Wanton attacks on SFUSD hurt kids
For a district that's getting all kinds of praise for raising its test scores (remind me why we drove Arlene Ackerman out of town again?), SFUSD is getting bashed from both sides.
From the left we have semi-officially declared Board of Education candidate Kim Knox posting a lot of misinformation on the Green Party's LeftinSF blog inaccurately claiming that some SFUSD schools had so few applications that they'll be next on the closure list. Kim, who means well, is concerned that these schools need better publicity so they'll attract more applicants and won't have to close; yet she herself is doing the most harm by publicly posting damaging misinformation about them.
From the right (by S.F. standards), chronic hothead Wade Randlett makes a nasty blast at Parents for Public Schools, an organization that has made a huge difference in our district by persuading parents to open their minds to a wider variety of schools. The blast comes in his weekly newsletter Signal Flag, for which I can't find a link to include here.
(I understand that Randlett's SFSOS has been providing material on test scores that has been distributed at SFUSD enrollment counseling sessions — and that also includes statements promoting his view opposing SFUSD's all-choice enrollment system. Apparently PPS raised questions about that, provoking his ire.)
As usual, I'll point out that these attacks harm our schools and our kids. Kim, I'm publicly urging you to have someone double-check your figures and your information before you make public statements. Wade HAS been urged to tone it down, but clearly isn't willing to listen.
— Caroline
Note: Kim Knox is insisting that her information is correct and that I'm shooting the messenger when I object to it. But she's wrong; her information is inaccurate.
From the left we have semi-officially declared Board of Education candidate Kim Knox posting a lot of misinformation on the Green Party's LeftinSF blog inaccurately claiming that some SFUSD schools had so few applications that they'll be next on the closure list. Kim, who means well, is concerned that these schools need better publicity so they'll attract more applicants and won't have to close; yet she herself is doing the most harm by publicly posting damaging misinformation about them.
From the right (by S.F. standards), chronic hothead Wade Randlett makes a nasty blast at Parents for Public Schools, an organization that has made a huge difference in our district by persuading parents to open their minds to a wider variety of schools. The blast comes in his weekly newsletter Signal Flag, for which I can't find a link to include here.
(I understand that Randlett's SFSOS has been providing material on test scores that has been distributed at SFUSD enrollment counseling sessions — and that also includes statements promoting his view opposing SFUSD's all-choice enrollment system. Apparently PPS raised questions about that, provoking his ire.)
As usual, I'll point out that these attacks harm our schools and our kids. Kim, I'm publicly urging you to have someone double-check your figures and your information before you make public statements. Wade HAS been urged to tone it down, but clearly isn't willing to listen.
— Caroline
Note: Kim Knox is insisting that her information is correct and that I'm shooting the messenger when I object to it. But she's wrong; her information is inaccurate.
Labels: SFUSD Politics
7 Comments:
Funny, I don't see Wade Randlett clamoring to get assigned to HIS neighborhood school in Lower Pacific Heights. Anyway, maybe he is just feeling cranky because his new squeeze (also known as SFUSD spokesperson) is coming under some fire for failing to separate her personal and public lives.
Wade Randlett is a disgusting human being, but he is not running for BOE. Kim Knox is. I find it very disturbing that someone whose platform calls for better PR for underenrolled schools is making statements about enrollment which are so clearly not based on fact. Shouldn't she be out cheerleading for schools like Revere and Marshall, instead of promoting the idea that they will be next on the closure list?
And what is that business about "the schools with the least amount of requests-and those will likely to be on the school closure list in the very near future" (sic)? Have the criteria for a future round of school closures already been determined? It seems to me that it was just a few weeks ago that we were hearing an outcry (from Kim, among others) for some kind of new process for determining what schools might close in the fututre, one that had lots of input from diverse groups, and not just a simple slash and burn policy which closed schools based on enrollment and not much else. To read Kim's post (which is titled "Schools That Will Be Closed Next Year"), it sounds like Kim has already decided that the only factor used to choose which schools to close will be enrollment. What happened to all of the community input?
Kim is correct that many of the schools on the closure or merger list that were spared this year got very few applicants and that this, in turn, would make it easier for the BOE to close them in the future.
Kim may be correct about that in concept and in some cases, but her figures and information about specific schools are inaccurate.
Knox's numbers are correct. You are just nitpicking.
This info she got out is important to ensure that schools and the school district to do everything possible to get the word out about lower enrolled schools, and especially the non-immersion bilingual programs.
The info on Randlett and SFSOS was right on the mark though.
No, her numbers were wrong, and she admitted this herself when she went back and posted the "corrected" version of that post, which is currently up on the LeftinSF site.
On the other blog this was the info that Kim Knox posted that clarified her posting which was essentially based on info from the SFUSD. Stop nitpicking... We need to work together to help get more parents to select schools for their children, especially in the schools with low enrollment numbers. Can we be honest about the need to do this and stop being so defensive. I believe this is what Knox has been trying to do.
kimknox Says:
March 23rd, 2006 at 6:31 am
Caroline, I am taking the numbers directly out of the handouts that were provided by SFUSD to all parents at the information sessions last night at Mission and William Cobb. So you can try to shoot the messenger-but you would then get the source (SFUSD).
So since that is the information being given by SFUSD, we should be talking how do we increase the number of requests for those schools.
While I applaud PPS and others for increasing the numbers at McKinley, Alvarado and Fairmont, there are other schools that need help in increasing their enrollment. And many of these schools have dedicated parents who are looking for the tools to increase their numbers (such as Webster and Starr King).
It is interesting that the Chinese and Spanish bilingual programs are decreasing their numbers. Especially since last night at the information session in Round 2, the discussion centered that there were not enough spots for students interested in keeping up their language skills in middle school and high school
PH Parent Says:
March 23rd, 2006 at 6:17 pm
The low # of requests for some less popular neighborhood schools may reflect the reality that many of the incoming kindergarteners have parents who are totally unaware of the application process. Rather than applying in Round 1, they wait until the last minute and then go to their neighborhood school to enroll. Since the school is underenrolled, this doesn’t generally present a problem. But it makes the numbers look bad.
Kim Knox Says:
March 23rd, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Thanks, Caroline for the tip on Marshall. While the table that you show on your link shows a General Education class, I called them to verify that they are a Spanish bilingual school.
Secondly, see page five. Paul Revere’s General Education’s new 6th grade class has 7 applicants. But I should have made that clear. Paul Revere’s General Education’s incoming Kindergarten class has 46 students and their Spanish bilingual program has 33 applicants. Very impressive.
Fri Mar 24, 06:17:45 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home