And here are a few more SF laws of, shall we say, questionable utility http://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/san-francisco/how-to-break-10-sf-laws-in-one-hour
I don’t know how school funding works in CA but in NY each school district’s homeowners’ property taxes pay for the school, so only the children whose families live in that district are allowed to go to that school for free. If a special needs kid requires services their home district can’t provide, the district pays another district to provide them.
The reason we spend so much with so little academic gain is that the majority of our money goes to staff salaries and benefits. To cover the cost of personnel they cut class options, delay upkeep and repairs of the campuses, and fire the newest teachers. As long as districts insist on giving staff 5-18% salary increases every year on top of longevity bonuses and various stipends, there won’t be money to pour into academics.
Isn’t it the staff (i.e. teachers) who are the academics?
Dh is a teacher and has never had that kind of raise. And his increase in insurance premiums more than outweigh the 1.5% raises he does get. When he gets those.
Do outside districts welcome SF kids into their schools?
Magnet schools in NYC do not get extra money from the city. (Of course many/most of them have alumni associations and PTAs that raise a lot of money that more than makes up for the extra money that the city gives to schools with low-achieving students.)
In California, even kids in the same district cannot attend schools outside of the designated school in the area. Parents can apply for intra-district transfer but the transfer is subject to the number of open slots in the desired schools. Property tax and Mello Roos tax are reason of the restriction.
PLENTY of good private schools charge less than 20k. But a private school doesn’t enjoy the economies of scale that a big school system does.
Besides, comparing Groton to local public school is ridiculous. It’s like complaining you don’t drive a Bentley.
Teachers are only part of what constitutes academics. The educational program (depth and breadth of course offerings, programs for our special needs kids, and state mandated classes) is an important part of it. We must have both or risk insolvency, but we don’t have the money for both. We give longevity bonuses that total nearly a quarter of a million dollars/teacher over the course of their careers, pay 90% of the insurance premiums for teachers who are still working and 100% for retirees, and provide a $25k cash payout when they retire, but are cutting so many teachers and programs to do it that we’re on the brink of educational insolvency. I don’t know how states like CA fund their schools but in NYS they’re funded by local property taxes, and the taxpayers can no longer afford what it costs to run them.
That depends on the district. My son attended high school in an open enrollment district – he could choose any high school in the district. He happened to choose the one nearest to where we live – but most of the kids near us chose the larger school a few miles away.
<<<
Odd that they accept illegals but not their neighbors, but hey, it's a progressive city.
This is a red herring. Per the U.S. Supreme Court, school districts are required to enroll students in public school regardless of their immigration status.
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but to what extent do schools go to prove that an illegal child actually lives in a school’s borders. Many illegals live with relatives, don’t have utilities or really anything “in their name,” yet they still seem to be able to enroll their kids. So, how are they able to do so without proof that they live where they say that they do?
If a legal resident just showed up with a relative’s utility bill, could they easily enroll their child?
^ No, not in our school district. Students residing in a shared residence must submit notarized copies of school forms (shared residence affidavits) plus other documentation. The shared residence affidavit requires the actual property owner or primary lease owner (whom they are supposed to be living with) to provide one document from each of three categories - (#1) copy of their drivers license with address or California id with address or passport or consular id, AND (#2) copy of lease and managers name and phone number or property tax bill or rental insurance papers, AND (3) tax papers with w-2 attached, or a payroll check or correspondence from a government agency to the address within the district or recent voter registration card. All papers must be current (within the past few months) and have the address within the district listed.
The school district will frequently contact the property manager to verify the family is staying at that property with their tenants or visit the house.
If a family has been staying in homeless shelters they have to provide the name of the shelters they’ve been at (and other information).
A few years ago our school district noticed that a LOT of newly enrolled students were residing at the same address and did a check. It was a business in the district that was collecting a fee (from parents) allowing them to use his business address on their drivers license and other forms that would be required for enrollment.
@calmom, same thing. UNC would obviously be stronger if they can take any students they want, but as UNC is still funded in part by NC and governed by NC, they can choose whoever they want to admit. This entitlement that some people seem to feel about a school that’s outside their district (and where they don’t pay property taxes) seems strange to me.
Are there some non-CA folks who feel like they are entitled to attend Cal or UCLA?
