City's Children Vanish, and City Hall Wonders Why
In spite of family-friendly efforts, census shows number of children is shrinking. Does dominant adult population give a fig?
For Leslie Kossoff, an artist who lived in San Francisco for nearly two decades, her decision to leave the city was sealed last summer, as she helped her daughter, Sophie, now 6, dress for a ballet recital at public middle school in Noe Valley.
“The place stank of urine,” Kossoff recalls. The restroom “ceiling was caked with old toilet paper” that had long ago been sodden and flung upward. “It was like a women’s prison.”
Meanwhile, in her mid-Market neighborhood, three pot clubs opened and a drug market flourished.
Kossoff, her partner and Sophie soon moved to Portland, Ore.
Her family joined an exodus that has solidified San Francisco’s dubious distinction of being the American metropolis with the fewest children per capita. Census data from 2010 revealed that even though the city’s population grew by 4 percent in the last decade, the city lost 5 percent of its children, leaving it with just 116,000, or 14 percent of the total population. By comparison, 15 percent of Manhattanites are younger than 18.
The decline came despite a 2006 decree by then-Mayor Gavin Newsom that made it an official mission of the city’s Department of Children, Youth & Their Families (DCYF) to increase the number of children in the city.
DCYF finances many admirable programs, like after-school care and tutoring for aspiring writers at Dave Eggers’s 826 Valencia organization. The department focuses on serving low-income families, and because it has seen a surge in demand in recent years, officials thought the city’s population of families was stable, if not growing.
The census data indicating otherwise was “so surprising to us,” said Maria Su, who heads DCYF. “It’s sad. There is this key component to what we believe to be the energy of the city missing. Every strong community has children.”
Even Newsom decamped last month for a sylvan corner of Marin, taking his wife, toddler and infant with him.
The factors that prompt middle-class families like Kossoff’s to leave are many, and perhaps not within the power of any city department to fix.
Consider the case of Shelley Esson, a Vancouver native who has lived in San Francisco for 12 years and seemingly a prime candidate for middle-class flight.
Esson came close to moving to the wine country with her young son and her husband, a bartender who grew up poor in Mexico. Last year, Crushpad, the make-your-own-wine outfit, moved her job from the city to Napa, and Esson declined to follow, though it meant she was jobless for several months.
Her decision to stay put came at considerable personal sacrifice. Esson works two jobs to make ends meet, and raises chickens and much of the family’s food in her Richmond yard.
What keeps her here? The random, lucky break of her 7-year-old son’s being assigned a decent school, and Esson’s fear that he would fare poorly in a community that lacked San Francisco’s Latino professional class.
In the wine country, she said, “the perception would be that his dad picks grapes or is a gardener. Here, there is the possibility for him to see the best of what there is to achieve, with Latino politicians, doctors, lawyers. There’s a lot less separation of the two cultures.”
So for Esson, the city’s vibrant urban culture — often viewed as a treasure trove for the hip and moneyed but one that offers little for many families — is actually what is keeping her here.
The question, for San Francisco, is how to reconcile the dominant adult population that may not give a fig about how many children live here with the needs of parents and their children.
The answer may lie not in special child-focused efforts but rather in broader public policy changes and better management of key city services.
Well-kept, well-designed playgrounds and parks, a transit system that is clean and reliable, and a diverse local job market are obvious starting points. Reform of Proposition 13 that allows communities to set and spend taxes locally would give families a greater sense of self-determination.
Giving parents the power to chose where their children attend school would also be a huge step.
Supporters of the byzantine lottery system that has long governed school placement argue that the system ensures economic and racial diversity throughout schools. But if middle-class families continue to flee (and if wealthy ones opt for private schools), then there isn’t much diversity left to preserve — and even hardy souls like Esson might no longer be proud to call San Francisco home.
This article also appears in the Bay Area edition of The New York Times.
Mission Rosalind
If people at City Hall really are concerned about this, they don't have to go far to find out why families flee SF. For starters:
Gavin Newsom (Marin)
Chris Daly (Solano)
Michela Pier-Alioto (Marin)
Ed Jew (San Mateo)
Joni
Crime & Criminals, Costs, Corruption, Cleanliness lacking, "The Streets of San Francisco" and the homes are not for the general populace any longer. Yes, see where the City Hallers live.... that's a good start for knowing SF has turned itself into a rat hole. Sad, I lived there in the early 80's and things were terrible with MUNI then - things don't get better and who can actually afford to live in Pacific Heights?
