Jesus H Christ I hope you mean me when you talk about trolls.

Your defence of this woman is as pathetic as she is. She doesn't have a credit card of her own? If she can't get by on the 500 bucks she shouldn't have run.

Everyone who thinks the right thoughts is a fucking martyr to you people aren't they?

To compare her (KM) a school board member to the person that's ran a $500m school district (ie Dr. Ackerman.,CEO OF SFUSD) is kinda far up field as well. This is a WOW! moment. Keep in mind she Dr. Ackerman recapture at least $50m in lawsuits. By the way hasn’t Dr. Ackerman been gone for at least five years?

The campaign run by downtown against progressives and liberals on the SFUSD Board was a scorched earth policy that did not work. They claimed that it was the progressives who were destabilizing the SFUSD and causing meetings to devolve into chaos.

But it turns out that it WAS Arlene Ackerman and her authoritarian style which crippled the SFUSD for five years and drained its treasury.

Kim-Shree needs to be sure that each and every penny is repaid to the district with interest.

And this needs to be included and highlighted in the ethics training that BoE members receive.

Yes, it is the public dollar, but 20% tip is customary.

See, In knew I'd get these comments the minute I posted this.

What, Glen, you need to be rich to run for school board? I actually think the school board members ought to be paid a decent salary -- it's really a full-time job, and if you don't pay people, you either well-off folks with plenty of free time or you get people of modest means who struggle constantly with the pressure of doing a big job for almost no pay.

Tim,

I do not consider questioning and challenging Steve Jones and you in your continued defense of Obama and the Democratic Party as the work of a troll--as well as bringing up your know history of not supporting Matt Gonzales--, but what happened to the post and comments on health care reform from a week or two ago? I await your response to my second post to you in that thread.

Tim, there is the real world, where the job pays 500$ a month and your dream world. She ran for the job and won that paid 500$ a month, she didn't run for a job in the Tim Redmond shoulda world.

Not overly complicated is it? I know the real world is rough going sometimes, but in the end it really makes much more sense to stay in the same dimension we all live in.

This city has far to many ridiculous commissions and departments, close some of those up and pay her more. Stop begging from the peasants.

Okay, guys, maybe I shouldn't have used the word "troll." I'm happy for the criticism, and the debate, and I knew it would come with this post.

Seriously, though: Does anyone think this is really a major story?

Tim asks the essential question -- is this really a major story?

The truth is, for those who want to see it, that 1) the budget crisis is going to hit our schools like a sledge hammer in the next budget cycle; 2) we have one of the most segregated school districts in the nation, in which Black, Latino and Pacific Island students face huge obstacles; 3) and the Obama administration (via Arne Duncan) is conducting a major privatization and anti-Union campaign against public schools around the country. (Not to mention JROTC, military recruiters and the growing militarization of our schools and youth.)

Whatever mistakes Kim-Shree Maufas may have made, they involve at most a couple of thousand dollars, an amount which is pissed away by school district "consultants" in any given hour of any given day.

In other words, this article was a typical Chronicle hit piece serving, as usual, to divert us from the real issues surrounding education, and obstruct the serious public debate that we should be having.

Finally, does anybody think the Chronicle would have written this story if it had been one of their darlings on the school board (say Jill Wynns, Hydra Mendoza, Rachel Norton or even Norman Yee) who had goofed up? I doubt it.

David Campos said when running for district nine that he ended SF school segregation. I can't keep this business straight, what is it?

also it puzzles me, here is a definition of segregation from the dictionary.

"
Main Entry: seg·re·ga·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌse-gri-ˈgā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 1555

1 : the act or process of segregating : the state of being segregated
2 a : the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means b : the separation for special treatment or observation of individuals or items from a larger group
3 : the separation of allelic genes that occurs typically during meiosis
"

People going to the neighborhood school are not "segregated" not being a newspeak liberal and actually remembering real segregation, it took me forever to figure out what you people were talking about on that one. LOL

Well there is the money angle, and either the total lack of understanding of how a credit card works, or an awesome sense of entitlement on the part of the School marm. In any case, I know people who got the boot from real jobs pulling that business.

Part of the problem with the new new new left is that it can't admit when it's zero's FU. It's not a football game.

I don't mind being called a troll, I prefer internet douche though.

Remember Conflict of Interest standards: it is essential to avoid conflicts of interest be they appearance, potential or actual as all end up giving one egg on their face.

