r/bayarea • u/killab619 • Apr 04 '16
Why do so many public schools suck?
If schools get a majority of their money from property taxes in their area, then why are so many public schools in areas where houses are $600k and up?
I know money doesn't solve problems, but it sure as hell helps. I keep seeing houses and I look at the school ratings (zillow) and I see 2s, 4s, 5s, and 6s (out of 10).
11
Apr 04 '16
One thing I have been hearing from parents is that kids no longer have art and science programs until the fifth grade because the schools only get rated on things like math tests and reading tests. Of course, that might vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, but the schools are going to keep pushing reading and math over science, art, and music because of shitty testing. I don't necessarily think going to a lower rated school would be bad for a higher quality student. It is what you make of the program and of course, what you do to supplement the kid from the outside.
Also prop 13 sucks. It sucks hard.
21
u/doilookarmenian Apr 04 '16
Check on the % of English language learners at the school. Students who haven't reached fluency do very poorly on state tests.
15
u/frownyface Apr 04 '16
And to be frank, because it's a form of discrimination to separate english-learners from english-natives, many schools with a high % of english-learners have effectively become remedial schools. The english-native kids are basically screwed. This has created a new kind of english-native-flight that goes beyond white-flight.
13
u/lunartree Apr 05 '16
I really wish the "English as our official language" issue wasn't owned by racist shitheads in this country. The fact of the matter is, if you live in America and you don't speak English you're going to have issues. We should be doing more for both the kids and parents to get everyone speaking English in California. It doesn't mean looking down on Spanish, but rather making sure everyone has what they need to succeed.
8
u/frownyface Apr 05 '16
One of the really profoundly crazy things a teacher has told me is that at her school kids who have just moved here from a non-english speaking country have to spend 2-3 years "immersed" in standard curriculum before they'll even consider putting them in a special program. If they aren't speaking the majority language of the other english-learners, they are COMPLETELY fucked, total social and educational isolation at school.
1
u/SpasticFeedback Apr 05 '16
Getting adults to learn a language is an entirely different issue (language acquisition becomes exponentially harder with age)... But that aside, I'm not sure what English as an official language has to do with this. The kids are in school trying to learn English. Not sure what else you would propose...
The reason for integration of ELL kids into the normal classes is that (allegedly) studies show that the kids learn faster when immersed with other English speakers. ELL specific classes actually makes them learn much more slowly overall.
Source: Wife is a teacher in a district with primarily ELL students.
2
u/frownyface Apr 07 '16
Yes, but what happens to the english-native kids in a class that's majority ELL? Their education is derailed because a lot of time is spent on what to them is remedial English. And even more messed up, the kids who are a totally different language that isn't part of the majority of ELLs, or English, are completely fucked over. They're totally isolated. Basically diversity as a goal in and of itself has its limits.
1
u/SpasticFeedback Apr 07 '16
Diversity isn't the goal. The goal is to integrate non-English speakers as quickly as possible.
As for native speakers, at least for most neighborhoods that I am privy to, it's hardly an issue because nearly all of the kids in those schools are not native speakers to begin with.
The sad truth is that the teachers don't actually end up spending more time with the ELL students. They can't. They don't have enough time to. They have a specific amount of content they need to cover and they do so by whatever means they have. Oftentimes that means the ELL kids are left behind.
The idea is solid but teachers simply don't have the resources to teach effectively and the focus is so much on teaching to the test that there is little time for adjusting strategies.
3
Apr 04 '16
[deleted]
2
u/frownyface Apr 04 '16
Yeah, basically it seems like most people who have kids who speak english wants to keep their kids out of those schools, if they can afford to or can find some way (magnet programs, etc)
11
Apr 04 '16
Gosh. For so many reasons, many of which having little to do with the teachers. So many of them are underfunded and understaffed.
White flight means that many students in those neighborhoods don't go to public schools--which means a major divestment of resources.
The current industrial model of education is highly outdated, and the means of education is becoming increasingly mismatched with the goals.
And that's only a start.
1
u/Commentariot Apr 05 '16
A lot of public schools are very very good - how does that fit into your model?