Annie Logue
We left San Francisco in 2000 for Chicago. Houses in SF are not affordable, not at all, and the public schools are horrible. Private schools are hard to get into. It's so hard to get around, too. I remember real headaches over simple things, like getting a prescription filled for a medicine for my kid's ear infection, when we had no parking and there was no pharmacy in our neighborhood (Upper Haight.) I guess there's a Walgreen's now?
People here talk about how hard it is to deal with the schools, and I tell them - until you call a preschool and are told that it's too late, you really needed to get on the waiting list THE DAY YOUR KID WAS BORN - you don't have a problem with schools.
Trevor McNeil
Important article. I just wanted to share an oped I wrote for Beyond Chron - http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=8973
Would love to hear more about school choice and family flight - great article
I'm a native San Franciscan and teacher. Everyone of my friends growing up and everyone of my young colleagues, who have had kids, have left the city - mostly because of cost, but there are plenty of other reasons too.
louis schump
your oped piece is refreshingly candid about the choices parents face. someone once told me that we needed to do three things to create a just society - reinstate the draft, eliminate the home mortgage deduction and eliminate private schools. then WE would all have something at stake.
louis schump
staying in the city requires a committment to city living and the willingness and ability to pay for it in time and/or money. playgrounds help. transit helps (we take our daughter to school on BART). better schools would REALLY help. but the crazy melting pot that is still san francisco is worth it for us. we are a two dad family. our daughter's best friend was adopted from china and they attend mandarin classes together. we are always seeking out patty unterman's newest restaurant recommendation in the richmond, excelsior or mission. our daughter knows more about the world because we live here. is it an education that makes up for the schools - or justifies private school? maybe.
John Smith
>>our daughter knows more about the world because we live here
Uh, I don't think so.
I hate to break it to you, but there is as much or more diversity outside San Francisco as in it.
My daughter's kindergarten class, in a dreaded "suburb", includes Indian, Chinese, French-Canadien, Mexican-American, African (NOT African-American), Dutch, Irish, Japanese, Vietnamese plus some I forgot (with 22 kids). We have Spanish, Hindu, and Mandarin class in her public school, and there are immersion Mandarin schools available with 5 miles in either direction. Fortunately, parking is ample, so the time-wasting hassle of transit is not necessary.
Did I mention it was in a top school district ?
The parents travel to the far corners of the earth on business, and share with the kids. Japan, Korea, India, Europe are all places their parents go regularly, and are as close as the San Jose Airport (for us, 20 minutes).
If you need to convince yourself that somehow San Francisco is more "cosmopolitan" that the "suburbs" of San Jose, then do what you need to do.
But be honest. Don't pretend your delusion is the truth.
CarolineSF
I've been a San Francisco public school parent since 1996 -- my younger child enters 12th grade this fall. My older child is a 2009 graduate and a junior at Oberlin Conservatory in Ohio.
I disagree that the San Francisco public schools are "horrible."
Schools that serve a critical mass of high-need, challenged, at-risk students become overwhelmed and struggle. Those are the schools we harshly brand "failing schools" -- or "horrible" ones, as Annie Logue says. Schools that serve a percentage of high-need, challenged, at-risk students can cope. That sums up the situation in SFUSD and every other diverse, high-poverty school district.
SFUSD has been an all-choice district since about 2000. The problem with that system (as with private-school and college enrollment processes) is that popular schools attract far more applicants than there are openings. Colleges and private K-12 schools handle that with a selection process; SFUSD schools handle it with a lottery. If anyone has a better idea for offering choice while ensuring that every family gets the school they wanted, no one has yet come out to announce it publicly. If you do, Elizabeth Lesly Stevens, please share.
For many years there has been a loud outcry (from the families who live near popular schools, of course) for a neighborhood assignment process, with no choice but with certainty. The problem with that system is that families who don't live near popular schools want choice, for obvious reasons. (The assignment process has been newly revised to increase access for residents of schools' nearby assignment area.)
Of course the obvious comeback is: Why can't we just make all the schools good? See my previous description of schools that serve a critical mass of high-need, at-risk, challenged students. And, again, that's a situation that no school system anywhere has overcome.
I also disagree that the city offers little for families.
A couple of weeks ago a group of friends, with our kids, picnicked and danced to Afrocubism, free, at Stern Grove.
