When I went to Washington the principal would tell us at assemblies that Washington was the top-rated school academically in the City, rated higher than Lowell. He patted himself on the back praising his administration and the teachers for this accomplishment.
However, after Lowell moved to its present location, Washington lost its top rating even though Washington had the same administrators and faculty. It turned out that many parents chose Washington over Lowell because Lowell was in a “transitional” neighborhood. One of my classmates, a math genius, lived in Chinatown but used an aunt’s address to get into Washington.
This sentence stood out: "The only way to solve under-enrollment is to remove the temptation to reopen closed sites, whether by charter schools or the district itself. The best way of doing that would be to have an alternate use lined up at the time of the closing."
This conflates two distinct scenarios regarding closed school sites:
A) SFUSD reopening its own closed sites despite having excess capacity elsewhere
B) Charter schools utilizing vacant SFUSD facilities
While preventing SFUSD from reopening closed sites may help address under-enrollment, restricting charter schools' access to these facilities would be both legally problematic and counterproductive. Here's why:
First, California Education Code Section 47614 requires districts to provide facilities to charter schools serving district students. Attempting to prevent charters from using vacant facilities would violate this legal obligation.
Second, charter schools provide vital competition that can drive improvement in district schools. Unlike private schools, which are inaccessible to many families due to cost, charter schools:
- Operate on a similar financial footing as district schools
- Serve students without charging tuition
- Create meaningful pressure for district improvement through direct competition for enrollment
Making it prohibitively difficult for charter schools to find facilities would effectively eliminate this competitive pressure. Without viable alternatives for families, SFUSD would face reduced incentives to improve its educational offerings and operational efficiency.
The solution to under-enrollment should focus on optimizing SFUSD's direct operations rather than restricting charter access to facilities. This maintains healthy competition while addressing the district's core capacity challenges.
If SFUSD-run schools are underenrolled, it's SFUSD-run schools that should be cut. If a particular charter school can attract students, it should be allowed to thrive.
When I went to Washington the principal would tell us at assemblies that Washington was the top-rated school academically in the City, rated higher than Lowell. He patted himself on the back praising his administration and the teachers for this accomplishment.
However, after Lowell moved to its present location, Washington lost its top rating even though Washington had the same administrators and faculty. It turned out that many parents chose Washington over Lowell because Lowell was in a “transitional” neighborhood. One of my classmates, a math genius, lived in Chinatown but used an aunt’s address to get into Washington.
Thanks for sharing this.
This sentence stood out: "The only way to solve under-enrollment is to remove the temptation to reopen closed sites, whether by charter schools or the district itself. The best way of doing that would be to have an alternate use lined up at the time of the closing."
This conflates two distinct scenarios regarding closed school sites:
A) SFUSD reopening its own closed sites despite having excess capacity elsewhere
B) Charter schools utilizing vacant SFUSD facilities
While preventing SFUSD from reopening closed sites may help address under-enrollment, restricting charter schools' access to these facilities would be both legally problematic and counterproductive. Here's why:
First, California Education Code Section 47614 requires districts to provide facilities to charter schools serving district students. Attempting to prevent charters from using vacant facilities would violate this legal obligation.
Second, charter schools provide vital competition that can drive improvement in district schools. Unlike private schools, which are inaccessible to many families due to cost, charter schools:
- Operate on a similar financial footing as district schools
- Serve students without charging tuition
- Create meaningful pressure for district improvement through direct competition for enrollment
Making it prohibitively difficult for charter schools to find facilities would effectively eliminate this competitive pressure. Without viable alternatives for families, SFUSD would face reduced incentives to improve its educational offerings and operational efficiency.
The solution to under-enrollment should focus on optimizing SFUSD's direct operations rather than restricting charter access to facilities. This maintains healthy competition while addressing the district's core capacity challenges.
If SFUSD-run schools are underenrolled, it's SFUSD-run schools that should be cut. If a particular charter school can attract students, it should be allowed to thrive.