Ditto here: no questions are asked if the card is not used in a way that follows the guidelines.

So a better editorial, Tim, would have been on the competence of the guidelines, if any are extant. That is the question.

Then everybody will know what the rules are....

Charlie, I don't think the guidelines were clear enough. I think they're more clear now.

But let me repeat myself: I don't think Maurfas should have used the card for personal expenses. I just don't think, given all the issues facing the district and the relatively minor amount involved, that this is such a huge deal.

Matlock:
Walk into any school on the westside, then walk into any school on the eastside. Then check out a private school or two. Whatever the operative method, the fact is that we have segregated schools -- separate and very far from equal. That doesn't seem to bother you. But, a Black woman school board member fumbles a little with her credit card, and that REALLY bothers you. Hmmm...

It's all subject to debate whether this is a big story, whether the credit-card situation is out of bounds, and so forth.

But on another issue brought up here: I've been an SFUSD parent since 1996 -- two kids; a total of 25 kid-years so far -- and I follow school issues around the nation closely. I challenge and refute the charge that SFUSD has one of the most segregated school systems in the nation. That's simply not true. A number of our SFUSD schools are overly segregated by the standard set by the court, which is more than 60% of any one ethnicity. Yet in most cities and suburbs, and certainly ANY private school anywhere, a mere 60% of any one ethnicity would be viewed as wonderfully, fabulously diverse.

It's normal in many, if not most, U.S. cities to see schools that are 90%-plus, even 99 or 100%, African-American or Latino. No SFUSD schools are like that. It's very rare in most U.S. cities to see schools with significant proportions of three or four different ethnicities. MANY SFUSD schools are that diverse.

Tim Redmond will back me up on this, I'm certain, as his own kids' SFUSD school is known for its diversity.

Yes, SFUSD has a stubborn achievement gap -- as does every diverse, high-poverty urban school district not only in the nation but in the world -- but our schools are very decidedly NOT more segregated than those of other diverse high-poverty districts. Please become informed before you slam our schools -- false and malicious misinformation harms support for our schools and thus hurts our kids.

"Matlock:
Walk into any school on the westside, then walk into any school on the eastside. Then check out a private school or two. Whatever the operative method, the fact is that we have segregated schools -- separate and very far from equal. That doesn't seem to bother you. But, a Black woman school board member fumbles a little with her credit card, and that REALLY bothers you. Hmmm..."

Oh Norton a couple of points

Have you read 1984? That whole bit about destroying language? If you just make up language as you go along you're not going to make any sense. If you think the schools are segregated you need to talk to David Campos district nine savior, he claimed to have ended it when he ran for office. Like I said he claimed it and I could not for the life of me figure out what he was talking about.

People going to the local school are not "segregated." They go to a local school.

If the local schools suck because of 40 years of liberal incompetence, then you need to ask yourself; why in that last forty years has the size of the SF budget gone up way beyond any real economic indicator, why there is a extensive list of commissions formed in the last forty years, why there is an ever growing city workforce, why every special interest gets all sorts of free shit, why the supervisors take orders from the public employees unions, etc...

I too wonder why your liberal's have such crappy schools in this city, it does bother me very much. Just pointing out your illogical axioms just puzzles the shit out of me though.

This seems like a strange place to be discussing segregation in San Francisco schools -- but I guess it makes sense, since this thread started as a discussion about a Chronicle hit piece on a Black school board member known, among other things, for her defense of the rights of children and students of color.

Caroline asks me to "become informed before you slam our schools." Caroline, I have two kids who went through SF schools -- Alvarado, James Lick and Lowell. I have served as a PTA President, chair of a community coalition of educators and parents (with Jill Wynns before she got elected to the school board), county chair of the state campaign against vouchers, etc. etc. I consider myself reasonably well "informed."

Caroline and Matlock can parse words all they want, but the fact is that Black, Latino and Pacific Islander students are primarily concentrated in a set of schools where getting an education is pretty damn tough. And they aren't all going to "local schools" as Matlock claims -- check out who is riding the school busses these days, folks. Every method of measurement you can come up with -- test scores, graduation rates, suspension and expulsions to name just a few -- demonstrates that institutional racism is alive and well in San Francisco schools. Calling this, as Caroline does, a "stubborn achievement gap," is like saying that hell has a "fire safety problem."