Last Wednesday evening, my kids played with the San Francisco Latin Jazz Youth Ensemble for a crowd of salsa dancers at Union Square.
My kids got their musical start in SFUSD's instrumental music program. They were introduced to jazz in band director Allen Goodrich's jazz band at Aptos Middle School in SFUSD -- a school that was viewed as a "dirty, dangerous ghetto school" when my son started there in 2002, and that at the time attracted just as much contempt and disgust as Leslie Kossoff heaped on the unnamed "prison-like" Noe Valley middle school. Our experience belied that.
My kids, between them, have also played with the SFJazz High School All-Stars, Ken Rosen's Community Music Center Teen Jazz Band, Rosa Gonzales' Hijos de la Music Latina, the Brass Liberation Orchestra, and the Musicians Action Group (and more).
Outside the musical sphere, another feature at Aptos Middle School that isn't available in the Newsoms' "sylvan" (a synonym for "white") suburb is the eighth-grade ACT project started years ago by English teacher Russell Addiego. Mr. Addiego arranges low-cost tickets to weekday matinees of all the season's ACT plays that he deems appropriate for eighth-graders (funds are available for those who can't afford it). The students read the plays beforehand, walk half a block to the K line, take Muni Metro downtown, see the play and discuss and write about it afterward. It's another of those grueling urban ordeals, as you can see.
I missed the July 4 weekend opening of the Mime Troupe play this year, but my teen took the 48 to Dolores Park to meet up with her friends and see it, grabbing Acme baguettes and cheese on the way for a picnic. Among her other summer activities, my daughter has an internship located at Fort Mason. On Fridays, when she's done with her internship shift, she meets up with me or others to grab dinner at the Off the Grid mobile vendor fest there. Last Friday evening, day before yesterday, we had Thai curry and creme brulee, with the fog hanging off the Golden Gate and the Bay sparkling.
My college-student son is doing a summer internship with Bevan Dufty's mayoral campaign, meanwhile, taking Muni Metro to Dufty's Castro storefront headquarters under the giant rainbow flag.
During the school year, my daughter is on her high school's Mock Trial team -- as many suburban kids are. But the suburban kids don't get to take BART to their coaching at a law firm (thank you, Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass) in the Ferry Building on Sunday mornings, picking up dark French roast and a breakfast pastry in the food hall on the way in from the Embarcadero.
Yes, it's hell in the urban jungle.
I understand that many, many families -- including friends of mine -- have to leave the city because they can't afford the cost of housing. For those who left the city simply to raise their kids somewhere more "sylvan" -- well, judge for yourself whether they're doing their children such a big favor.
And by the way, the number of SFUSD schools considered "decent" has soared since the time I first became an SFUSD parent, for a variety of reasons.
Of course, none of this changes the fact that the population of children is dropping. That situation isn't helped, though, by journalists who get stories in the New York Times portraying our city's schools as squalid, prison-like hellholes and our city as a child-unfriendly, drug-soaked war zone.
Annie Logue
Well, I do live in Chicago, so I am on board with raising kids in the city. And, my child is in the Chicago Public Schools, so I am not naive about the challenges of urban public schools. However, school reform has been going on longer here, with some success. It's hardly perfect, but I feel that I have more options here than we would have in SF.
But there are a few differences. The cost of housing here is much, much lower. Taxes are lower, too - even after an increase earlier this year, our state tax is a flat 5%. And, people don't burn down pharmacies because, like, chain stores are, like, such a drag, man. There's a recognition that city neighborhoods need walkable services, and that includes the occasional Walgreen's.
San Francisco could be a lovely place to raise children, and if we had had a lot more money, we would have stayed. Not everyone who leaves does so because they are somehow afraid of city living. Some of them just can't make it work. And if the former MAYOR is leaving, that says something. Rahm Emanuel, Richie Daley, Eugene Sawyer, Jane Byrne, Michael Bilandic, and the old man Daley all raised kids here in Chicago.
John Smith
I'm sorry to disagree with you, but unfortunately, compared to the schools in the suburbs, yes, San Francisco schools are indeed horrible.
Recall that when the API scores came out this year, something like 18 or 22 of the top 25 schools in the entire state, out of roughly 1,000 schools, were in Santa Clara County. NONE of the top 25 schools were from San Francisco.
>>I also disagree that the city offers little for families.
