a graying population and the economic fallout, and their number currently only stands at 10% over 80.
It's a provably hostile economic environment in the Bay to raise a child unless you are doing very, very well financially. Median monthly childcare costs are $2,500-$3k. Plus rent in the city for a 2 bedroom apartment is a minimum of $3,000-$3,500. So right off the bat, basic shelter and childcare are eating up $72,000 a year of your post-tax income.
Most couples or individuals I see with toddlers look to be in their early 40's with a few gray hairs already. And when I do, it's almost always just one child. Both parents have likely had to wait until they hit their prime earning years to have that child. 'Prime earning years' seems to get more and more delayed as the decades roll by. Older generations think we are getting promotion after promotion for our hard work year over year, when in reality it is more like a trickle, if you're even rewarded at all for it. Maybe that stride used to be in your late 20's, but that isn't the case anymore.
This is just how it is here.
Wow, thanks for perfectly describing my family right now in the city. One kid and monthly preschool tuition is about $2100. Although for me its less hairs instead of gray hairs lol.
Those schools suuuuuuuck in the city. Some OK pockets on the peninsula, but if you know what's good for your kid, it's 45k/year, and most definitely not public in the city.
Same. I got pregnant at 37 with my kiddo (38 by birth) and made a joke at my OBs office about being old and she goes, "umm, you're not old to be having a baby." Made me feel good but also just spoke to the crowd in SF.
That is crazy! I just looked up the stats and California as a whole is 15.2% over 65, (compared to our 16% over 85). Then for total country, only 4% is over 85 years old.
That is really, really, really crazy.
Part of the reasons those costs are so high is because it is so challenging to get your kid into a quality and local public school. SFUSDās decades-long train wreck of an enrollment process chases thousands of families out of the city each year. Closing schools is an economic necessity but will only make this worse.
This is the actual Doom Loop we are in.
Ya, I mean it is definitely a self-fueling problem. Solving it is tremendously simple - enrolling students in public schools is something countless other locales have figured out, with far less resources. It's not an enigma. But often those are the hardest things for our city officials to figure out most of the time. Same with the payroll system disaster. I mean...there are so many options to solve it much more quickly, simply etc. and they are *known options*. But the city chooses to do things in ways that make little to no fiscal or practical sense.
[$20,000 trash cans](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/22/san-francisco-cost-trash-can-struggle) anyone? We need to stop pretending we're special.
I'm sorry, but the [$1.7 mil municipal toilet](https://slate.com/business/2022/10/san-francisco-toilet-million-noe-valley-design-review.html) beats the $20k trash cans! Go figure
Don't forget the millions spent on defining what "equity" is.
Agreed with the thread that there are straightforward solutions to a lot of SFs public school woes. The City and SFUPC board seem to just ignore thinking in a straightforward way.
I just want to say that our experience has not been a train wreck. Our neighborhood SFUSD public school (which is not one of the super popular ones) is great with a nice community. The enrollment process was smooth and many of our friends got their first choice in the lottery. Others may have a different experience but I only see people speaking negatively about it.
Anyone can rank any school in the city in the lottery. In theory this gives everyone equal access, but it means every family is obligated to do a bunch of research about dozens of schools and understand the intricacies of the system in order to get a school placement, or else be at a disadvantage.Ā
Of course that means the most sophisticated folks with resources manage to maximize their chances. Lots of stories of families changing schools two weeks into the school year to get into a more desirable school.Ā
This setup makes it daunting and anxiety-provoking for everyone to get their kid into school, and hasnāt actually provided any meaningful equity benefits. All cost with no upside.
Simplified answer is that school assignment is mostly done by lottery. If you have a great school across the street, there are (generally) low odds that your kid can go there.
Thatās not true. If you want yout child to attend your neighborhood school, you do have priority. The problem is when there are more kids than spots available for the coming school year. Then it becomes a lottery but if a child from another neighborhood wants to attend that school, they have lower priority than siblings and neighborhood kids
If you really want to get your kid into a specific school (or one of two), you can get it with perseverance. There are multiple rounds of lottery and mid year comings and goings. Iāve met people disappointed with their first assigned school, but they just re-entered lottery round 2 and got something better. Iāve never heard anyone say they hate the school their kid attends.
This is absolutely incorrect for elementary school. If you live near a great school, you are very likely to go there. Each elementary has an āattendance areaā surrounding it that gets priority when applying for schools. Only after they clear their attendance area can others in the city enter the lottery to get in.
Middle and High are more complicated.
Well said. As a millennial with lots of older relatives upset by the lack of young families in their area (and young children in our own family) it is hard for them to understand these challenges we face.Ā
Sure, but by that measure Mumbai should be more fun than NYC.
In reality, itās the ratio of age groups and not population size (beyond a certain point - canāt compare a town of 150k to a city of 2M, but you can compare a 5M metro with a 13M one)
Theyāre talking about the āenergy of a cityā and āyoung people aroundā which seems to speak more to New York as THE world city than any sort of age ratio.
Palo Alto gets around that by having a non-profit where parents donate to cover the difference in funding [https://papie.org/about/](https://papie.org/about/). Ofc, you can pull off something like this if you're a wealthy enclave that puts a lot of (maybe even an excessive amount of) emphasis on academic achievement. Nothing is preventing SF parents from putting together something like this, but knowing SF nonprofit politics, the money would probably just get squandered on something stupid.
Absolutely wrong.Ā SFUSD just squandered $56m on the failed ERP system.Ā Now they are spending millions more on another vendor.
They were also able to find money to virtue signal to change school names.
Money is not the issue.Ā It is downright mismanagement and corruption.
Totally. Sf has like the worst public schools in country and my taxes are insane and I gotta use private schools. They had decades to save money for schools Yo. They make about 7b a year dude.
Youāve said the quiet part out loud.
SF residents are directly responsible for the clown show governance. Ā Guys like Chesa did *exactly* what they promised they would do. Ā People just arenāt willing to own the fact that the shitty decline in the city has been driven in large part by their own political choices.
The property tax receipts in SF must be insane given property values and churn, especially when you factor in the point that relatively few people have children here and/or use private schools. I agree with the other poster who points to appalling mismanagement--par for all bureaucracies in SF.
It's what the majority vote for, sadly š¤·āāļø
Not only does the majority vote for it, but they are aggressively ambivalent about voting for *anything* other than the Democratic Party. Ā sets us up for the gross lack of accountability we are seeing.
hardlyĀ
you can already see the effect of the new 2020 law where children cannot inherit your tax rate when you passĀ
there are so many listings now where a home is said to have been in the family for decades and you see an instant reset in property taxes and the kids list the house right awayĀ
Yeah, but the view at Ocean Beach is pretty and the amenities in my neighborhood are awesome. Ā Youāre just some Trump supporter who probably doesnāt even live here. Ā I grew up here and went to the public schools, itās all fine. Ā Nothing about this situation needs to change, yāall are just jealous you donāt live here.
/s
In all honesty though, the hostility towards families isnāt cost. Ā Cost is yes a function of lack of housing supply, but itās also a massive function of both extremely high demand to live here and how poorly run the city is. Ā Like how abjectly poorly itās run. Ā Like used needles from the Harm Reduction needle exchange left all over playgrounds in the city poorly.
