Parents under pressure

|
(134)
Some concerns that came up at a SFUSD forum to solicit parents' feedback at Cesar Chavez Elementary on 11/14.
GUARDIAN PHOTO BY REBECCA BOWE

In recent weeks, the San Francisco Unified School District has held a series of community forums to ask parents what they think kids need in order to thrive in school. The meetings were held as part of a policymaking process leading up to next year’s renewal of two important funds – the Children’s Fund and the Public Education Enrichment Fund, which account for some $100 million in funding combined.

There were huge turnouts – a Chinatown forum, where Mayor Ed Lee was reportedly in attendance, attracted more than 180 participants, while a Nov. 14 meeting at Cesar Chavez Elementary in the Mission District drew a crowd of between 80 and 90.

The parents weren’t exactly asking for more museum field trips for their kids. During breakout sessions where facilitators wrote group members’ concerns on flip pads, a few recurring themes emerged. “Job security for parents,” one read. “Affordable housing,” another stated. “It’s a shame to have to talk about lack of funds given wealth and corporations in SF,” more parent feedback stated.

Maria Su, director of the San Francisco Department of Children, Youth and their Families, thanked parents for coming and told them, “We know how hard it is and how challenging it is to survive in the city. But that doesn’t mean we should give up.”

The event provided a glimpse into just how tough it is for families to get by in a city where a hefty cost of living amounts to serious pressure. “The sacrifices they make is, their children will have access to resources you can’t get anywhere else,” said Mario Paz with the Good Samaritan Family Resource Center, who works with a lot of Latino immigrant families.

A report digesting the findings of stakeholder focus groups distilled the pressures facing families. “Many participants commented on … the extraordinarily high cost of living in San Francisco,” it noted, which “contributes to both financial and emotional strain on the part of our many working class and lower income residents.”

Comments

There were different public power initiatives. Almost all of them were close. In 2001, whether or not you acknowledge the voter fraud, it was as close as Prop H. And yet, the trolls are quick to infer that the opinion was clear. Anon is right for once, be consistent.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 25, 2013 @ 6:45 pm

public power and they ALL lost.

Not just one close race.

If you have several close races and you lose every time, you should learn something. but one can be an aberration.

Oh, and there was no voter fraud. That was a myth put about by Bruce because he was so pissed at losing yet again.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 25, 2013 @ 7:10 pm

Why do you think parents put their kids into private school or leave the city? It's not just housing costs, as you would like to believe. It is SF's racist school bussing system.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 6:57 am

I was waiting to throw that trope back at the trolls!

Demagoguery aside, you're right that this isn't one of those things that should be decided by the voters. Segregation is either right or it's wrong. It's not wrong in San Francisco but right in Alabama. Fortunately we already fought that battle, and your side lost in 1954. See: Brown vs. Board of Education. You're now making the bizarre and perverse claim that segregation is not racism, but desegregation is. That's a non-starter no matter how people vote, but for what it's worth, I'm glad San Francisco voters re-affirmed that they still agree with the principles outlined in the Brown decision, and kicked your asses back into the 1950s, where you belong.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 8:34 am

If you were forced to live somewhere because of your race, that would be segregation.

But you are not. Races are free to live wherever they want, and if they choose to cluster themselves ethnically, that is not a problem at all.

I'm not the one telling other people what to do and where to live. That's you.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 9:37 am

No one has told you were to live. You can build a White Supremacist compound in the Idaho woods if you like and invite all your friends to build a whites-only paradise for you.

You just can't use taxpayer dollars to build an all-white school. In Idaho or anywhere else.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 2:51 pm

It's just that if it is a neighborhood school in a mostly white area, it will probably have a mostly white set of students.

You appear unable to differentiate forced segregation from random, circumstantial, voluntary self-segregation

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 5:02 pm

http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=9939

This is the ruling that led to the desegregation of San Francisco Public Schools. If we eliminated the Choice System that SFUSD uses now we would end up with the segregated schools we had in 1978. You obviously think that this is a good idea.

Most people do not.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 3:09 pm

Nationally, busing has always been wildly unpopular.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 4:47 pm

Now, if there is a school where all the kids are white, it is only because the local populace is all white.

I'm sure lots of schools in rural Iowa are all-white, but there is no segregation there.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 5:03 pm

session off line?

Give it a fucking rest.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 2:21 pm

Guest and anon, even Lucretia is telling you to shut up already.

For what it's worth, I'm surprised, but impressed, that you're taking this position. Usually you'd be defending any kind of racism. I'm glad to see there are limits to your white supremacist views.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 8:24 pm

I suspect a few white kids in a school that was 90% black and hispanic could tell you a thing or two about racism that doesn't fit with your smug, sanctimonious theories.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 17, 2013 @ 9:46 am

Like with ROTC in schools. Supported by "the people" but the school board voted right away to do away with the program.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 11:34 pm

It was an advisory measure, and it wasn't very clear cut. No one actually banned ROTC. They just decided it wasn't right to use valuable education dollars to fund military recruitment. Students would still be free to play soldier on their own time. But if the people felt so strongly about it, then they could rise up and vote the school board members out. They tried to make it an issue in school board elections, but clearly nobody cared about it. Even David Latterman said "this [54%] isn't a mandate."