I'm sure you are right. But the problem is, that what "the city", i.e. San Francisco, offers families is not only not better, but often not as good, as what the schools in the suburbs offer.
What you recited sounded good. Almost, but not quite, as good as what many "suburban" schools can offer.
Virtually all the benefits of music etc you cited are available in most school districts in Santa Clara County. ALL of the food choices you mentioned are also available, and more.
And our kids don't have to deal with discarded syringes and used needles in Delores park, not to mention "Caption Butt Floss" cruising for guys in the park.
Regarding the more "sylvan" nature of the "suburbs":
My daughter's kindergarten class, in a dreaded "suburb", includes Indian, Chinese, French-Canadien, Mexican-American, African (NOT African-American), Dutch, Irish, Japanese, Vietnamese plus some I forgot (with 22 kids). We have Spanish, Hindu, and Mandarin class in her public school, and there are immersion Mandarin schools available with 5 miles in either direction. Fortunately, parking is ample, so the time-wasting hassle of transit is not necessary.
Did I mention it was in a top school district ?
The parents travel to the far corners of the earth on business, and share with the kids. Japan, Korea, India, Europe are all places their parents go regularly, and are as close as the San Jose Airport (for us, 20 minutes).
In my district, we have 5-6 families out of 22 that recently came from San Francisco, and they paid MORE to live here than they did in San Francisco.
It wasn't the cost of San Francisco that drove them away, it was the quality.
CarolineSF
I love Chicago, and I hope you're getting informed through PURE there (Parents United for Responsible Education, www dot pureparents dot org). PURE's director and I are fellow founding members of Parents Across America (www dot ParentsAcrossAmerica dot org).
But it's not right to blast our schools as "horrible" if you aren't familiar with them, and I wouldn't pit one city against another in a contest as to which is better, especially based on one individual's choice.
Have you seen the video clip of Rahm Emanuel walking out on the reporter who asked him where he plans to send his kids to school? Now, THAT'S "horrible," as are his views on education and hostility toward teachers and public schools -- chilling. (But I still love Chicago.)
Annie Logue
A lot of people are upset about Emanuel's decision, but at least it's part of the conversation here. Public schools are central to the political debate here in part because there are so many families with children. Many of Chicago's schools are terrible, too, I know that well.
San Francisco is extraordinarily expensive, and that may not change because of land use laws and seismic considerations. I'd argue that making some zoning changes would have done more for SF families than banning Happy Meal toys, but zoning issues are tougher to tackle.
And, many of the things that make SF such a great place for people without kids make it a hard place for people with kids.
The real question is, does anyone in SF care? Is there a constituency for children? SF has fewer children than other large cities. Chicago and New York have added more families with children in the last decade, but SF has lost them. Why? In our case, it was a combination of unaffordable housing, AND bad public schools, AND a lot of hassles that really came into the fore when I had to deal with a kid.
Maybe, everyone in SF fine with having a city for rich, childless people. And if that's what the citizens want, then so be it.
Wendy Beck
So SF has fewer children than other large cities. Will no one acknowledge the elephant in the room? SF most likely has the largest (percentage-wise) gay and lesbian population. Yes, I know there is a growing number of two-mom or two-dad families, but not to acknowledge this, and to blame SF for family flight is overdoing it.
And yes, as Caroline said above, it doesn't help matters to portray (in the NY Times) our schools as squalid and prison-like. There is a campaign to portray all public schools as hopeless in order to increase calls for vouchers and the eventual privatization of education. If parents would spend some time (instead of money) in their child's school to keep an eye out for problems and help out, the schools would improve.
John Smith
The number of gay/lesbians in San Francisco is an interesting excuse for the small number of children, but if you examine the facts, you will also notice that San Francisco residents are also older and poorer than it's big brother San Jose.
The fact is, there are very few middle age people in San Francisco. Gay/Sraight-doesn't matter. You have a relatively large group of post-high school/pre-kid singles: students: SF state, Academy of Art, SF Medical, or, single young people just out of college with working at start ups basically continuing their party-hardy lifestyle, and then, they leave ! The average resident of San Francisco has been there less than 5 years.
After the kids go to school, and the parents retire, they move (back) to San Francisco. This group is much larger than the young people. Ever go to the DeYoung museum on Tuesday at 10 am, like when I took my kid ? The place was crowded, but not with tourists. With OLD PEOPLE. The seniors were too cheap to pay for parking, so they parked away from the museum, and I got a GREAT parking spot in the underground parking garage, right next to the entrance.