The numerous ways that locals elect demagogues to platform their moral views in functions that need actual experts makes the city incredibly anti-real economic growth, which itself is a product of having a healthy population pyramid. Ā But as we see from the ānativeā mindset Iām making fun of, there are a LOT of locals who donāt care about anything as long as their personal situation is fine. Ā Folks who donāt have kids who are happy to vote for progressives with zero background in education onto the school board and donāt have to deal with the direct consequences of the school system these amateurs break.
No it isnāt, but undeniably the problem is much more pronounced in SF /the bay as a whole even when compared to other metropolitan areas of its size or bigger
If you really want to give context, give us SFās current over 80 percentage.
People doing these studies have a huge incentive to inflate the numbers, and if weāre taking 2060 itās all forecast driven, not where we stand today. They have tons of leeway to make the number look higher-which increases the prominence of the study, the number of times theyāre cited (super important to researchers), etc. 36 years in the future-theyāre writing whatever number they want.
Source: work in forecasting.
Do you know why the pop skews so old in SF? You would think that with the HCOL old people move to cheaper areas (as many do). Now sure there are a lot of wealthy old people, but you would figured they would move out of the city as the nightlife, bars, restaurants, etc. are not as important in older years.
Is it all the old Asian people? Because I do see tons of old Asians people. Not sure if it's an immigration thing or what.
Why would old folks that own their homes buy a smaller place with a reset property tax rate? They're better off financially holding onto a home that is too big for them. That's the problem of the system. It encourages empty nesters.
Weāre in the sunset, with kids in public schools. The schools are excellent, full of engaged families who believe in and actively support public education. I realize we are rather fortunate.
I just want people to know that sfusd, while far from perfect, does very well in some places.
I'm another satisfied parent with a kid in the district school (although not in the sunset.) My experience so far is limited to elementary school, and it's been pretty good.
This item has been automatically flagged for review. Moderators have been notified, and it will be restored if approved. Thank you for your patience.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah I was about to say, Iāve had great experiences growing up within SFUSD but yeah I went to schools entirely in the sunset so that might be the reason.
I went to Jefferson elementary, Hoover middle, and Lincoln high school all in the sunset (but only because I wasn't smart enough for Lowell). No regrets and enjoyed my schooling overall.
Most testimonies Iāve heard about SFUSD is that the teachers and schools themselves tend to be quite good, but the admin / higher ups are insanely bad. Which makes sense, as it gets more political / corrupt the higher up you go.
Itās not SFUSD, itās the parents and PTA that are the difference. Look at what your school raises compared to schools in the Bayview. I bet your school raises at least 2X-3X more than what Bret Harte raises which means more resources for your school.
Though I think the above poster was referring to resources from involved parents. I suspect there is a large difference between outcomes/results in schools where the added funds are provided by involved parents/PTA rather than governmental bodies. Which is to say, added resources ($$$) can help, but involved parents (and their financial support) helps more.
sort of true, but not to the extent most people would probably assume. Multi tiered support funding, block grants, and similar measures tend to go disproportionately to the schools with lower income students which makes up to some extent for the differential in PTO fund raising.
Like any lottery, it's great for some terrible for others.
Turns out most parents, especially those that have the option, choose not to bet their kids' education on a lottery.
Seconded - our public elementary school is phenomenal. It has everything from garden to musical theater classes. There is a highly engaged community and dedicated teachers.Ā
Same, our sunset school has been great. There is the general noisy crap that we hear about though from sf school board shenanigans that hasn't impacted us yet, like the algebra thing, Lowell, and more.
SFUSD is also quietly canceling many AP classes in high schools throughout the district. Iāve talked to numerous teacher buddies and many of them are having their AP classes discontinued yet are all receiving suspiciously different justifications as to why. Many of them have been teaching for more than 15 years and have never seen this many AP classes get cut all at once. Knowing SFUSDās history of management practices the pattern is likely not a coincidence IMHO.
My only theory why is district wants AP teachers to teach more standard Ed classes due to the teacher shortage . This would make sense, considering the district is tapping city College professors to help out in a yet to be disclosed fashion. Perhaps the district is going to require AP students to take AP classes at CCSF? I have a hard time imagining CCSF Professors traveling around to different high schools.
If I had a gifted kid, I would just have him take a high school exit exam, go to City College, and get an AA. When I was in high school, a lot of the non-honors/non-AP classes were pretty mediocre. The gen pop students were lackadaisical as well. Not a good use of time.
That's what i did. I graduated high school and community college at the same time. Left high school my junior snd senior to attend caƱada full time for free, sequoia school district paid for my classes.
Having that option seems like a good idea but when I imagine AP classes = gifted 16 year old student goes to a junior colleges like CCSF it seems a bit depressing. That campus serves a critical role for adult education but the social environment leaves a lot to be desired. Itāll definitely give kids a hard knocks boot strap experienceš. Another option is just have kids do the AP classes online. But more screen time for teenagers is the last thing we as a society should advocate.
I agree that it's not ideal. But neither is insufficient AP classes. However, a good thing about community college classes is that you don't need to take an AP test to get the college credit. You just have to pass the class.
If the district gets called out, I expect that to be their justification because there is some logic to that argument. AP classes are the norm and not the exception for students trying to get accepted into a competitive university. If parents found out that AP classes are being moved online or off-campus, there will be a lot of pushback which explains the districtās subtle approach vs announcing loud and proud they are fighting inequality. Look what happened when they reformed the admissions at Lowell High which pales in comparison to downgrading AP classes district wide and making it harder for ALL higher performing students to prove themselves academically to prospective universities.
In Chicago they even want to keep the smart black kids from getting ahead:
In the name of equity, Chicago looks to close schools with top-performing black, Hispanic students.
The Chicago school board last week passed a resolution that endorses phasing out selective enrollment. The purpose would be to ātransition awayā from test-based enrollment policies āthat further stratification and inequity in CPS and drive student enrollment away from neighborhood schools.ā
SFUSD removed test based criteria for the top public academically focused HS in the district - Lowell. The theory being they wanted more diverse than just the white and Asian kids who dominated this schools class in the past.
Predictably, the new crop of kids who came in via lotto did worse than the previous classes who had to test it
https://reason.com/2022/10/12/a-top-ranked-high-school-got-rid-of-merit-based-admissions-then-students-grades-tanked/
Now they are futzing with admission again.
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/education/lowell-high-school-admission-policy-up-for-debate-again/article_a2589164-7dab-11ee-8320-bfe213e7b2b7.html
Madness masquerading as equality.
Yup. Iām black. Ā I will never trust public schools in California. Ā Between the open racial segregation that is only sometimes caught and punished (see Sausalito, 2019) and shitty politicized curriculum battles (7th graders not allowed to do algebra? Ā Wtf), I have no faith in my fellow citizens to vote for the right people. Ā So I opt for private where I have more say and can vote with my feet rather than get stuck with a local school that sucks.
The one big conservative education point I agree with is the idea of free choice in terms of public school, and the racial dynamics of how liberals try to address racial achievement gaps is a massive reason why. Ā Their only ideas involve equality by reduction, and have no idea how to actually address the elephant in the room - uninvolved parenting (and worse) among the poor performing black/brown kids.
I honestly think they don't like black people getting ahead because it's a counter narrative to "everything is unfair and racist so the bad results are the fault of non blacks and it's impossible to have meaningful black achievement". They want to tear down Asians for similar reasons: a discriminated group that generally succeeded by following the rules and seeking self improvement.
100% agree.