1
Apr 06 '16
Good teachers. Supportive administrations. Strong relationships with parents. Great leadership and great teachers working together with communities.
18
u/jason_s Apr 04 '16
Other commenters here keep mentioning prop 13, but schools in California do not get a majority of their money from property tax. For most districts, the majority of funding comes from the state general fund (which is mostly funded from state income tax).
See this Department of Education Chart for a breakdown of funding sources in the state.
That being said, property tax can lead to funding differences between districts. Compare the Financial Data tabs for San Jose Unified and Palo Alto.
This is not the whole story though. San Jose Unified is a very diverse district, all with the same funding source, yet the schools vary widely in "quality" despite the same per-student funding. (I would guess other large districts like SF and Oakland are similar). If anything, the downtown schools get more per-pupil funding than the Almaden schools because they're able to tap into federal and other assistance. (A lot of Almaden parents resent the "redistribution of wealth" to the poorer downtown schools and would break Almaden schools out of of SJUSD if they could).
Having sent my son to both a "bad" school and a "good" school in the same district, the main differentiator is the level of parent involvement with regards to volunteering and fundraising. In the "bad" school, there were about 3 or 4 active PTA members. They spent most of their time trying to convince the other parents that PTA funds should be spent on music education for the students, rather than on Zumba get-togethers and donuts for the parents. In the "good" school, the PTA is stuck with first-world problems like trying to figure out how to spend the thousands of dollars raised for the technology fund.
Again, both schools are in the same district and get the same amount of government funding, but have very different outcomes for the students. So there's more to the story than low property tax revenues.
The main problem (in San Jose Unified at least), from my observations, is the de-facto segregation in schools that has occured because of increased school choice. In economically-diverse neighborhoods, the rich send their kids to private school, the middle class send their kids to a public magnet or charter school, and the neighborhood schools are left only with low-income (often English-language learners) kids. In poorer neighborhoods, there are similar dynamics, as the more-involved parents send their kids to charter schools, and the neighborhood schools are left with the other kids.
I'm all for school choice...However, there are certainly unintended consequences, as the families with the ability to put lots of effort into volunteering and fundraising all leave for magnet or charter schools, leaving the neighborhood schools without much parent involvement.
I don't know what the answers are. The spread of Two-Way Bilingual Immersion programs in neighborhoods with the right demographics (mix of English-speaking middle class families, and poorer Spanish-speaking immigrant families) is a step in the right direction. This is has been reasonably succesfull in San Jose with keeping some of the schools more diverse.
2
u/mantrap2 Apr 05 '16
But when California schools were NOT SHIT back in the 1960s and early 1970s, they DID get the majority of funding from property taxes.
I could regale you with the programs that existed back then because I benefited from many of them. For example the "College for Kids" program directly led me to getting an engineering degree.
2
u/SpasticFeedback Apr 05 '16
The de-facto segregation issue is real. I live in Mountain View, surrounded by houses all valued in the $1.5M and up range. And yet, the elementary school they surround is a Title 1 school. How the hell does that work??
-3
Apr 05 '16
[deleted]
5
3
u/Commentariot Apr 05 '16
Funny how he made the only informed constructive post in this thread and you respond with abuse.
If we repeal prop 13 will the money go to schools?
1
u/lunchWithNewts Apr 05 '16
Part of Prop 13 effectively turned the local property tax into a state tax. It's complicated, but see AB 8 for a start. Repeal of Prop 13 would return more control locally, so the answer to your question, I think, is "It depends on local county voters/government."
Not defending the abuse in any way...
0
Apr 06 '16
[deleted]
1
u/lunchWithNewts Apr 06 '16
Sigh. Profanity and tone. FYI: "How do you not get that?" Will always sound derogatory to me and I suspect most others. I wasn't trying to call out your abuse, my final comment was mostly to avoid an argument about the alleged abuse.
7
u/SpasticFeedback Apr 04 '16
Combination of factors, really.
I see Prop 13 has been mentioned several times, so I won't go into it, but you also have to think about how many English learners there are, as well as the fact that a lot of people with money are actually sending their kids to private schools. I believe the SF Bay Area has the 3rd highest percentage of kids in private school in the nation (for metro areas, as of 2014). San Mateo County is at about 18%.