The point is, there are very few people of childbearing age in San Francisco, gay or straight. You can't have children without parents, gay or straight. And it's the PARENTS who leave-gay or straight.
The large gay/lesbian population surely has SOMETHING to do with the lack of children, but none of those old people San Francisco attracts are going to be having kids anytime soon.
San Francisco cannot attract "grown-ups". It can attract retirees out to live it up before they die. It can attract "kids"(18-26 or so). But as soon as the "kids" decide to do something with their lives other than party, they realize San Francisco is fundamentally hostile to that. Bad schools, expensive and poor quality housing, and a population of older people that don't care about kids any more.
BTW, my kids kindergarten class in Los Altos has something like 5 families, out of 24, that recently moved from San Francisco. They paid MORE money than in Noe Valley, and got top-of-the-line schools, a better, larger house, a much shorter commute, and yes, a better community. You can't have a good community if, like in San Francisco, everyone leaves once they turn 27.
M L
I find some of these comments sincere, and others laden with perhaps sincere, but most definitely magical thinking.
This city has become wildly intimidating for parents.
The poor (and largely undocumented) parents cling to the lottery system in hopes that their kids don't have to attend the horribly bad schools in their neighborhoods.
The middle class (and largely beleaguered) parents cling to the hope that they will win the lotto and not have to send their kids to the horribly bad schools in the poor neighborhoods.
The rich hit the switch.
But the baby elephant in the room is that this city has the largest budget per capita of any west of the Mississippi. That our schools suck and our potholes proliferate is simply criminal.
So people who can, flee.
Because when the reality of your kid's future rams up against the magical malevolence of our dysfunctional city, what other option could there possibly be?
voltairesmistress
"But the baby elephant in the room is that this city has the largest budget per capita of any west of the Mississippi. That our schools suck and our potholes proliferate is simply criminal. So people who can, flee."
ML, your posts are consistently thoughtful and on target. Thanks.
Jennifer Lemus
San Francisco's issues are not just San Francisco's issues.
It's the broader land use policies throughout the Bay Area. In many middle to upper class communities they've done an excellent jobs at keeping the poor segregated outside their communities. Marin is an excellent example. They don't have to spend their tax money on the poor at all, so they've got excellent schools and amenities and homes can largely be afforded by the middle class. Heck, they've managed to exempt themselves from ABAG's affordable housing requirements, along with Napa. And have dumped people like sex offenders in outside counties.
San Francisco by luck of history has a poor community and is forced to spend a significant amount on them (exacerbated by SF's politics). Long a playground of the rich, the middle class must make a choice - a home or a good schools.
San Francisco's ills can't be cured by San Francisco alone. Unless SF wants to go along line the lines of Marin, and do what it takes to kick the poor out the door. Which would destroy San Francisco's character.
John Smith
That is the fundamental dilemma in San Francisco.
To upgrade and stop attracting every scumbag free loader in the San Jose Bay Area, and lose it's reputation and self-image for "tolerance", or to leave the current failure of a city in place and ignore it, while loudly declaring itself "world-class". (Hint: true world-class cities don't stop to think or reassure themselves that they are world-class. However, pretentious wanna-be cities, do.) Notice that the lead spokesmodel for "world-class", Gavin Newsom, eagerly abandoned "world-class" as soon as possible.
The problem for San Francisco is that the world is not going to stop and wait while San Francisco dithers with "to be or not to be". San Jose blasted past San Francisco in 1990, yes, more than 20 years ago, and it got more jobs than San Francisco in 2002, nearly 10 years ago, so there is no more "San Francisco Bay Area". It is formally called the San Jose Bay Area by the U.S. Census.
Doesn't matter, you laugh ? Well, notice the 49ers are moving to Santa Clara, within spitting distance of San Jose border. Notice that the San Francisco Giants are fighting to keep San Jose under their "control", which is laughable. Notice that the major league sports teams are all IGNORING San Francisco.
San Francisco may be the leader of the free world in it's own mind, but in reality, no one looks to San Francisco for leadership. For example, notice how the Bay Area cities FORCED San Francisco to upgrade the Hetch-Hetchy system by threatening to have the State take it over ?
While San Francisco dithers, the world, and San Jose, moves forward.