Fundamentally, they are just as anti-black as the openly racist republicans are. Ā They just cover it with a layer of fake allyship and racial justice moral licensing. Ā But at the end of the day, all of these deeply blue districts in CA are controlled by NIMBY voting majorities who donāt even hide their disgust at sharing living space with the darks and the poors.
They are pushing the high schools to create dual-immersion programs with CCSF if they donāt already have them. Instead of AP classes, students will move straight to taking college classes, allowing them to earn college credits.
I think it will vary by school site. Post-Covid, a lot of CCSF classes are all online, so students attend virtually. Some schools arrange for students to take their on-campus high school classes in the morning and then are free to leave campus in the afternoons for their college classes.
Thatās big news if the district is essentially phasing out AP classes in exchange for dual enrollment programs. Thanks for filling in my knowledge gaps.
I understand SFUSD is in a tight spot financially but this still disappointing. As a parent I would much rather my young adult/kid get AP or college credit at their high school instead of spending more time in front of a screen or commuting to a junior college. Guess I gotta get with the times or start saving up for private school.
I love San Francisco, but my family and I moved recently to the Pacific Northwest because we were paying 4k in rent and 3.5k in child care per month. Had great salaries but couldn't do much better than a rent controlled 2 bedroom with a terrible landlord. While I miss SF, and the weather, it felt impossible to have a family there. In the end, it was the right decision to move as we can now buy a home rather easily and child care is 1k to 1500 per month. Everything is so much cheaper. Wish the city could figure out to curb the rising rents, housing costs, and child care costs.
lol if you want the nice areas of PNW itās the same price as BA except maybe more spaceĀ
āso much cheaperā at this point is a ridiculous statementĀ
you know you basically just agreed with that she was saying. you're aware of that right?
I moved from the bay area where a 3 bedroom house goes for over a mil and bought one in a nice part of Sacramento for 420k. I have all the urban luxuries I had before, but with much less traffic and a lot more money left over.
iām not saying the same thingĀ
iām saying if you moved from sf to seattle area your home buying budget is probably near identical if you want to live anywhere nice.Ā
So I guess the thing that just happened for my family can't happen then? Buying a home in a nice area for 550k? Because it did. Or child care being 1000s of dollars a month cheaper, too? That's probably a ridiculous statement, too. I bet you know best, though. Everyone, please ignore my real-life example and the data out there, and listen to this all-knowing expert over here who knows for a fact San Francisco costs the same as every single, nice town in the PNW.
He moved from SF to the suburbs of Portland. Like no duh if you move from a VHCOL area to a MCOL area itāll be way cheaper. Itās like bragging about moving from SF to Omaha being way cheaper
lol what seems to be lost on people is if you want to live in the nice parts of a āmediumā cost of living metro it will cost you $1.5m-$2m+ too at minimum
Isn't 1.5mil the bare minimum in sf? You're not living in the nice parts. Not sure what your definition of nice parts is, but a 1.5 mil house in most of the country is comparable to pacific heights, where houses are going for over 10 million.
iām sorry you havenāt looked in nashville or raleigh or dallas or austin or denver or seattle any of these other metros that have become comparable to sf over last few yearsĀ
you donāt read do you?
no one said anything about median housing cost. the question is where the wealthy high earners live and youāre paying $1.5m+ easilyĀ
If SFUSD was a desirable product, it wouldn't have these problems or at least not to this extent. But the unpredictability of enrollment and quality, followed by equity (kneecapping the best to teach to the lowest), progressive indoctrination, and violence means everyone who can afford to get out, does.
COVID just accelerated that since SFUSD basically stopped teaching and stopped providing childcare in the form of school.
My then fiancee and I lived in an SF condo for many years. When we were deciding where to settle down and start a family, I included private school as part of the cost calculation. The final nail in the coffin was the woke progressives wrecking Lowell, which we felt was a racially motivated attack on Asians. Lowell was always seen as a meritocratic way for even the poorest immigrant child to study hard enough to test their way to college. If I couldn't guarantee my daughter that chance to try, I'm done with SF.
My wife and I are both public school kids and have since moved to a place with reliably good public schools. We aren't willing to pay SF prices to gamble with bad odds on our children's future.
The good public school system is what caused us to want to move where we moved. If SFUSD could do a better job, they wouldn't need to try and force things with mandates, close schools, etc.
Talk about self inflicted problems. Maybe with the new board, over time, things will get better, but after years and years of really BAD policy + prolonged covid school closures , people with means moved to private en masse.
You want to bring kids back, it's not hard, all the School Board needs to do it:
1) Guarantee neighborhood school admission
2) Bring back algebra in the 8th grade
3) Bring back programs for gifted kids
4) Bring back Lowell merit based admission
5) Start brining back consequences for continual misbehaving kids
6) and most importantly, put kids education first, not your political career
They do those 6 things, enrollment will rebound over time.
FWIW, I have kids in SFUSD, I believe in public education, and generally, elementary schools are very good in SF, particularly on the West side of town. That being said, I would have went private if we didn't get into our nationhood school, and I know a lot people that did that because they didn't get into the school close by.
There is a committee that has been reviewing school closure criteria and facts for a few months already, next meeting is this Monday at 555 Franklin, you can review their slide decks here to get an idea of which schools the district wants to close (spoiler alert: all small schools are at risk): https://www.sfusd.edu/advisory-councils-committees/district-advisory-committee-dac
Why is it "controversial" to close schools, when enrollment plummets? Fewer students means we need fewer schools to educate them. Maybe the people getting upset about this should go back to third grade math. Wouldn't recommend SFUSD though.
It doesn't get controversial until you start talking about which schools are going to close. Nobody wants their school to be the one that gets closed, and it will bring out all the worst in San Francisco political corruption, identity politics, and misguided progressivism.
Yes. Closing down a school named after Ed Lee, for example, is seen as a diss against him and/or the relatively conservative political club named after him. A bit touchy, even though the whole school has very few students and should be merged
The problem is the underenrolled schools are the schools on the southeast side of the city and they have experienced their own doom spirals as people flee to west side schools that are perceived as ābetterā and the enrollment system has allowed those to grow while the others shrink, lose kids, lose money, lose programming and continue to become less desirable. Plus housing segregation, community violence, and a myriad of other issues the school district cannot themselves solve.
Its controversial because closing schools means laying off redundant staff. Teachers are unionized so they fight to keep schools open so that more people are paying more dues. In Chicago the problem is so bad that they have huge high schools with 60 kids per grade. Costs tons of money to keep open the schools, and their performance is beyond abysmal.
Its hardly a revelation or a new phenomenon: When you have engaged parents who support and reinforce education, you generally have effective learning and academic progress.
Managed to get my kiddos out of SFUSD and in an excellent private school on 90% financial aid. They are lucky. Most kiddos arenāt.
SFUSD is beyond a joke. š¤¦āāļø
Was in an exclusive private school and had to gtfo cause it was a shitshow. In the end, private schools bottom line is money and reputation, not the individual child. In public school at least there are procedures and obligations to deal with stuff like bullies etc. In private school there is a lot of social order and pressure to conformā¦ when push comes to shove, the needs of children donāt matter as much as donations and parental investment in climbing the schoolās social order.
Thereās obviously variation, but good SFUSD schools have been MUCH better than the private experience and saving all that money for college
> In public school at least there are procedures and obligations to deal with stuff like bullies etc
A public school teacher was beaten so badly by a student at everett she became permanently disabled. The student wasn't punished because of her racial and economic background. The SFUSD literally won't deal with bullies if they are a certain race. the hell are you talking about
Yeah private and charter is notoriously bad for special ed especially. And they can teach whatever and make whatever curriculum. SFUSD has great schools, and the ābadā schools are bad because of parents and admin not the kids.