For years there was a desegregation order in place for San Francisco schools, as a result of an NAACP lawsuit. That was gutted a few years back, after Proposition 209 (prohibiting using race as a determinent in school assignments) inspired backward political forces to sue the school district. The desegregation plan was very far from perfect, but at least there was some attempt to diversify our schools. Since then our schools have resegregated at an alarming rate.

As far as I am concerned, the institutional racism embedded in our school system (of which segregation is but one symptom) is THE issue that our school district needs to address first and foremost. (And I say this as an activist primarily known in school circles these days as an opponent of JROTC.) Until we deal with this institutional racism, our schools will continue to turn out far too many uneducated Black, Latino and Pacific Islander students, along with "successful" students who have been taught to trivialize or ignore the racism and oppression that we all live with every day in this great country.

A couple of articles those still engaged in this might discussion want to look at:

1-
"Racism alive and well in S.F. schools," C. W. Nevius, SF Chronicle, 9-9-07

2-
Mission Schools Segregated, Mission Local, 9-5-09

http://www.campos08.com/issues.html

http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp?id=93624

After reading the above hazza's to Campos, district nine savior I would have to say your heresy is very un of the body. The liberal thought police need to take a hard look at you. The SF men in green will be knocking on your door one of these nights, I hope your recycling is in order.

As I have only discovered that "segregation" in San Francisco is alive and well, after Brown V Board. I discovered that the people who tried to remove the ahem.... cough... raced based schemes here in SF, were of all people, ahem... Chinese. Ironic hunh?

I discovered using the internet the other day, that Campos who is a progressive and thus a person who knows the will of the people, Mr Campos tried to work around prop 209, something that the people voted on and passed by something like ten percent. When Campos tried to do a work around (the will of the people) the lawyer for the Chinese families said he would be back in court.

I just found that odd as my district nine supervisor said that racial segregation was a thing of the past, thanks to him and his lawyering.

My mistake in all of this is thinking that progressives want to get rid of racialism, I in my naivete thought George Wallace and his views of law and race were bad. I grew up believing racialism was bad, I guess I need to change my old fashioned views and get with the progressive swing of things and embrace racialism.

It's odd that the progressives claim to be for the people, but then do what they can to squeeze past things when the people are to stupid to vote correctly.

I guess it's like Ammiano said over the JROTC vote, around the same time Obamma outspent Mccain, its not a democratic vote because the pro-JROTC side outspent the anti-JROTC side. It takes the mind of Kruschev to puzzle this shit out, but I'll take the progressives word for it, they know best.

My, My, Matlock, it seems that we both keep strange hours.

Yes, the folks who filed the lawsuit against the desegregation order are Chinese. And, yes that is ironic. And now we have schools like Lowell that are 80% plus Chinese and Asian. And Lowell is NOT a neighborhood school. (Hell, it's not even a San Francisco school, unless you actually believe all those PG&E bills and such.)

I am glad you are against "racialism." I hope that means that you want to see Black, Latino and Pacific Islander students get a decent education. But I will have to be convinced, as you haven't said anything about THAT.

I hope you won't go around after this misquoting me as badly as you are misquoting Campos and Ammiano.

I will be waiting for that knock on the door.

Thanks, NortonSF; glad you're a fellow SFUSD parent.

However, the issue that the ethnicities that tend to (on average) be more academically challenged are "primarily concentrated" in lower-performing schools is not the same as saying SFUSD schools are the most segregated in the nation. Those are two entirely different statements. The first is valud and the second is just plain simply false.

SFUSD does not have guaranteed/mandatory neighborhood assignment, as anyone who follows school politics even slightly is aware. However, schools still TEND to reflect the demographics of the areas in which they're located. So schools in the heavily African-American southeastern SF neighborhoods tend to be heavily African-American (though the Bayview/HP are becoming more Asian, and so are the schools in the area); and schools in the heavily Asian Sunset and Richmond Districts tend to be heavily Asian.

Schools with concentrations of low-income, high-need, at-risk students tend to be more overwhelmed by the challenges their students bring to school with them. So that's the reason schools in low-income areas such as the Bayview and Vis Valley tend to be lower-performing. Is that institutional racism? Well, if you take a superficial view. I'd say it's more complicated than that.