San Francisco has to solve it's child-free problem, and it's homeless problem, while maintaining it's "tolerant" self-image, and it has to do it under time pressure, OR, it will, and is, gradually losing it's self-image as the cool hip place to be.
Others are moving forward while San Francisco struggles with it's identity problem. Which is causing it to have more of an identity problem, as it loses political power, status, people, and money to San Jose and the Valley.
Mission Rosalind
The comments about public vs. private schools made me think of this book. Well worth reading, even if it's often exaggerated for comic effect.
Mother on Fire: A True Motherf%#$@ Story About Parenting! (Tsing Loh)
CarolineSF
Thanks, Mission Rosalind -- love that book!
I agree that San Francisco has many challenges, and obviously all is not roses.
But it's basically outrageous for people who haven't raised kids here to claim to know more about what it's like to raise kids here than those who have raised kids here. And, for that matter, for those who have no experience with our public schools to tell those who have that they know better.
The school choices of our mayors and mayoral candidates are part of the discussion here too, Annie L. -- the implication that no one pays attention isn't valid. It's likely that non-parents in Chicago pay no attention to Emanuel's school choices, for that matter -- though I hope his bullying, arrogant and hypocritical behavior around that issue has gotten wide attention.
John Smith
I hate to break it to you, but the school scores are not very hard to interpret. San Francisco schools are not very high quality.
I don't need to know all the details about why they don't score better. The numbers speak for themselves.
And the diversity and access to culture argument, oh, please, let's not have that ridiculous red herring again. The suburban schools, at least in Santa Clara County, are WAY better than anything in San Francisco, across the board. Better test scores. More diversity, more cultures, more languages, more travel, more food. More theater choices. More and better music choices.
If must drink the San Francisco Kool-Aid, that's fine. But don't confuse it with reality.
R T
SF native still here in the City and raising a family. Many of my friends I grew up with or went to school with have left the City due to cost or schools. I went to Catholic schools and send my children to the same. SFUSD is just not an option. There are plenty of great elementary schools and a few good high schools- but frankly it is the middle schools that terrify me.
I think another issue that causes the city to be not so child are the politics that get played here. SF is a Mecca for the far left and unfortunately they tend to dominate the vote. Makes it frustrating for a native to be out voted by people who don't know the City, the history and the players and then to have the same voters move on to the next tech job or what ever. While I am stuck with a nut like Chris Daly or Ross Mirikirami on the Board or heaven help us as Sheriff.
At my office of 40 people- I am one of only 4 SF natives. When I meet someone new here, they are always surprised to hear that I actually grew up here.
Taxes are another issue- property taxes eat you alive if you are a new buyer and the sales tax is the highest in the state- you add that to our very high income tax-OUCH!
d h
This isn't new - DCYF studies this 5 years ago or so:
http://www.dcyf.org/downloads/Final%20White%20Paper10_21_05.pdf
Note that this article reinforces what's in the report - the cities with the highest-density housing (Manhattan, S.F.), have the lowest population, per capita, of children.
Families are fleeing urban centers for the suburbs, and their own little patch of grass, BBQ, and a pet dog.
JessicaI
It's the housing situation that drives families away. When parents struggle to pay rent, and can't even use the communal yard, or live in a tiny condo with no yard at all or all the family income goes to paying a mortgage on a tiny house in a marginal area, everything else gets on your last nerve. I think most of us who have to put most of our money into our housing have a short fuse for everything else that would otherwise be mildly grating, but acceptable.
I think schools here are good, but the assignment system is stressful and there is little if no process if there is a problem at your school; There is a lack of systems and accountability in our district (despite having many talented, caring people working in it)
Caroline SF is right: cultural enrichment here is phenomenal, and PTA's in suburban areas spend a lot of time funding field trips to guess where, SF to do things our school kids get for free. But like I said, if your family can't afford even a crappy house, all the culture in the world won't mitigate the feeling like everything could come crashing down if you lose your job.
Everyone who I know who has left has left primarily because of the housing and secondarily because they got a poor public school assignment and can't afford private school.
John Smith
I hate to break it to you Jessical, but our very, very active PTA funds very, very few field trips to San Francisco.
Why bother ?
We have plenty of music choices here in Santa Clara County, and we also have TWICE as many regional theaters as San Francisco, not to mention a very vibrant small theater scene.
As one example, you can hear classical music in Santa Clara County 380 days a year. No need to travel to San Francisco for that, definitely not.