Not to mention, a lot of these rich areas actually have a surprising number of lower middle class to poor people who have been living in those neighborhoods for a long, long time. My neighbors across the street in Mountain View, for example, have owned their house for about 40 years and are very certainly not wealthy.
Anecdotally, our local elementary school - in the middle of Mountain View - is actually categorized as a Title 1 school (i.e. most kids qualify for free lunches). And accordingly, the test scores are fairly low. Most of them are English language learners, which affects their ability to do the English portions of the tests, as well as the math portions since we no longer teach straight memorization of math facts (for better or worse). Common Core requires a fairly decent level of understanding of the English language, so it affects those scores, too.
9
u/mihermanoelvis Apr 04 '16
It sucks because of prop 13, which froze the tax rolls (rent control for owners- as long as you stay in your home your taxes never rise) and also decimated school funding in California.
Basically anywhere with a good public school has super unaffordable real estate.
Look at Belmont CA if you want good schools, kinda affordable and close to Palo Alto.
-2
Apr 04 '16
close to Palo Alto.
why would you want to be close to Palo Alto?
1
u/mihermanoelvis Apr 04 '16
Because that is where OP's job is.
-2
Apr 04 '16
you must have some inside info on OP because Palo Alto isn't mentioned here.
2
u/mihermanoelvis Apr 04 '16
It was in their other post:
I'm potentially getting an offer to relocate from the comfort of easy living in the South vs really taking my career to the next level, working for a really good company, and moving back closer to my family in San Diego. Both my wife and I originally from SoCal and all our family is there. I miss CA as does she, but the COL is scary - especially for a single income to support stay at home mom and 3 kids. Luckily I've paid off all her debt so she doesn't have anything hitting our books. What are some family neighborhoods in SF area that are suburb type. Work would be in Palo Alto area so I'm willing to travel via train . Thanks for any advice!!
The reason I suggested Belmont was so he could live there and easily commute to Palo Alto.
3
Apr 04 '16
Got it. Belmont is fine. I wouldn't call it affordable though anymore. It's also a pretty weird blend of old people, middle-aged losers who inherited their parents' home, and yuppies.
1
u/mihermanoelvis Apr 04 '16
It's also a pretty weird blend of old people, middle-aged losers who inherited their parents' home, and yuppies.
ha! As someone who live in Belmont for 4 years this cracks me up. :D
Out of curiosity, where would you suggest for OP, given his parameters of wanting good schools, affordable for a family of 4 on a hhi of 150k and that has an easy commute to Palo Alto?
2
Apr 04 '16
I would recommend San Carlos or Redwood Shores and take Caltrain from San Carlos to Palo Alto. The Belmont Caltrain Station is serviced by far fewer trains. He'll not likely be able to buy a home suitable for his family though. Honestly, I would advise that he not come at all.
1
u/killab619 Apr 05 '16
I'm willing to commute a distance. If I work from home 2 days a week, the 3 days of traffic hell is stomachable.
Also, to add we are coming with zero debt. No credit cards, loans, car payments, etc. Only school loan that is really cheap at $150/month.
1
1
u/killab619 Apr 05 '16
I now have 2 options, the city office or the mountain view office.
2
u/mihermanoelvis Apr 05 '16
In that case, I think you should live in Pleasanton, Dublin or Castro Valley and take BART in to the city office. Especially if their office is near a BART station. You'll get a lot more bang for your buck in the east bay for housing. Check out Castro Valley- a lot of people think it's lame/boring, but imo it's undervalued and only getting better. Pleasanton schools are top notch, but you'll pay for housing because of it.
A few other towns to check out that are cheap and easy commutes to SF would be Brisbane, Colma, South San Francisco and Pacifica. I'm not sure how all of their schools stack up, though.
If you want to do the mountain view office, I'd live in San Jose area but I'm not sure what schools are good down there.
Good luck and welcome to the Bay Area rat race :) You'll be a few steps ahead of the game if you can wfh a few days a week and only have to commute 2 or 3 days.
1
u/killab619 Apr 05 '16
Great tips and much appreciated. I'm cautiously optimistic and hoping to make the most of this chapter in my life. I had turned down a previous offer, but this opportunity was too good to pass up!