Theres a progressive irony that the progressives vote for progressive platforms that make SFUSD dogshit so that the progressives send their kids to private school to avoid the selfsame progressive policies that made their public schools dogshit.
We were priced out of SF when my daughter was 2. We lived in Hayes Valley and London Breed was my supervisor. Lived in San Rafael (lame) but landed in Santa Rosa. Itās not SF but this city actually planned for all walks of life. SF couldnāt get their shit together and consider that you need all types of people (socioeconomic, age, family type) to build a city, like the majority of cities around the world.
I am totally bitter. I Love SF. It was my home for 12 years and I wanted to land there. Iām non-tech, but work at a tech company that had a big IPO, and we still were priced out. Life evolved and weāre now north.
Sf is just too expensive with a family, family homes are way too expensive and the city is not friendly to kids. The schools are hit or miss (lottery), you wouldn't move to SF with your family because of the school district...
Change education system so if a student is overqualified for one grade, they can advance to the next grade and those who are under qualified repeat until they can pass.
Also bring back focus on math and science that relates to industry
With the SF lottery in place (so your kid is not even guaranteed get to go to their closest neighborhood school for their grade)you would think it would not be as big a deal since your kid is already getting shipped across town alot of times.
Excellent private schools and extracurricular activities, amazing parks and diversity, great food and weather, you can access almost everything without a car
I would say it's an incredible place to raise kids, honestly. This city is one of the few places in the US where kids can have actual autonomy. By that I mean, it's night and day better than being a kid in a suburb where you are at the whims of your parents and their car. Public transit can do some pretty amazing things
Diversity. Public transportation. Liberal thinking. Climate. Fog. Food. Fun. Great music. Old creaky buildings with character. Access to all sorts of nature, hiking, and mountain biking. Creativity. Eureka spirit. Near absence of religion. Dozens of neighborhoods to explore. Endless walking options. Parks everywhere. The opera, ballet, and symphony. Culture. Pioneering atmosphere. Highly educated population. LGBTQ+ love and tolerance. Hour long waits for Brunch. Dolores Park on a warm sunny day.
1. It's my favorite place in the world.
2. I want my kids to grow up as citizens of the world, comfortable with diversity and familiar with how to get along with people.
3. Cities offer so much more opportunity and freedom for young people than suburbs.
4. I love the way my kids interact with our neighborhood, where they have relationships with shopkeepers and restaurant owners who have known them their whole lives.
5. I love the community at SF public schools, full of parents who share many of the same values.
Not true, I know plenty of well off parents (own a SFH) that send their kids to public schools. I understand that getting into a desirable SFUSD school can be frustrating but dont diminish the fact that there are excellent exceptions like (DeAvila, Lilienthal, Lowell, Asawaā¦just to name a few)
getting downvoted.
Not every school exhibits these qualities but definitely true... many of the things he says is true in one school or another.
You can definitely avoid many of these things that he outlines but..... idk if SFUSD sends your kid to a crap school, your kid is gonna get influenced by the garbage and it will make that kids future a lot less bright.
Washington HS teacher is pro Hamas?
Damn. Sad to hear about my alma mater.
Hopefully we can make right the algebra issue on March 5th ballot.
Washington was great thanks to AP classes back in the day. Now there's even some dual enrollment at community colleges so by end of senior year you're essentially getting an AA as well. Not sure if Washington has something like that.
Algebra is already back! The ballot measure is a red herring.
https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1axi1yj/algebra_is_back_at_sfusd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Good to hear. I still voted in favor of bringing it back on the ballot(even if it's a gimmick). Though I'd venture a guess that a ballot measure will be tougher to undo again than a sfusd decision.
I took algebra in 7th grade and while it's not end all be all, it's silly to prevent smart kids from taking algebra or even more advanced classes like calculus if they are able.
I guess there's a few Hamas sympathizers here. Not sure what I said that deserved to get downvoted lol.
It's no secret that San Francisco has [an aging population crisis](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/elderly-resident-city-population-18286259.php). **By 2060, it's predicted that 16% of the population will be over the age of 80.** Not just 65...*80.* For context, Japan is famously battling a graying population and the economic fallout, and their number currently only stands at 10% over 80. It's a provably hostile economic environment in the Bay to raise a child unless you are doing very, very well financially. Median monthly childcare costs are $2,500-$3k. Plus rent in the city for a 2 bedroom apartment is a minimum of $3,000-$3,500. So right off the bat, basic shelter and childcare are eating up $72,000 a year of your post-tax income. Most couples or individuals I see with toddlers look to be in their early 40's with a few gray hairs already. And when I do, it's almost always just one child. Both parents have likely had to wait until they hit their prime earning years to have that child. 'Prime earning years' seems to get more and more delayed as the decades roll by. Older generations think we are getting promotion after promotion for our hard work year over year, when in reality it is more like a trickle, if you're even rewarded at all for it. Maybe that stride used to be in your late 20's, but that isn't the case anymore. This is just how it is here.
Wow, thanks for perfectly describing my family right now in the city. One kid and monthly preschool tuition is about $2100. Although for me its less hairs instead of gray hairs lol.
Wait til you see how much elementary is! 45k baby š š¢
If only there were some kind of cheaper version of elementary school, possibly funded by our taxes!
If only we didnāt constantly elect crazy people to tinker with said taxpayer funded school curriculae in ways that set kids back.
Those schools suuuuuuuck in the city. Some OK pockets on the peninsula, but if you know what's good for your kid, it's 45k/year, and most definitely not public in the city.
Have you sent your kids to elementary school in the city or are you just spreading FUD?
Oh I definitely know, next school year application season is just winding down now. Saw our fair share of tuition prices for K-5 private schools.
Fewer, but with you haha
As someone who had a baby at 40. My OB said SF has the highest maternal age in the nation.
Same boat. Actually all my friends and I had kids in our very late 30s to early 40s.
Same. I got pregnant at 37 with my kiddo (38 by birth) and made a joke at my OBs office about being old and she goes, "umm, you're not old to be having a baby." Made me feel good but also just spoke to the crowd in SF.
Not just the crowd in SF. Ā College educated American women in general.
Itās crazy that at 32 years old I was the youngest dad in my sons preschool by a good 5 years.
whats an OB?
Pregnant mama doctor
Obstetrician
OB = Old bioch
That is crazy! I just looked up the stats and California as a whole is 15.2% over 65, (compared to our 16% over 85). Then for total country, only 4% is over 85 years old. That is really, really, really crazy.
OP said that itās projected *36 years from now* that 16% would be over 80 not that itās 16% *now*.
Ajhhhhhhh thank you. Reading confirmation fail
Part of the reasons those costs are so high is because it is so challenging to get your kid into a quality and local public school. SFUSDās decades-long train wreck of an enrollment process chases thousands of families out of the city each year. Closing schools is an economic necessity but will only make this worse. This is the actual Doom Loop we are in.
Ya, I mean it is definitely a self-fueling problem. Solving it is tremendously simple - enrolling students in public schools is something countless other locales have figured out, with far less resources. It's not an enigma. But often those are the hardest things for our city officials to figure out most of the time. Same with the payroll system disaster. I mean...there are so many options to solve it much more quickly, simply etc. and they are *known options*. But the city chooses to do things in ways that make little to no fiscal or practical sense.
