5 ms·

It'll be interesting to see how this goes in the future. In San Francisco, there has been a huge resurgence in the number of families with small children. Tha

by geebee 18y ago

It'll be interesting to see how this goes in the future. In San Francisco, there has been a huge resurgence in the number of families with small children. That's small children, not necessarily school aged children, which is why I'm still wait-and-see on this. I attended public elementary school in SF in the 70s, which surprises a lot of the parents I meet now (I have a three year old). I don't, unfortunately, have very encouraging things to say. It was a rough environment. Fights (and by that, I mean fist fights) were extremely common, even among eight year olds. Then again, a lot of people didn't enjoy school, so I'm not necessarily saying things were all peachy in Marin or Palo Alto. I have to wonder if the middle-class people will stick around once they are faced with difficult decisions about school. San Francisco still uses a lottery to determine school assignment, while wealthy suburbs guarantee you access to the "free" wealthy local school. I know a lot of people with three year olds, and I really like these folks, but very few of them grew up here, and I wonder how they'll react when the city tells them they've been assigned to a poorly performing school across town. Will they accept the assignment (hard to swallow)? Pay $17K+ for private schools (hard to do when you're struggling to make the mortgage payments)? Or will they just move out of the city? Keep in mind that SF is very expensive, just as pricey as these tony suburbs. It could be that city centers become wealthy, safe playgrounds for singles, retirees, and young couples who stick around until their children hit school age.

hugh 18y ago
Aren't fistfights between eight-year-olds common everywhere? It's the fistfights between 16-year-olds that indicate an area has problems.
- geebee 18y ago
  Could be. They're definitely less dangerous than they become later in life. I really don't know how it was elsewhere. It irritates me when people think they know me better than I do, and I don't want to be guilty of acting that way toward someone else. When I transferred to private school in sixth grade, fights essentially vanished. Believe it or not, there was never a single fistfight in my high school.
  - nostrademons 18y ago
    There were fistfights up through 8th grade in my suburban Boston school. I transferred schools at that point, so I don't know if they continued, but given that one of the guys who used to beat me up was arrested for assault and battery with a caribeaner, I'd guess so. My suburb's been gentrifying along with the rest of the Boston area, though. When I was in school, there was still a sizable working-class population here, and I considered $400K to be a really expensive house. Now you can't find housing here for less than half a million, and the house around the block just sold for $1.2M. It's changed the character of the neighborhood a lot.
gibsonf1 18y ago
San Francisco is building many high-rise residential towers right now - the City is the place to live, until the kids need to go to school. But there are a growing number of good private options, and even a ray of hope on the public side. One of the worst Public schools in town (William Cobb Elementary) is being transformed into an AMI certified Montessori school with complete replacement of the staff. I have no clue how this is happening here politically, but it sure is encouraging. A nice side effect to the certification requirement is that all the old teachers don't qualify :) The new direction started with a pre-school program with the support of the top international Montessori school in Marin. The Cobb Montessori program now has a 5 year track record with glowing reviews from parents. We are enrolling our 4.5 year old there now. I never dreamed of having our child in public school until I found this one.
- geebee 18y ago
  There is definitely a ray of hope on the public side. A lot of the parents I know are extremely committed to staying in the city. But you sure do need to be committed. The numbers just don't look good for SF. If you rely on private schools, you are looking at about $17K/yr for the K-8, followed by $25k/yr for the high schools. The numbers boggle the mind. I have one kid and another on the way. That means that tuition would run me between $34K-$50k a year. It's not tax deductible, so this actually translates into about $50-$70 in salary. I know some two income families that could swing it without too much pain, but unfortunately, I'm not in one of them. But even if you can afford it, imagine if you moved to a good school district in the suburbs and invested that money instead. The education is "free" - and in a way, you make money on it. You have to pay taxes to support it, sure, but you'd have to pay them in SF anyway. And because houses in good school districts tend to hold value or appreciate more rapidly than others, the tax becomes, in a strange way, an investment (ie., you're essentially buying a share in a school district when you buy the house). Living in SF must be very important to these folks, because I wouldn't be surprised if they're walking away from well over a million in lost revenue over a lifetime. Lastly, SF's school district is in particular trouble because of the deals it cut with the unions in more prosperous times. I read about this in the chronicle a couple of years ago (sorry, no link). Anyone who worked for five years for SF Unified (in almost any capacity) gets subsidized health care in retirement. In other words, someone who worked as a janitor from age 19-24 before moving on to other things is on the pension and health care plan. Because it's a relatively old school district (newer suburbs simply don't have retirees to support, because they didn't exist 30 years ago), this problem is compounded. SF will spend a huge amount of its school budget simply supporting its pension and health plan obligations. In a way, it's almost a relief that so many childless people live in SF - because of these obligations, we may need a much larger tax base to educate the same number of students as a suburban district.
evgen 18y ago
I know two couples with kids that will enter school in one year and have in-laws with a one-year old. All are looking elsewhere (south bay/penninsula mostly) for places to live once it is time for the kids to go to school. San Francisco may be gaining in families with small children, but this is probably a side-effect of the last wave of hipster migrants getting married and having kids; it is still losing a torrent of families with school-age kids. The general pattern is to move to SF, enjoy the city life, hook up and get married, have kids, then leave for the bay area suburbs.