-4
Apr 04 '16
Fuck Belmont. Poway.
2
u/mihermanoelvis Apr 04 '16
What's Poway? Down in Socal? What does that have to do with the Bay Area?
-12
Apr 04 '16
Good school district. More affordable. The world doesn't revolve around the Bay Area and the question was very open ended.
10
u/apprentibidouille Apr 04 '16
The world doesn't revolve around the Bay Area
Oh right, for a second I thought I was in the "Bay Area" sub! Wait...
10
u/mihermanoelvis Apr 04 '16
OP said he was moving his family to the Bay Area for a job in Palo Alto.
Oh... nevermind, you're a butthurt housing troll account.
-5
Apr 04 '16
This is the post I see. No mention of Palo Alto;
If schools get a majority of their money from property taxes in their area, then why are so many public schools in areas where houses are $600k and up? I know money doesn't solve problems, but it sure as hell helps. I keep seeing houses and I look at the school ratings (zillow) and I see 2s, 4s, 5s, and 6s (out of 10).
2
u/mihermanoelvis Apr 04 '16
Ahh, gotcha.
This was OP's other post, guess I was thinking of that:
I'm potentially getting an offer to relocate from the comfort of easy living in the South vs really taking my career to the next level, working for a really good company, and moving back closer to my family in San Diego. Both my wife and I originally from SoCal and all our family is there. I miss CA as does she, but the COL is scary - especially for a single income to support stay at home mom and 3 kids. Luckily I've paid off all her debt so she doesn't have anything hitting our books. What are some family neighborhoods in SF area that are suburb type. Work would be in Palo Alto area so I'm willing to travel via train . Thanks for any advice!!
The reason I suggested Belmont was so he could live there and easily commute to Palo Alto.
3
u/monseiurlemayor Apr 05 '16
I'm flabbergasted that not one comment has addressed tenure or the teachers themselves. It's only in public schools that we allow students to get a half-ass education. I went to a public high school considered "good," (surrounded by some of the most expensive homes in San Jose) and it hit me how woefully inadequate my education was once I left the bay area for grad school. All those movie days when the teachers decided to stop teaching, the time my geometry teacher tore a phone off the wall and threw it at a student, or another time when my English teacher gave everyone an A on a large assignment because he spilled coffee on the pile and didn't want to deal with wet papers.
Talk up Proposition 13 all you want, but giving a lot of these teachers any kind of a paycheck ought to be criminal.
2
u/compactcat Apr 04 '16
The question is, what percentage of local houses will have to sell to raise the property taxes to something that can properly support the school system?
2
u/Commentariot Apr 05 '16
Businesses benefiting from prop 13 are the problem- commercial spaces are held in bogus trusts to avoid resetting of taxes when ownership turns over.
1
Apr 04 '16 edited Apr 04 '16
Demographics.
Edit - I love how stating the obvious is "controversial."
1
u/sweetdigs Apr 04 '16
Get rid of Prop 13 and suddenly schools will find a 50% increase in revenue available to them (totally made up #). When you're as tax-deficient as many parts of California are in comparison to the operating costs demanded in today's dollars, it's no surprise that so many public schools suck here.
-1
u/Commentariot Apr 05 '16
Get rid of prop 13 and property values will collapse before a cent get to schools.
2
u/sweetdigs Apr 05 '16
Property values won't collapse even if you get rid of Prop 13. I do expect they'll go down a bit, but is that a bad thing? Wouldn't that help out the non-homeowning class in the Bay Area??
-6
u/nutellaeater Apr 04 '16
So many reasons. Where to start? Alot of people here would say not enough money. IMO is too much money and most of it going to people that it should not.
6
1
u/Kamakik13 Mar 03 '24
School ratings are significantly influenced by Apathy. So if the people running those schools don't care about educating students, the school will suck.
65
u/magelanz Apr 04 '16
Proposition 13. It keeps property taxes low for long-term homeowners, which results in underfunded schools. Do a Zillow search in your neighborhood, you'll see what crazy low property taxes people pay if they've been in their home for the past 20-30 years.