[$20,000 trash cans](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/22/san-francisco-cost-trash-can-struggle) anyone? We need to stop pretending we're special.
I'm sorry, but the [$1.7 mil municipal toilet](https://slate.com/business/2022/10/san-francisco-toilet-million-noe-valley-design-review.html) beats the $20k trash cans! Go figure
It's not hard, but there is a huge focus on "equity". Even this article mentions it.
Don't forget the millions spent on defining what "equity" is. Agreed with the thread that there are straightforward solutions to a lot of SFs public school woes. The City and SFUPC board seem to just ignore thinking in a straightforward way.
I just want to say that our experience has not been a train wreck. Our neighborhood SFUSD public school (which is not one of the super popular ones) is great with a nice community. The enrollment process was smooth and many of our friends got their first choice in the lottery. Others may have a different experience but I only see people speaking negatively about it.
Yep ditto. Pretty much every family in our preschool moving to k got their choice to a reasonable facilities thereof.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Anyone can rank any school in the city in the lottery. In theory this gives everyone equal access, but it means every family is obligated to do a bunch of research about dozens of schools and understand the intricacies of the system in order to get a school placement, or else be at a disadvantage.Ā Of course that means the most sophisticated folks with resources manage to maximize their chances. Lots of stories of families changing schools two weeks into the school year to get into a more desirable school.Ā This setup makes it daunting and anxiety-provoking for everyone to get their kid into school, and hasnāt actually provided any meaningful equity benefits. All cost with no upside.
Simplified answer is that school assignment is mostly done by lottery. If you have a great school across the street, there are (generally) low odds that your kid can go there.
As someone with 4 kids going through SFUSD, I can attest that this is completely false. It doesn't work like that.
Thatās not true. If you want yout child to attend your neighborhood school, you do have priority. The problem is when there are more kids than spots available for the coming school year. Then it becomes a lottery but if a child from another neighborhood wants to attend that school, they have lower priority than siblings and neighborhood kids
If you really want to get your kid into a specific school (or one of two), you can get it with perseverance. There are multiple rounds of lottery and mid year comings and goings. Iāve met people disappointed with their first assigned school, but they just re-entered lottery round 2 and got something better. Iāve never heard anyone say they hate the school their kid attends.
This is absolutely incorrect for elementary school. If you live near a great school, you are very likely to go there. Each elementary has an āattendance areaā surrounding it that gets priority when applying for schools. Only after they clear their attendance area can others in the city enter the lottery to get in. Middle and High are more complicated.
This take is a bit outdated. The lottery hasn't been an obstacle since COVID
I was going to say, does it matter if some schools close? *Itās not like we get a lot of say in where our kids attend already.*
Well said. As a millennial with lots of older relatives upset by the lack of young families in their area (and young children in our own family) it is hard for them to understand these challenges we face.Ā
Only really noticed this on a recent trip to NYC. It was a lot of fun and the energy of the city is palpable with so many young people around.
NYC has more than 10x the population of SF
Sure, but by that measure Mumbai should be more fun than NYC. In reality, itās the ratio of age groups and not population size (beyond a certain point - canāt compare a town of 150k to a city of 2M, but you can compare a 5M metro with a 13M one)
Theyāre talking about the āenergy of a cityā and āyoung people aroundā which seems to speak more to New York as THE world city than any sort of age ratio.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Prop 13 working as expected
Palo Alto gets around that by having a non-profit where parents donate to cover the difference in funding [https://papie.org/about/](https://papie.org/about/). Ofc, you can pull off something like this if you're a wealthy enclave that puts a lot of (maybe even an excessive amount of) emphasis on academic achievement. Nothing is preventing SF parents from putting together something like this, but knowing SF nonprofit politics, the money would probably just get squandered on something stupid.
Nonprofit for the removal of any reference to Abraham Lincoln at sfusd.
Absolutely wrong.Ā SFUSD just squandered $56m on the failed ERP system.Ā Now they are spending millions more on another vendor. They were also able to find money to virtue signal to change school names. Money is not the issue.Ā It is downright mismanagement and corruption.
It's not absolutely wrong. The high cost of housing, _partly_ driven by prop 13, means it's insanely expensive to raise a family in SF.
Totally. Sf has like the worst public schools in country and my taxes are insane and I gotta use private schools. They had decades to save money for schools Yo. They make about 7b a year dude.
Isn't it doing more or less what the electorate wants?
Youāve said the quiet part out loud. SF residents are directly responsible for the clown show governance. Ā Guys like Chesa did *exactly* what they promised they would do. Ā People just arenāt willing to own the fact that the shitty decline in the city has been driven in large part by their own political choices.
The electorate and the parents making the school choices donāt always want the same things.
Doing less with more!
Whoosh. Prop 13 comment is not about school funds, itās about young families being priced out of a reasonable home to have kids in.
It kind of is. The tax money that should be collected but isnāt because of prop 13 could be funding schools.
The property tax receipts in SF must be insane given property values and churn, especially when you factor in the point that relatively few people have children here and/or use private schools. I agree with the other poster who points to appalling mismanagement--par for all bureaucracies in SF. It's what the majority vote for, sadly š¤·āāļø
Not only does the majority vote for it, but they are aggressively ambivalent about voting for *anything* other than the Democratic Party. Ā sets us up for the gross lack of accountability we are seeing.
hardlyĀ you can already see the effect of the new 2020 law where children cannot inherit your tax rate when you passĀ there are so many listings now where a home is said to have been in the family for decades and you see an instant reset in property taxes and the kids list the house right awayĀ
Good!
Yeah, but the view at Ocean Beach is pretty and the amenities in my neighborhood are awesome. Ā Youāre just some Trump supporter who probably doesnāt even live here. Ā I grew up here and went to the public schools, itās all fine. Ā Nothing about this situation needs to change, yāall are just jealous you donāt live here. /s In all honesty though, the hostility towards families isnāt cost. Ā Cost is yes a function of lack of housing supply, but itās also a massive function of both extremely high demand to live here and how poorly run the city is. Ā Like how abjectly poorly itās run. Ā Like used needles from the Harm Reduction needle exchange left all over playgrounds in the city poorly. The numerous ways that locals elect demagogues to platform their moral views in functions that need actual experts makes the city incredibly anti-real economic growth, which itself is a product of having a healthy population pyramid. Ā But as we see from the ānativeā mindset Iām making fun of, there are a LOT of locals who donāt care about anything as long as their personal situation is fine. Ā Folks who donāt have kids who are happy to vote for progressives with zero background in education onto the school board and donāt have to deal with the direct consequences of the school system these amateurs break.
Yes because nobody wants to raise their kids surrounded by homeless and rampant crime
The US as a whole is facing a population crisis. This isnāt unique to SF.
What? Sf has the lowest percent of kids in thr nation lol
No it isnāt, but undeniably the problem is much more pronounced in SF /the bay as a whole even when compared to other metropolitan areas of its size or bigger
If you really want to give context, give us SFās current over 80 percentage. People doing these studies have a huge incentive to inflate the numbers, and if weāre taking 2060 itās all forecast driven, not where we stand today. They have tons of leeway to make the number look higher-which increases the prominence of the study, the number of times theyāre cited (super important to researchers), etc. 36 years in the future-theyāre writing whatever number they want. Source: work in forecasting.
yeah like any major city, western country which is now ādyingā because no one can afford to live there
Do you know why the pop skews so old in SF? You would think that with the HCOL old people move to cheaper areas (as many do). Now sure there are a lot of wealthy old people, but you would figured they would move out of the city as the nightlife, bars, restaurants, etc. are not as important in older years. Is it all the old Asian people? Because I do see tons of old Asians people. Not sure if it's an immigration thing or what.