It was the Ho court decision that dismantled the ethnicity quotas that used to govern SFUSD's assignment process, by the way. The Ho case was brought by Chinese-American families who claimed that the quotas required their kids to score higher to get into Lowell than other ethnicities.

Also, by the way, I read both the articles that NortonSF cites at the time, and I'm really surprised that an informed, veteran SFUSD parent would give either of them any credibility. Chuck Nevius, who lives in Walnut Creek so he can send his kids to schools that are almost 100% white, has been completely in outer space almost whenever he has tried to write about SFUSD, and the college students who do Mission Loc@l, while well-intended, are hit-or-miss as to whether they begin to grasp complex issues regarding public education. I'm not sure if you're citing them to "prove" that there's institutional racism or that our schools are segregated, but neither is an effective source to cite.

And Mr. Matlock, I don't usually make a practice of correcting posters' errors in online conversation, but I do have to tell you that if you had been luck enough to attend SFUSD schools (as my kids did), you would be well-educated enough (as they are) to know that it's incorrect to use an apostrophe in a plural (as in "liberal's"). I dispute forcefully that their education has been "crappy" or that their schools "suck." I take it as a personal slam at my kids; that's a false and malicious attack, and it's not true.

Thanks, NortonSF; glad you're a fellow SFUSD parent.

However, the issue that the ethnicities that tend to (on average) be more academically challenged are "primarily concentrated" in lower-performing schools is not the same as saying SFUSD schools are the most segregated in the nation. Those are two entirely different statements. The first is valud and the second is just plain simply false.

SFUSD does not have guaranteed/mandatory neighborhood assignment, as anyone who follows school politics even slightly is aware. However, schools still TEND to reflect the demographics of the areas in which they're located. So schools in the heavily African-American southeastern SF neighborhoods tend to be heavily African-American (though the Bayview/HP are becoming more Asian, and so are the schools in the area); and schools in the heavily Asian Sunset and Richmond Districts tend to be heavily Asian.

Schools with concentrations of low-income, high-need, at-risk students tend to be more overwhelmed by the challenges their students bring to school with them. So that's the reason schools in low-income areas such as the Bayview and Vis Valley tend to be lower-performing. Is that institutional racism? Well, if you take a superficial view. I'd say it's more complicated than that.

It was the Ho court decision that dismantled the ethnicity quotas that used to govern SFUSD's assignment process, by the way. The Ho case was brought by Chinese-American families who claimed that the quotas required their kids to score higher to get into Lowell than other ethnicities.

Also, by the way, I read both the articles that NortonSF cites at the time, and I'm really surprised that an informed, veteran SFUSD parent would give either of them any credibility. Chuck Nevius, who lives in Walnut Creek so he can send his kids to schools that are almost 100% white, has been completely in outer space almost whenever he has tried to write about SFUSD, and the college students who do Mission Loc@l, while well-intended, are hit-or-miss as to whether they begin to grasp complex issues regarding public education. I'm not sure if you're citing them to "prove" that there's institutional racism or that our schools are segregated, but neither is an effective source to cite.

And Mr. Matlock, I don't usually make a practice of correcting posters' errors in online conversation, but I do have to tell you that if you had been luck enough to attend SFUSD schools (as my kids did), you would be well-educated enough (as they are) to know that it's incorrect to use an apostrophe in a plural (as in "liberal's"). I dispute forcefully that their education has been "crappy" or that their schools "suck." I take it as a personal slam at my kids; that's a false and malicious attack, and it's not true.

Oops, sorry, for the accidental double posting, and also the typo -- I mean valid, not valud. Naturally when I correct someone else I leave a typo in my own post.

One more point, this time for Tim. It's a matter of debate whether Maufas' credit-card charges are a newsworthy issue. But I have a BIG problem with her approving $3 MILLION for a dubious-sounding professional development consultant and $40,000 for a hip-hop artist program that the schools it's supposed to benefit don't even want. And you should too! That money comes out of not only your kids' and my kid's (or kid's; one is a graduate now) classroom needs, but also the needs of less-advantaged children who are directly harmed by the loss. You can't be THAT single-issue forever; how much really sh*tty decision-making are you you going to forgive just because of her stand on JROTC?