@skyoverme, we have local school systems in the US, not state or national school systems (for better or worse). Everyone living in a school district (owning or renting), directly or indirectly pays property taxes to that school district. Outsiders do not.
I own property in SF. My property tax includes special assessments for SFUSD facility district, SFCCD parcel tax and SF teacher support (just like all the other SF property owners). But I don’t live there; my primary residence is outside of SF. One of the requirements to attend an SF school is that you must live in the district.
MLM, but you could move to SF if you want to, so you are voluntarily choosing to be an outsider and forgoing the benefits of being a SF resident.
<<<
^ No, not in our school district. Students residing in a shared residence must submit notarized copies of school forms (shared residence affidavits) plus other documentation. The shared residence affidavit requires the actual property owner or primary lease owner (whom they are supposed to be living with) to provide one document from each of three categories - (#1) copy of their drivers license with address or California id with address or passport or consular id, AND (#2) copy of lease and managers name and phone number or property tax bill or rental insurance papers, AND (3) tax papers with w-2 attached, or a payroll check or correspondence from a government agency to the address within the district or recent voter registration card. All papers must be current (within the past few months) and have the address within the district listed.
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure what any of the above proves. If an illegal immigrant is claiming to live with a friend or relative that owns or leases that home, what does requiring any of the above prevent???
<<<
The school district will frequently contact the property manager to verify the family is staying at that property with their tenants or visit the house.
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
that really only works if the “other family in the shared residence” is renting. What if they’re owners?
[QUOTE=""]
A few years ago our school district noticed that a LOT of newly enrolled students were residing at the same address and did a check. It was a business in the district that was collecting a fee (from parents) allowing them to use his business address on their drivers license and other forms that would be required for enrollment.
[/QUOTE]
That just taught the dishonest business to “be more clever” next time.
Just in case anyone was wondering what it takes to rent a one-bedroom apartment in SF (let’s not even talk about the median home price) and project how it affects the SFUSD, here’s this article:
http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2015/06/02/san-franciscos-median-rent-hits-a-ridiculous-4225/
When you consider that these averages price out many families who would like to live in SF, we then look at those who can afford to stay. They either bought their homes more than 10 years ago and may not longer have HS-age kids, or are wealthy enough to buy in/rent real estate here – and will most likely pay for private schools, rather than risk sending their kids into the uneven public system. Considerable resources are currently devoted to those students, recent immigrants and others, who struggle at the bottom of the achievement ladder, as well as for those who are considered academically ‘gifted and talented.’ There are very few resources for kids in the middle, or for those with artistic talents in any of our Bay Area schools.
Don’t take away and punish all of these students, in and out of district, because the administration exceeded the clearly stated percentage cap.
Admitting a limited percentage of OOD kids from the surrounding areas, at this specific school, is not only about the in-district tax base. It’s about artistic excellence and the sharing of limited, specialized resources for the benefit of all of our kids.
Well, following @hop’s suggestion, perhaps the Berkeley should allow talented out-of-state students to enroll at in-state rates, because it would be unfair to deprive those students of Berkeley’s excellence, even if it does mean that some California students get locked out. 
When these out of district kids are enrolled in a special school in SF, does any money flow from that other district to SF? If not, why not?
Money generally flows from the state to districts in CA. Districts receive an amount from the state calculated based on their ADA (average daily attendance). For the past 2 years, there has been a supplemental amount based on the percentage of English learners, free and reduced-price meal eligible, and foster youth students (unduplicated), and another “concentration” grant for these unduplicated students above 55% of the district. So, low-income kids are “worth” more to a district.
The district keeps its local property tax money and the state fills up the rest that they are owed according to the formula. (This is mainly relevant for timing of cash flow and years when the state is late making payments.) There are other pools of money that come to districts based on numbers of students, including a pretty big one for CCSS implementation, money for energy retrofits from Prop 39, etc.
If the students coming to this school are from out of district, it is possible that they come from “basic aid” districts that are high property-value districts. Those districts do not lose (much) money when their students go to school elsewhere or to private school, because they do not receive money from the state, except for the other separate pools of money outside the general funds.
That is all assuming that the San Francisco School of the Arts is not organized as a charter. If it’s a charter, then who wins and loses at the finances is more complicated.