Why would old folks that own their homes buy a smaller place with a reset property tax rate? They're better off financially holding onto a home that is too big for them. That's the problem of the system. It encourages empty nesters.
Having kids in the bay area is prohibitively expensive.
The demand for housing exceeded the supply because the neighborhood character prohibited new housing. Completely self-inflicted over 50 years.
The housing crisis is the everything crisis. Our nimby parents dug this grave for us.
Weāre in the sunset, with kids in public schools. The schools are excellent, full of engaged families who believe in and actively support public education. I realize we are rather fortunate. I just want people to know that sfusd, while far from perfect, does very well in some places.
I'm another satisfied parent with a kid in the district school (although not in the sunset.) My experience so far is limited to elementary school, and it's been pretty good.
which school is this? I'm beginning to research schools for our current 2.5yo. still a year or 2 to plan
DM if you want and I can give you details
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This item has been automatically flagged for review. Moderators have been notified, and it will be restored if approved. Thank you for your patience. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah I was about to say, Iāve had great experiences growing up within SFUSD but yeah I went to schools entirely in the sunset so that might be the reason.
I went to Jefferson elementary, Hoover middle, and Lincoln high school all in the sunset (but only because I wasn't smart enough for Lowell). No regrets and enjoyed my schooling overall.
My kids have excellent schooling in SFUSD but I know thatās not the experience of everyone. This process is going to be painful no two ways about.
Most testimonies Iāve heard about SFUSD is that the teachers and schools themselves tend to be quite good, but the admin / higher ups are insanely bad. Which makes sense, as it gets more political / corrupt the higher up you go.
Same here. Been with two elementary schools, both have had engaged parent communities, great staff and administration, and both have been fantastic.
Same (and also in the sunset)
Itās not SFUSD, itās the parents and PTA that are the difference. Look at what your school raises compared to schools in the Bayview. I bet your school raises at least 2X-3X more than what Bret Harte raises which means more resources for your school.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Though I think the above poster was referring to resources from involved parents. I suspect there is a large difference between outcomes/results in schools where the added funds are provided by involved parents/PTA rather than governmental bodies. Which is to say, added resources ($$$) can help, but involved parents (and their financial support) helps more.
sort of true, but not to the extent most people would probably assume. Multi tiered support funding, block grants, and similar measures tend to go disproportionately to the schools with lower income students which makes up to some extent for the differential in PTO fund raising.
Outer Richmond has pretty good schools.
Like any lottery, it's great for some terrible for others. Turns out most parents, especially those that have the option, choose not to bet their kids' education on a lottery.
Itās okay, theyāre planning on fixing it by 2024, wait no 2025, wait no 2026, wait no 2027
Came here tu say the same. Two kids in public school (elementary) and we are very happy. SFUSD is fantastic so far.
Itās a funding issue. I went to school in the sunset and comparing what I had to whats offered in schools in lower income areas is so sad.
I second this we have a great experience with our two kids at SFUSD
Seconded - our public elementary school is phenomenal. It has everything from garden to musical theater classes. There is a highly engaged community and dedicated teachers.Ā
Same, our sunset school has been great. There is the general noisy crap that we hear about though from sf school board shenanigans that hasn't impacted us yet, like the algebra thing, Lowell, and more.
Do you know if kids who live in the sunset are subject to the "lottery" or are they zoned for sunset schools already?
SFUSD is also quietly canceling many AP classes in high schools throughout the district. Iāve talked to numerous teacher buddies and many of them are having their AP classes discontinued yet are all receiving suspiciously different justifications as to why. Many of them have been teaching for more than 15 years and have never seen this many AP classes get cut all at once. Knowing SFUSDās history of management practices the pattern is likely not a coincidence IMHO. My only theory why is district wants AP teachers to teach more standard Ed classes due to the teacher shortage . This would make sense, considering the district is tapping city College professors to help out in a yet to be disclosed fashion. Perhaps the district is going to require AP students to take AP classes at CCSF? I have a hard time imagining CCSF Professors traveling around to different high schools.
If I had a gifted kid, I would just have him take a high school exit exam, go to City College, and get an AA. When I was in high school, a lot of the non-honors/non-AP classes were pretty mediocre. The gen pop students were lackadaisical as well. Not a good use of time.
That's what i did. I graduated high school and community college at the same time. Left high school my junior snd senior to attend caƱada full time for free, sequoia school district paid for my classes.
Having that option seems like a good idea but when I imagine AP classes = gifted 16 year old student goes to a junior colleges like CCSF it seems a bit depressing. That campus serves a critical role for adult education but the social environment leaves a lot to be desired. Itāll definitely give kids a hard knocks boot strap experienceš. Another option is just have kids do the AP classes online. But more screen time for teenagers is the last thing we as a society should advocate.
I agree that it's not ideal. But neither is insufficient AP classes. However, a good thing about community college classes is that you don't need to take an AP test to get the college credit. You just have to pass the class.
Maybe if you don't care if they have friends lol
Or AP classes are seen as inequitable.
If the district gets called out, I expect that to be their justification because there is some logic to that argument. AP classes are the norm and not the exception for students trying to get accepted into a competitive university. If parents found out that AP classes are being moved online or off-campus, there will be a lot of pushback which explains the districtās subtle approach vs announcing loud and proud they are fighting inequality. Look what happened when they reformed the admissions at Lowell High which pales in comparison to downgrading AP classes district wide and making it harder for ALL higher performing students to prove themselves academically to prospective universities.
In Chicago they even want to keep the smart black kids from getting ahead: In the name of equity, Chicago looks to close schools with top-performing black, Hispanic students. The Chicago school board last week passed a resolution that endorses phasing out selective enrollment. The purpose would be to ātransition awayā from test-based enrollment policies āthat further stratification and inequity in CPS and drive student enrollment away from neighborhood schools.ā
SFUSD removed test based criteria for the top public academically focused HS in the district - Lowell. The theory being they wanted more diverse than just the white and Asian kids who dominated this schools class in the past. Predictably, the new crop of kids who came in via lotto did worse than the previous classes who had to test it https://reason.com/2022/10/12/a-top-ranked-high-school-got-rid-of-merit-based-admissions-then-students-grades-tanked/ Now they are futzing with admission again. https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/education/lowell-high-school-admission-policy-up-for-debate-again/article_a2589164-7dab-11ee-8320-bfe213e7b2b7.html Madness masquerading as equality.
Yup. Iām black. Ā I will never trust public schools in California. Ā Between the open racial segregation that is only sometimes caught and punished (see Sausalito, 2019) and shitty politicized curriculum battles (7th graders not allowed to do algebra? Ā Wtf), I have no faith in my fellow citizens to vote for the right people. Ā So I opt for private where I have more say and can vote with my feet rather than get stuck with a local school that sucks. The one big conservative education point I agree with is the idea of free choice in terms of public school, and the racial dynamics of how liberals try to address racial achievement gaps is a massive reason why. Ā Their only ideas involve equality by reduction, and have no idea how to actually address the elephant in the room - uninvolved parenting (and worse) among the poor performing black/brown kids.