Caroline,

It is not just schools in the Bayview (or the Mission) that are overhwelmingly Black/Latino/Pacific Islander. When my kids went to Alvarado in Noe Valley, nearly every kid was bussed in from either the Mission or Visitacion Valley. Same dynamic with James Lick (also in Noe Valley), except that a different set of Black/Latino/Pacific Islander students are bussed in there. Poor educational opportunities seems to follow these students, wherever they are sent. That is institutional racism. For the most part, Noe Valley parents sent their kids elsewhere. That is segregation.

And now, Caroline, you join Matlock in dumping on our Black school board President, without even acknowledging that there are six other board members. As Dr. Spock would say, fascinating...

The situation at Alvarado and James Lick has changed, Nortonsf, and those schools are no longer filled with students bused in. It was a crummy situation when Noe Valley parents sent their kids elsewhere, but the facts remain that SFUSD schools were not then and are not now segregated the way schools in other cities are.

I disagree that I'm not allowed to criticize an elected official because of his/her race -- in fact I view that as a racist notion -- so we're applying different standards there. I chided Maufas because her spending habits were the topic of discussion. The other BOE members who voted for both those outrageous expenditures get a slap too: Fewer, Kim and Yee.

Caroline,

It is not who you are "allowed" to criticize, it is who you choose to criticize. I notice that now that you have broadened your attack a bit, you leave the two white ladies on the board unscathed. Jill, in particular, has voted for umpteen zillion "consultant" contracts over the years. This is a privatization scheme that is endemic to the board.

I know that the situation changed considerably at Alvarado -- after they tore down Geneva Towers and got rid of a lot of Black kids. As for Lick, there sure are a lot of students getting on and off the 24 Divisadero these days...

On a lighter note, I should have quoted "Mr. Spock," not "Dr. Spock." This is a problem endemic to my generation. My apologies.

The reason SF schools are segregated is because white people don't attend them. They all go parochial or to boutique/private schools with the word "Day" or "Academy" in the title. If you consider the SFUSD demgraphic alone, they are not segregated.

Granted, Kim-Shree's little scandal doesn't deserve nearly the attention of the $2mn "consultancy" award given by the district to some friends of the supervisor (Kim Shree and all the other Greenies voted "yes" on that one), but it was still an egregious act. She should resign.

"I know I’m a bit biased here -- Maufas is a solid progressive who has stood up to immense pressure and done the right thing on issues like JROTC.

What is the "right thing" exactly on this issue again? Nortie has to fill us all in on the "Political Correct Line" so we will now how "progressives" are supposed to "think".

Maufas' children were members of the JROTC. She voted to maintain the program twice.

The working class with children in public schools has always supported the JROTC.

Jill Wynns has a long history as the spending hawk on the BOE -- it has nothing to do with her race.
She and Norton voted against those two obscene expenditures, whatever the color of their skin.
Not all consultant contracts are wasteful, but these two are an outrage.

I didn't choose to criticize Maufas out of the blue. I joined in a discussion about her that was already taking place.

I'm not sure what the criteria are as to who may criticize whom, by some posters' standards. It would be racist to criticize Arlene Ackerman, Willie Brown or for that matter Ed Jew? Can I criticize President Obama but only halfway?

Caroline, I will certainly back you up on the fact that my kids go to a public school -- McKinley Elementary -- that is wonderfully diverse. That's one of the (many) reasons we love McKinley. (Too bad we can't change the name -- McKinley was an awful president :))

And I don't have the data to argue about whether San Francisco's schools are more segregated than other public school systems. Maybe you have national figures, Caroline, and if so, please share them with us.

I will say that segregation remains a problem in the district, and something that concerned parents, administrators and board members need to be aware of and working on agressively. It's a tough problem.

I don't have a spreadsheet of national figures. I can re-look up figures for San Francisco schools or tell you where to find them, and in years of following national education stories, I can tell you that in cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago and LA, it's routine -- completely normal -- to see schools that are 90, 95 or 99% one ethnicity (African-American or Latino).

I looked up the high schools that as an informed guess I speculate would be the most segregated in SFUSD, and here they are, including their majority ethnicity:

John O'Connell 74% Latino
Washington 68.7% Asian
Lowell 66.3% Asian
Lincoln 61.9% Asian

Again, any private or suburban school that was a MERE 74% of one ethnicity would be breaking its arm patting itself on the back for its diversity.

I know that's not ideal, but is anyone reading this NOT aware that close-to-100% black or Latino high schools are the total norm in many major U.S. cities?