If we have to travel, for example, to see a zoo, The Oakland Zoo is BY FAR superior to the San Francisco Zoo. Of course, Happy Hollow is a lot closer, but smaller.
Let's put it in terms of numbers. San Francisco is a small city of only 800,000. San Jose is a city of almost 1 million people, and Santa Clara County just barely short of two million people. We are younger, wealthier, better educated, our schools had something like 18 or 22 out of the top 25 schools in the state of California, and we travel MUCH more than San Franciscans.
For example, a few years ago, when Ray Suarez of the NewsHour on PBS breathlessly announced that San Francisco had reported a case of SARS, it was well-known that Santa Clara County had already reported 11 cases. Recall this was based on travel to China. So, Santa Clara County apprently travels to China more than 10 times as much as San Francisco.
We have as much or more diversity of cultures in Santa Clara County as in San Francisco. You seem to have mistaken the San Francisco tourism marketing as reality.
Why would we waste our time going to San Francisco ?
Andrew Ferguson
All the cultural amenities in the world still can't beat the ability to run outside, meet up with your friends and spend the entire afternoon playing with them. Unsupervised.
It's a lovely sort of freedom that does still exist.
Folks move away from SF for a variety of reasons as Stevens writes: "The answer may lie not in special child-focused efforts but rather in broader public policy changes and better management of key city services."
Joni Remington is onto it: "Crime & Criminals, Costs, Corruption, Cleanliness lacking..."
And dh writes: "Families are fleeing urban centers for the suburbs, and their own little patch of grass, BBQ, and a pet dog."
It's all of that, but a couple of steps further; it's what it represents, and that is a freedom of independent movement for a child that is just too dangerous in this town.
d h
Andrew wrote: "It's all of that, but a couple of steps further; it's what it represents, and that is a freedom of independent movement for a child that is just too dangerous in this town."
Yes, that too. There is a high correlation between high-density urban environments and violent crime. (Witness FBI national uniform crime stats.)
San Francisco will increasingly become dominated by childless twenty and thirty-somethings who complain about parents with their strollers on muni, and whom ultimately themselves spawn their own young and finally move to the 'burbs to escape crime.
William Mosely
This is a free country, if someone wish to cut and run then who I to argue? I left the place of my birth and have not returned. Arriving in Fogtown in 1967 decided that I loved this city by the Bay--the good things AND the bad things. Take it or leave it. If leaving makes you happy, then leave. If you later decide to return, I'll gladly welcome you. We're family.
Reza Musavi
This is a good article and there are certainly many reasons, many of which need to be directed both at the city policies AND the actual parents. In fact, I would argue that the parents actually shoulder the greatest responsibility.
1. The public school selection policy is a sham. Kids should be allowed to attend the school in the own neighborhoods, very simple. Anything else is absurd.
2. Parents - many parents are not really committed to living in the city. First of all, they don't even know the city. Most feel that if they cannot live in Pacific Heights, Cow Hollow or maybe Russian Hill, then they aren't in The City. Hence, they need to move to some outlying suburb. Furthermore, when they insist on driving everywhere, they are really missing much of the benefit of an urban environment. Yes, I drive, but do my best to limit it and encourage my kids to walk and take transit, along with me. The westside of the city is much more conducive to families, although many parents have never ventured into those neighborhoods and don't know they exist. It is really their own ignorance.
AT the end of the day, its a lifestyle choice and most parents are comfortable with the suburban lifestyle. They may complain about the city schools, yet move to the 'burbs and still send their kids to private or catholic schools. Tell me that the city had anything to do with these decisions? No, this is really a function of the parent.
CarolineSF
But Reza M., the flip side is that "kids should be FORCED to attend the school in their own neighborhoods, very simple." And since a lot of families prefer to choose a school -- you can see that it's actually NOT "very simple."
Reza Musavi
Caroline, I would agree with your comment. I suppose my greater point is that it is a function of the parent more so than the "simplicity" of neighborhood schools that causes many to leave.
John Smith
CarolineSF,
I think you are missing the problem with the lottery system in San Francisco. The intent is to make school choice more equal. In reality, it has made the schools equally bad. The better students simply aren't going to go to the worse schools.
If kids are "forced to attend school in their own neighborhoods", so what ? Why is that different than now ?