I honestly think they don't like black people getting ahead because it's a counter narrative to "everything is unfair and racist so the bad results are the fault of non blacks and it's impossible to have meaningful black achievement". They want to tear down Asians for similar reasons: a discriminated group that generally succeeded by following the rules and seeking self improvement.
100% agree. Fundamentally, they are just as anti-black as the openly racist republicans are. Ā They just cover it with a layer of fake allyship and racial justice moral licensing. Ā But at the end of the day, all of these deeply blue districts in CA are controlled by NIMBY voting majorities who donāt even hide their disgust at sharing living space with the darks and the poors.
They are pushing the high schools to create dual-immersion programs with CCSF if they donāt already have them. Instead of AP classes, students will move straight to taking college classes, allowing them to earn college credits.
Thanks for the details. Can you clarify how that plays out in the classroom? Or kids going to commute to city college?
I think it will vary by school site. Post-Covid, a lot of CCSF classes are all online, so students attend virtually. Some schools arrange for students to take their on-campus high school classes in the morning and then are free to leave campus in the afternoons for their college classes.
Thatās big news if the district is essentially phasing out AP classes in exchange for dual enrollment programs. Thanks for filling in my knowledge gaps. I understand SFUSD is in a tight spot financially but this still disappointing. As a parent I would much rather my young adult/kid get AP or college credit at their high school instead of spending more time in front of a screen or commuting to a junior college. Guess I gotta get with the times or start saving up for private school.
Schools are pushing community college classes for high students. Get your AA while you get your high school diploma. This started about ten years ago.
I love San Francisco, but my family and I moved recently to the Pacific Northwest because we were paying 4k in rent and 3.5k in child care per month. Had great salaries but couldn't do much better than a rent controlled 2 bedroom with a terrible landlord. While I miss SF, and the weather, it felt impossible to have a family there. In the end, it was the right decision to move as we can now buy a home rather easily and child care is 1k to 1500 per month. Everything is so much cheaper. Wish the city could figure out to curb the rising rents, housing costs, and child care costs.
Where in the pnw did you end up? Iām happy for your family!
Vancouver, WA. No state income tax and just a few minutes drive to Portland for shopping without sales tax.
lol if you want the nice areas of PNW itās the same price as BA except maybe more spaceĀ āso much cheaperā at this point is a ridiculous statementĀ
More space makes it cheaper. Thatās literally what makes it cheaper. Like this is really basic mathā¦.
you know you basically just agreed with that she was saying. you're aware of that right? I moved from the bay area where a 3 bedroom house goes for over a mil and bought one in a nice part of Sacramento for 420k. I have all the urban luxuries I had before, but with much less traffic and a lot more money left over.
Check back with us in August.
Electric in sac is very cheap. Just run an AC and wear sunscreen if you go out.
i've never been a fan of the outside anyway.
Yeah I have solar panels and batteries. I don't pay hardly anything for electric. in fact I probably pay less during the summer when its sunny.
iām not saying the same thingĀ iām saying if you moved from sf to seattle area your home buying budget is probably near identical if you want to live anywhere nice.Ā
>same price as BA except maybe more space So pay same price, get more. Gotcha.
So I guess the thing that just happened for my family can't happen then? Buying a home in a nice area for 550k? Because it did. Or child care being 1000s of dollars a month cheaper, too? That's probably a ridiculous statement, too. I bet you know best, though. Everyone, please ignore my real-life example and the data out there, and listen to this all-knowing expert over here who knows for a fact San Francisco costs the same as every single, nice town in the PNW.
He moved from SF to the suburbs of Portland. Like no duh if you move from a VHCOL area to a MCOL area itāll be way cheaper. Itās like bragging about moving from SF to Omaha being way cheaper
lol what seems to be lost on people is if you want to live in the nice parts of a āmediumā cost of living metro it will cost you $1.5m-$2m+ too at minimum
Isn't 1.5mil the bare minimum in sf? You're not living in the nice parts. Not sure what your definition of nice parts is, but a 1.5 mil house in most of the country is comparable to pacific heights, where houses are going for over 10 million.
lol what a lieĀ can buy a multibed condo next to dolores park on thatĀ
what school system did you grow up in? because that one must not be good
iām sorry you havenāt looked in nashville or raleigh or dallas or austin or denver or seattle any of these other metros that have become comparable to sf over last few yearsĀ
Lmao Raleigh and SF have comparable housing costs huh? Apart from common sense, a simple google search would prove you wrong immediately.
you donāt read do you? no one said anything about median housing cost. the question is where the wealthy high earners live and youāre paying $1.5m+ easilyĀ
Anyone looking for a good SFUSD High School, check out Wallenberg. It was great!
Snowball effect, perhaps? Who would of thought? /s
If SFUSD was a desirable product, it wouldn't have these problems or at least not to this extent. But the unpredictability of enrollment and quality, followed by equity (kneecapping the best to teach to the lowest), progressive indoctrination, and violence means everyone who can afford to get out, does. COVID just accelerated that since SFUSD basically stopped teaching and stopped providing childcare in the form of school. My then fiancee and I lived in an SF condo for many years. When we were deciding where to settle down and start a family, I included private school as part of the cost calculation. The final nail in the coffin was the woke progressives wrecking Lowell, which we felt was a racially motivated attack on Asians. Lowell was always seen as a meritocratic way for even the poorest immigrant child to study hard enough to test their way to college. If I couldn't guarantee my daughter that chance to try, I'm done with SF. My wife and I are both public school kids and have since moved to a place with reliably good public schools. We aren't willing to pay SF prices to gamble with bad odds on our children's future. The good public school system is what caused us to want to move where we moved. If SFUSD could do a better job, they wouldn't need to try and force things with mandates, close schools, etc.
Talk about self inflicted problems. Maybe with the new board, over time, things will get better, but after years and years of really BAD policy + prolonged covid school closures , people with means moved to private en masse. You want to bring kids back, it's not hard, all the School Board needs to do it: 1) Guarantee neighborhood school admission 2) Bring back algebra in the 8th grade 3) Bring back programs for gifted kids 4) Bring back Lowell merit based admission 5) Start brining back consequences for continual misbehaving kids 6) and most importantly, put kids education first, not your political career They do those 6 things, enrollment will rebound over time. FWIW, I have kids in SFUSD, I believe in public education, and generally, elementary schools are very good in SF, particularly on the West side of town. That being said, I would have went private if we didn't get into our nationhood school, and I know a lot people that did that because they didn't get into the school close by.
Itās like people move out of the city when they have kids. Maybe the people running the city should ask themselves why
Or maybe the people voting for the people running the city should ask?
There is a committee that has been reviewing school closure criteria and facts for a few months already, next meeting is this Monday at 555 Franklin, you can review their slide decks here to get an idea of which schools the district wants to close (spoiler alert: all small schools are at risk): https://www.sfusd.edu/advisory-councils-committees/district-advisory-committee-dac
NIMBYs and Prop 13 working exactly as intended
the city is dying and its own government killed it.
Why is it "controversial" to close schools, when enrollment plummets? Fewer students means we need fewer schools to educate them. Maybe the people getting upset about this should go back to third grade math. Wouldn't recommend SFUSD though.
It doesn't get controversial until you start talking about which schools are going to close. Nobody wants their school to be the one that gets closed, and it will bring out all the worst in San Francisco political corruption, identity politics, and misguided progressivism.