SFUSD probably does have a few elementaries that are more segregated than those high schools, since elementary schools that don't attract citywide applicants are likely to serve the nearby residents in segregated neighborhoods. But I'm saying A FEW, not the high number of totally-segregated schools that are the norm in other urban districts.

(Cesar Chavez, 85.7% Latino, for example.)

I mean, it's not ideal to have any overly segregated schools. And the achievement gap, while a worldwide issue not unique to SFUSD at all, is a major challenge. But the charge (which I've heard, oddly, from public-school-attacking Green/progressives in the past too) that SFUSD has the nation's most segregated schools is just not true.

So which point are you questioning, Tim?

1. It's the norm in many urban districts nationwide for many schools to be close to 100% black or Latino. My source: Many news articles over the years about issues in urban U.S. schools, citing schools that are close to 100% black or Latino. Do you disagree that this is the case?

2. The schools in SFUSD that are officially segregated are far less segregated than that. I looked up a few that I know to be quite segregated. The most segregated I found is Cesar Chavez Elementary, 85% Latino. The most segregated high school I found was O'Connell, 74% Latino. Source: The California Dept. of Education' Academic Performance Index website and my own knowledge of SFUSD demographics, gleaned over the years. I gave you figures, so I don't think you could disagree that this is the case, unless you know a slew of highly segregated SFUSD schools that I forgot about.

Again, a private or suburban school that was a mere 74% of one ethnicity would be breaking its arm patting itself on the back for its diversity (by their standards, even 85% wouldn't be bad at all).

If there are ANY schools in SFUSD that are close to 100% one ethnicity, they're certainly outliers.

So which of these two points are you questioning? I'm mystified. I'm not saying the diversity is ideal, and I strongly agree that the achievement gap is a dismaying challenge.

But as for the claim that SFUSD has the nation's most segregated schools, all I can say is: You lie!

Sorry! My first post disappeared and I recast the entire thing. Then it reappeared. Arrgh.

Give me a little opportunity to develop my argument here, including a mea culpa.

Start with Barton, who makes an interesting point:

"The reason SF schools are segregated is because white people don't attend them. They all go parochial or to boutique/private schools with the word 'Day' or 'Academy' in the title."

I couldn't have said it better, whatever else I think of Barton's comments.

According to SFUSD statistics, about 10% of our students are white. Yet well over 45% of the population of San Francisco is white.

Now, both of these statistics call for some correction. There are undoubtedly a significant number of white kids whose parents have gamed the system to have them classified otherwise in order to get into schools where there are already too many white folks. And the population of white school-age kids is probably less than 45%, as the far-more-well-off white population probably has less children than everybody else.

Still, the point that Barton made is obvious. The first level of segregation in this city is that many, many white parents send their kids to private schools. This is even more true in the higher grades -- middle schools and especially high schools. This fact alone robs the school district of needed funds, decreases the political support for public schools, and sends a message to every kid of color that they are worth less than white kids.

Before Caroline or someone else makes the objection, I will point out that this dynamic is hardly unique to San Francisco.

Next point. The SFUSD demographic statistics are very skewed. The one that I have personal knowledge of is Lowell. Caroline cites the official Asian enrollment of 66.3%. That's a laugher, and everybody, everybody knows it. It is way, way higher, guys. As I said, there is a wealth of knowledge in this distict about how to game the system. I remember way back when I checked out Rooftop (gag me!) for my first-born. The Principal herself gave a lecture to potential parents about how to get your white kid classified otherwise. I sent my kid to Alvarado, but believe me most of the other white parents were taking detailed notes. This isn't the exception -- this is the system.

Next point. Or maybe a question. Is a school that is 45% Latino, 45% Black and 10% white segregated or integrated? I am not even going to try to answer that question, because it is not the important one. The fact is that in most such schools, white kids will get the cream (GATE classes, honors classes, AP classes, the more engaged teachers), the Latino kids will get something in the middle, and the Black kids will be found filling up special education bungalows. (OK, I'm exagerating, but you get the picture, and I'm really not that far off the mark.)

So, here is a mea culpa. Is San Francisco really one of the MOST segregated schools in the country? Maybe I got a bit carried away -- not that I am sure that I am wrong -- but maybe so.

But, here is the real point. Institutionalized racism is as endemic to San Francisco schools as any place else in the country, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary. It is not just a "tough" problem as Tim says, or a "stubborn" problem as Caroline says, it is THE problem in our schools.