The parents who lose the lottery simply attend private school or leave San Francisco for good schools elsewhere. No one can "force" the parents to attend a bad school. They don't now. And if you had local schools, no one would be forced in that situation either.
But, they could walk or bicycle to school, unlike now.
Note that 50% of San Francisco attend private school. An appalling number.
If you could attend local schools, what will happen is that the houses around the good schools will go UP in value, and the houses around the bad schools will go down in value.
Same as everywhere else.
It won't be any less egalitarian. The current system of bailing out for private school or better suburban schools is also not very egalitarian.
Rob Anderson
And then there's parking. You can park in your own driveway in the suburbs without getting a permit. For middle income families with a car in SF---those that don't have a garage, which the well-off always have---the city makes it as difficult and expensive as possible, with parking permits, parking meters, and predatory meter maids under pressure to generate revenue for the city.
http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2011/03/david-chiu-anti-car-candidate.html
And the drip, drip, drip pressure to eliminate street parking with bike lanes and parklets. City Hall has made its anti-car policies explicit, while one of the good things about rural and suburban neighborhoods: there's plenty of parking.
d h
Rob - you don't get it. You're not supposed to own a car.
Now combine that high-minded idealism with the practical necessities of getting 2 kids to and from school, to soccer practice, soccer games, yourself to and from work, to the grocery store, etc. and all sorts of trips that can't practically be done on public transit, and see why families are fleeing S.F.
Rob Anderson
What about bikes?
Reza Musavi
Frankly, the life you describe above sounds like the suburban model, which is fine. But it seems like many complain about not having the suburban conveniences while living in the city. If those conveniences are so important, it is probably best they relocate to the suburbs. There are certain conveniences and advantages that the city has to offer that the burbs do not possess. It seems a matter of choice, and owning ones own decision.
d h
Reza - I think Rob's complaint is that San Francisco policies are eliminating a choice. Namely, the choice to live in an urban center, and enjoy the freedom that comes with owning and operating one's own automobile.
Are you saying that the freedom that comes with owning an automobile is an exclusively suburban convenience?
Reza Musavi
Not at all. I work and live here in the city, and have two kids, and have a car, and try to use it as little as possible. Again, its a tradeoff that we all make for living in this environment or living in the suburbs. Yes, you can park in driveways in the suburbs but we don't really have large driveways here. Thats just the way it is. Believe me, I am not enamored by the BoS's or many of the policies promoted in this city, but there are tradeoffs that we make when deciding to live here or the 'burbs.
CarolineSF
I don't see how political policies could turn San Francisco into a car-friendly city. There's only so much room for cars in a densely packed city. I agree with Reza -- if your priority is living in a car culture, San Francisco is just not the ideal choice.
Ken Willets
Could I ask some questions to which perhaps a journalist could find the answers?
This year, what percentage of families received their first choice school under the new neighborhood-segregated assignment system, vs. the previous non-geographical choice system?
For the different neighborhoods, what are the chances of getting one's first-choice school, or one of, say, the top ten most desired schools? Does "the power to chose where their children attend school" vary widely by neighborhood?
Conversely, for the same most desired schools, what percentage of students this year were geographically assigned (vs. out-of-neighborhood, non-CTIP1 applicants)?
CarolineSF
You can get the answers that are statistical from the school district, Kendall, and ask Parents for Public Schools for help if the SFUSD bureaucracy is too hard to navigate -- www.ppssf.org
The answer to the question about "the power to choose where their children attend school" and neighborhood variance is complicated. Families who live near popular and highly regarded schools have less power to choose where their children attend school simply because of demand vs. supply (though most still end up with a school they chose*). In most cases, living near popular and highly regarded schools means living in a higher-income neighborhood.
But conversely, families living near less-popular schools are basically guaranteed to get in if they request them, again because of supply vs. demand. And families in CTIP-1 neighborhoods of course have a better chance of getting into whatever school they request, because that's the way the system is designed to work.
*That said, over the years, most of the families I've known that complained most angrily about the assignment process have lived near and sent their kids to popular, successful SFUSD schools. Their complaints seemed to be that they couldn't have absolute, guaranteed, no-worry access to those schools.
mary lidle
I love the stereotype of childless people not giving a fig.
I volunteer weekly with young, poor kids in the city. They deserve better schools, not just the kids of middle-class parents who will feel to the burbs.
But since I didn't spit these kids out of my nether regions, my point of view doesn't count in city politics, right?