The ROTC people thought they'd get an overwhelming victory, but they miscalculated. They miscalculated again on re-segregating the schools, where they failed to muster even a majority. These conservative attempts at using our schools for their pet social engineering projects have been proven failures.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 17, 2013 @ 10:52 pm

Ammiano was on the news complaining that it wasn't a fair vote and the school board should ignore it. It wasn't a fair vote because his side was outspent. At the time it was noted that at time Ammiano had out spent opponents.

By the way

The actual plan was to get rid of the JROTC and replace it with something else using that funding, they were starting some "leadership and excellence" type thing as a veneer thin cover.

JROTC had been around for many decades, progressive educrat nonsense is relatively new. I met some of the kids during the JROTC episode, they were all nice, polite and well spoken, and it seems they did well in school and had a high success rate, while faddism is the common trait of the new man progressives.

I get that you are now attempting to turn the tables on the people that poke fun at you for your excuse when you lose elections or your need try and manipulate society to your world view, while claiming to be tolerant and open minded. It's a good try, but you have to actually not whine when you lose elections and not try and social engineer for it to work.

You complain that people who want more or less the status quo are attempting to social engineer.

Posted by Matlock on Nov. 17, 2013 @ 11:52 pm

for parents. There's no doubt instability at home impacts a child's educational ability to do well in school and maybe SFUSD partnerships with programs designed to work towards more stability at home is a good idea. But all parents also need to understand that when you have a child you become responsible for his or her welfare and if living in San Francisco is so stressful and difficult due to the cost of housing that's it's impacting your child's well-being then, for the sake of your child and your family, perhaps you need to live somewhere else.

When I was a child my mother was having a lot of difficulty finding a job in the area we lived in. As a consequence she chose to move us 1500 miles away where there were more jobs - the ability to move somewhere else to give your kids a chance at a wonderful thing is one of the great things about this country.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Nov. 15, 2013 @ 9:05 pm

So they can afford to be ideologically pure and one dimensional.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 2:39 pm

I don't have kids? Why do you think my name is GlenParkDaddy? It is not because I dress up in leather chaps and motorcycle boots and spend my Saturday afternoons at The Stud. Though I might if I didn't have a family to raise :)

I like the current San Francisco choice system. The way it really works in practice is that most people who "bus" their kids are people who live in poor neighborhoods who choose to send their children to better schools. There are very few actual buses left, most people use Muni or drive.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 3:12 pm
Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 5:00 pm
Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 8:31 pm

Hell, I could be both, you don't know.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 8:43 pm

"Lowell is pretty diverse"??? Has Lowell changed that much since the mid-90s? Because when I went there, the Black and Latino population COMBINED was maybe 10%. And that was with the racial entry preferences were in place.

But I guess it is pretty diverse when you consider that Whites, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Filipinos, and Vietnamese comprised 90% of the student body.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 10:25 pm

Sounds diverse to me.

Posted by RemyMarathe on Nov. 17, 2013 @ 2:57 pm

Blacks and Hispanics whether they're poor or rich are acceptable quotients of the "diversity" calculation. Whites? Never. Asians - only if they're poor and don't speak English.

Posted by hjlgdkfijg- Smaug on Nov. 17, 2013 @ 10:09 pm

One of the unacknowledged purposes of rent control is to keep Asian professionals from outbidding overeducated, underemployed white people for rental housing in San Francisco.

Posted by racer さ on Nov. 17, 2013 @ 11:16 pm

white loser who think he deserves to be in SF. What he lacks in fiscal ability to live here is made up by his ceaseless willingness to push for housing "rights" that non-whites generally eschew.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 7:01 am

Don't be so hard on Greg and Eric.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 9:46 am

Eric is a freeloader who under any normal circumstance would be living elsewhere.

For Greg, rent control is like this school bussing issue - he has an academic, ideological interest but, in the end, it doesn't matter to him either way.

Eric (and Lilli/Racer) need all these handouts, subsidies and special schemes or they are quite simply out of business.

Marcos has already sold out and withdrew from active politics when he decided to buy a condo and help gentrify the Mission, while continuing to pay lip service to the revolution in a half-assed way, of course..

Strip those guys out and there are no lefties left.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 10:09 am

Asians don't ever seem to count as diverse, rich or poor.

Posted by RemyMarathe on Nov. 25, 2013 @ 12:42 am

Yeah. When GPD said that Lowell is pretty diverse, I'm pretty sure that isn't the kind of diversity he meant. But it's pretty obvious that he doesn't know WTF he is talking about.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 7:59 pm

Take your med Chris.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on Nov. 19, 2013 @ 12:51 am

I'd like for my little girl to go to the school that's across the street from us. Thats how it worked in every place I lived except San Francisco. Don't most parents want this?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 20, 2013 @ 9:58 am

crappy school in a bad part of town so they can punish you for being successful.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 20, 2013 @ 10:12 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.