Sure, white parents can negotiate the system and get a good education for their kids. There are some good schools. And white parents can get the cream in even very "diverse" schools with very few white kids -- and then send their progeny off to Lowell or private school.

But where does that leave the other 90%? In schools ("segregated" or "diverse," you take your choice) where their needs come last, last, last.

And that is why having school board members who are of color -- ESPECIALLY BLACK (like Kim-Shree Maufas) -- is so damn important. It hardly solves the problem, but it is an absolutely necessary step in the process of solving the problem.

To fan the flames when the Chronicle and the powers-that-be decide to dump on one of the few Black school board members we have had in years is bad, bad politics -- and one more sign of the endemic racism in our schools (and our city).

I'll stop there for now.

What NortonSF says here is valid:

"The first level of segregation in this city is that many, many white parents send their kids to private schools. This is even more true in the higher grades -- middle schools and especially high schools. This fact alone robs the school district of needed funds, decreases the political support for public schools, and sends a message to every kid of color that they are worth less than white kids."

Of course, one thing the Green/Progressives could do is put heat on your fellow Green/Progressives to do as NortonSF did and go public -- rather than cloistering your kids in supposedly progressive elite private schools (the Synergy/Waldorf ilk, or of course homeschool) because they're too oh-so-creative to sit next to kids from the projects. Make it just plain socially unacceptable for progressives to do that, with a great big H for Hypocrite on the forehead, or even a great big R for Racist. You know your friends are doing that (my Green/prog friends often do), and you know is IS hypocritical and it IS racist. If you want to make a difference, confront and challenge them. Make it uncomfortable for them.

One of my points, too, IS that misstatements like the one NortonSF made also "(decrease) the political support for public schools," which does harm to our schools and our children, especially disadvantaged, at-risk children. That's exactly why I made such a point of challenging and refuting them.

So, NortonSF, thanks for correcting yourself.

And Tim, I'm calling you out: Why did you challenge ME to prove it when I refuted NortonSF's misstatement but not challenge HIM to prove his original misstatement? Integrity check.

Caroline,

Slow down a little, please. I didn't say that I was wrong when I said San Francisco has so the MOST segregated schools in the nation. I said, and I quote myself, "Maybe I got a bit carried away -- not that I am sure that I am wrong -- but maybe so." What I am admitting is that I don't have the stats to back up that impression.

Ok, I am equivocating a bit, so bore in for the kill if you want.

But I want you to also consider my observation that a 45% Latino, 45% Black, 10% white school may also be fairly called segregated. We probably have more schools like that than many other cities.

Please also consider my observation that the public/private divide is part of segregation. That is the way it is done in much of the South these days. And San Francisco white parents have oh-so-much-more $$$$$ to spend on their kids' private education than our fellow white citizens in Alabama.

Another point. You won't solve the public/private divide by appeals to people's consciences. Green, Democrat, Republican -- people generally get theirs for themselves and family if they have the means. Sad, but true. I go more towards the Mexican Revolution kind of solution -- outlaw private schools.

Thanks, NortonSF (sorry, I assumed you're male and may be wrong). I have enough information from years of following national education issues to know that my observation is correct -- other cities routinely have near-100%-one-ethnicity schools; SFUSD does not. That doesn't mean SFUSD is perfect; just that it's not true that SFUSD schools are the most segregated in the nation, and in fact they are likely far LESS segregated than schools in many, if not most, major U.S. urban districts.

Your comments:
"But I want you to also consider my observation that a 45% Latino, 45% Black, 10% white school may also be fairly called segregated."

No, it can't. That's not perfect; it may be a disadvantaged school; but by definition that isn't "segregated."

"We probably have more schools like that than many other cities."

That's true, we do, because those other cities have schools that are 95-100% black or Latino, while ours are more likely 45-45-10 or whatever.

I TOTALLY agree with your observation that the public/private divide is part of segregation. I've been stating that emphatically for years, including to my Green/prog my-kids-are-too-creative-to-sit-next-to-kids-from-the-projects friends.

"You won't solve the public/private divide by appeals to people's consciences."

Maybe not, but people still need to hear it when they're being hypocrites and racists. And guilt-tripping, especially when it's extremely valid guilt-tripping aimed at very culpable perps caught red-handed in racist and hypocritical behavior, is still more effective than waiting to achieve the impossible by outlawing private school. That's never going to happen.