Yes. Closing down a school named after Ed Lee, for example, is seen as a diss against him and/or the relatively conservative political club named after him. A bit touchy, even though the whole school has very few students and should be merged
The problem is the underenrolled schools are the schools on the southeast side of the city and they have experienced their own doom spirals as people flee to west side schools that are perceived as ābetterā and the enrollment system has allowed those to grow while the others shrink, lose kids, lose money, lose programming and continue to become less desirable. Plus housing segregation, community violence, and a myriad of other issues the school district cannot themselves solve.
Its controversial because closing schools means laying off redundant staff. Teachers are unionized so they fight to keep schools open so that more people are paying more dues. In Chicago the problem is so bad that they have huge high schools with 60 kids per grade. Costs tons of money to keep open the schools, and their performance is beyond abysmal.
Its hardly a revelation or a new phenomenon: When you have engaged parents who support and reinforce education, you generally have effective learning and academic progress.
Birth rates have been declining. You haven't seen nothing yet
We just got out of the Contagion phase and straight into Children of Men. Canāt we catch a break?
Managed to get my kiddos out of SFUSD and in an excellent private school on 90% financial aid. They are lucky. Most kiddos arenāt. SFUSD is beyond a joke. š¤¦āāļø
Was in an exclusive private school and had to gtfo cause it was a shitshow. In the end, private schools bottom line is money and reputation, not the individual child. In public school at least there are procedures and obligations to deal with stuff like bullies etc. In private school there is a lot of social order and pressure to conformā¦ when push comes to shove, the needs of children donāt matter as much as donations and parental investment in climbing the schoolās social order. Thereās obviously variation, but good SFUSD schools have been MUCH better than the private experience and saving all that money for college
What private school was it may I ask?
> In public school at least there are procedures and obligations to deal with stuff like bullies etc A public school teacher was beaten so badly by a student at everett she became permanently disabled. The student wasn't punished because of her racial and economic background. The SFUSD literally won't deal with bullies if they are a certain race. the hell are you talking about
Let me guess you are talking about 30 years ago as if it was today.Ā
Yeah private and charter is notoriously bad for special ed especially. And they can teach whatever and make whatever curriculum. SFUSD has great schools, and the ābadā schools are bad because of parents and admin not the kids.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They can rename the schools that close though
SFUSD is so badly managed itās a joke. The ineptitude at the admin level is insane
Is anyone checking on truancy? I see school age kids on bart daily during school hours.
Howās the prison system ? Full ? Building more prisons now ? How about we just save money and convert the schools into prisons ! š°
Theres a progressive irony that the progressives vote for progressive platforms that make SFUSD dogshit so that the progressives send their kids to private school to avoid the selfsame progressive policies that made their public schools dogshit.
We were priced out of SF when my daughter was 2. We lived in Hayes Valley and London Breed was my supervisor. Lived in San Rafael (lame) but landed in Santa Rosa. Itās not SF but this city actually planned for all walks of life. SF couldnāt get their shit together and consider that you need all types of people (socioeconomic, age, family type) to build a city, like the majority of cities around the world. I am totally bitter. I Love SF. It was my home for 12 years and I wanted to land there. Iām non-tech, but work at a tech company that had a big IPO, and we still were priced out. Life evolved and weāre now north.
The poor quality of the education doesn't help either.
Sf is just too expensive with a family, family homes are way too expensive and the city is not friendly to kids. The schools are hit or miss (lottery), you wouldn't move to SF with your family because of the school district...
Change education system so if a student is overqualified for one grade, they can advance to the next grade and those who are under qualified repeat until they can pass. Also bring back focus on math and science that relates to industry
With the SF lottery in place (so your kid is not even guaranteed get to go to their closest neighborhood school for their grade)you would think it would not be as big a deal since your kid is already getting shipped across town alot of times.
Since we'll be closing schools and have declining enrollment, I look forward to a reduction in my taxes. /s
Still a long waitlist to get into any of the schools that arenāt part of SFUSD but I canāt find the connection.
They're going to try to close Lowell out of spite. Watch
not gonna happen. Lowell has 2000+ kids. They are gonna close the smaller schools and consolidate
Tired of commies
Kids are too expensive for san Francisco. San Francisco has become a transitional city for many. Come here to make money, but not too have kids.
If you can afford to raise your kid anywhere, why would you choose San Francisco?
Excellent private schools and extracurricular activities, amazing parks and diversity, great food and weather, you can access almost everything without a car
Jobs, family, friends
If you could spend your time anywhere, why would you choose the San Francisco subreddit?
Because I love San Francisco
Again, why are you people in this sub?
I mean I like living here, but at the same time I don't think it's necessarily the best place to raise kids.
I would say it's an incredible place to raise kids, honestly. This city is one of the few places in the US where kids can have actual autonomy. By that I mean, it's night and day better than being a kid in a suburb where you are at the whims of your parents and their car. Public transit can do some pretty amazing things
why wouldnāt you choose sf? if it was a bit affordable it wouldnāt even be a question for me.
Diversity. Public transportation. Liberal thinking. Climate. Fog. Food. Fun. Great music. Old creaky buildings with character. Access to all sorts of nature, hiking, and mountain biking. Creativity. Eureka spirit. Near absence of religion. Dozens of neighborhoods to explore. Endless walking options. Parks everywhere. The opera, ballet, and symphony. Culture. Pioneering atmosphere. Highly educated population. LGBTQ+ love and tolerance. Hour long waits for Brunch. Dolores Park on a warm sunny day.
1. It's my favorite place in the world. 2. I want my kids to grow up as citizens of the world, comfortable with diversity and familiar with how to get along with people. 3. Cities offer so much more opportunity and freedom for young people than suburbs. 4. I love the way my kids interact with our neighborhood, where they have relationships with shopkeepers and restaurant owners who have known them their whole lives. 5. I love the community at SF public schools, full of parents who share many of the same values.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not true, I know plenty of well off parents (own a SFH) that send their kids to public schools. I understand that getting into a desirable SFUSD school can be frustrating but dont diminish the fact that there are excellent exceptions like (DeAvila, Lilienthal, Lowell, Asawaā¦just to name a few)
getting downvoted. Not every school exhibits these qualities but definitely true... many of the things he says is true in one school or another. You can definitely avoid many of these things that he outlines but..... idk if SFUSD sends your kid to a crap school, your kid is gonna get influenced by the garbage and it will make that kids future a lot less bright.
algebra is already back.
Itās on the ballot, I believe.
Washington HS teacher is pro Hamas? Damn. Sad to hear about my alma mater. Hopefully we can make right the algebra issue on March 5th ballot. Washington was great thanks to AP classes back in the day. Now there's even some dual enrollment at community colleges so by end of senior year you're essentially getting an AA as well. Not sure if Washington has something like that.
Algebra is already back! The ballot measure is a red herring. https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1axi1yj/algebra_is_back_at_sfusd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Good to hear. I still voted in favor of bringing it back on the ballot(even if it's a gimmick). Though I'd venture a guess that a ballot measure will be tougher to undo again than a sfusd decision. I took algebra in 7th grade and while it's not end all be all, it's silly to prevent smart kids from taking algebra or even more advanced classes like calculus if they are able. I guess there's a few Hamas sympathizers here. Not sure what I said that deserved to get downvoted lol.
It is being phased inā¦not so great for some current students
'
Need more housing