by geebee 18y ago

hugh 18y ago

Aren't fistfights between eight-year-olds common everywhere? It's the fistfights between 16-year-olds that indicate an area has problems.

geebee 18y ago
Could be. They're definitely less dangerous than they become later in life. I really don't know how it was elsewhere. It irritates me when people think they know me better than I do, and I don't want to be guilty of acting that way toward someone else. When I transferred to private school in sixth grade, fights essentially vanished. Believe it or not, there was never a single fistfight in my high school.
- nostrademons 18y ago
  There were fistfights up through 8th grade in my suburban Boston school. I transferred schools at that point, so I don't know if they continued, but given that one of the guys who used to beat me up was arrested for assault and battery with a caribeaner, I'd guess so. My suburb's been gentrifying along with the rest of the Boston area, though. When I was in school, there was still a sizable working-class population here, and I considered $400K to be a really expensive house. Now you can't find housing here for less than half a million, and the house around the block just sold for $1.2M. It's changed the character of the neighborhood a lot.

gibsonf1 18y ago

San Francisco is building many high-rise residential towers right now - the City is the place to live, until the kids need to go to school. But there are a growing number of good private options, and even a ray of hope on the public side. One of the worst Public schools in town (William Cobb Elementary) is being transformed into an AMI certified Montessori school with complete replacement of the staff. I have no clue how this is happening here politically, but it sure is encouraging. A nice side effect to the certification requirement is that all the old teachers don't qualify :) The new direction started with a pre-school program with the support of the top international Montessori school in Marin. The Cobb Montessori program now has a 5 year track record with glowing reviews from parents. We are enrolling our 4.5 year old there now. I never dreamed of having our child in public school until I found this one.

geebee 18y ago
There is definitely a ray of hope on the public side. A lot of the parents I know are extremely committed to staying in the city. But you sure do need to be committed. The numbers just don't look good for SF. If you rely on private schools, you are looking at about $17K/yr for the K-8, followed by $25k/yr for the high schools. The numbers boggle the mind. I have one kid and another on the way. That means that tuition would run me between $34K-$50k a year. It's not tax deductible, so this actually translates into about $50-$70 in salary. I know some two income families that could swing it without too much pain, but unfortunately, I'm not in one of them. But even if you can afford it, imagine if you moved to a good school district in the suburbs and invested that money instead. The education is "free" - and in a way, you make money on it. You have to pay taxes to support it, sure, but you'd have to pay them in SF anyway. And because houses in good school districts tend to hold value or appreciate more rapidly than others, the tax becomes, in a strange way, an investment (ie., you're essentially buying a share in a school district when you buy the house). Living in SF must be very important to these folks, because I wouldn't be surprised if they're walking away from well over a million in lost revenue over a lifetime. Lastly, SF's school district is in particular trouble because of the deals it cut with the unions in more prosperous times. I read about this in the chronicle a couple of years ago (sorry, no link). Anyone who worked for five years for SF Unified (in almost any capacity) gets subsidized health care in retirement. In other words, someone who worked as a janitor from age 19-24 before moving on to other things is on the pension and health care plan. Because it's a relatively old school district (newer suburbs simply don't have retirees to support, because they didn't exist 30 years ago), this problem is compounded. SF will spend a huge amount of its school budget simply supporting its pension and health plan obligations. In a way, it's almost a relief that so many childless people live in SF - because of these obligations, we may need a much larger tax base to educate the same number of students as a suburban district.

evgen 18y ago

I know two couples with kids that will enter school in one year and have in-laws with a one-year old. All are looking elsewhere (south bay/penninsula mostly) for places to live once it is time for the kids to go to school. San Francisco may be gaining in families with small children, but this is probably a side-effect of the last wave of hipster migrants getting married and having kids; it is still losing a torrent of families with school-age kids. The general pattern is to move to SF, enjoy the city life, hook up and get married, have kids, then leave for the bay area suburbs.