But reminding hypocrites that choosing private has the same kind of social impact as driving a Ford Expedition or moving into an all-white gated community -- while it pisses them off -- does have an impact. Next time one of your lefty friends heads off to tour Live Oak or San Francisco School, your work is cut out for you! Speak up.

Caroline, I wasn't being critical -- I was simply asking if you had national data to share. I think you're probably right: In many urban school districts, many schools are far more segregated that the typical schools in San Francisco. And I think Nortonsf is wrong about that, as he himself admitted.

In case you haven't noticed, I am a big fan of and supporter of the SF public schools. I tell EVERYONE I know who has school-age kids to at lease give the SFUSD a chance. I routinely berate public officials (like City Attorney Dennis Herrera) who send their kids to private schools (I've agreed to make an exception for Sean Elsbernd, who is a devout Catholic and wants to send his kids to religious schools, which is his choice.) Jesus, I even critcized Barack Obama for sending his kids to private school, and got a huge raft of shit for it:

http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=7545&catid=4

I think both of you are right that convincing more parents to choose public schools is and should be a priority.

But I think, Caroline, that you would agree that there are still very distinct race and class issues in San Francisco schools, and that it's not an unfair attack on our school system to say that this remains a big problem. Every member of the School Board that I have talked to agrees with that statement. So does the superintendent. How we address it in an era of diminished resources is one of the biggest issues facing this district -- and almost every other major urban school district in America.

Of course I agree with that, Tim. My point was specifically to debunk the false charge that SFUSD has the most segregated schools in the nation.

That obviously is not the same thing as saying there's no social injustice or racism in the schools; I was specifically debunking a very specific false charge.

While I was at it, since NortonSF expounded on private schools and very much shares my view of the damage they do, I'm urging you guys to slap around the large number of your fellow Green/progs who choose private, since you have more cred with them than I do when you call them out for racism and hypocrisy. (Oh, and I forgot to single out Friends, which is really Ground Zero for hypocrisy.)

I agree about the Obamas, of course, and blogged about it too. I don't really get much crap for it, since the private school folks pretty much expect no better from me.

Caroline,

It is disingenuous for you to claim that you intervened here only to rebut my statements about segregation in San Franicisco schools.

In fact, you also eagerly took up the Chronicle's campaign of bashing our one Black school board member, and rushed to the defense of the two white school board members. Elsewhere, you are well known for being their partisans.

The real question here is not whether or not I am right that San Francisco schools are among the MOST segregated in the country.

The real issue that is underlies and is revealed in this exchange is WHETHER OR NOT TO MAKE IT A PRIORITY TO FIGHT AND DEFEAT THE INSTITUTIONAL RACISM THAT IS ENDEMIC TO OUR SCHOOLS.

You, and the school board members that you do support, give this struggle little more than lip service, while attacking those school board members who do more than that.

"For me, sending your kids to public school is the litmus test showing whether or not you are a true progressive."

This is why I was really hoping Chris Daly would stay in San Francisco and put his kids in a public school, preferably one in District 5. He would have shown himself to be a true SF progressive.

Jill Tucker's story only skimmed the surface of the real problem, and only chose to focus on Maufas' antics.

Here's a thought -- why doesn't the SFBG do some investigation of its own? Pick 6 top SFUSD administrators and do an information request on their reimbursements for personal spending and their Diner's Club card ... and share your findings with the rest of us ...

These days, parents seem to have to do all the muckraking ourselves ...

my opinion piece for today's BEYONDCHRON:

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=7447#more

School Beat: The Fiduciary Responsibility of School Administrators

by Katy Franklin‚ Oct. 15‚ 2009

Jill Tucker’s recent Chronicle article regarding District employee's credit card charges only touches the surface of the problem. When it is revealed that Board of Education President Kim-Shree Maufas and other San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) administrators misuse public monies, it casts great doubt upon their capacity to oversee how SFUSD spends its funds. Ms. Maufas and others on the Board of Education (BOE) recently approved a 3.2 million dollar professional development contract of questionable value. Are these decisions good for the students of SFUSD?

story continues:
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=7447#more

You are all missing the point. SFUSD is not a private business. Garcia set them up. He gave them credit cards - they used them. Is this open season on the taxpayers? They have unlimited use of credit cards because they take someone to Morton's and discuss school district business? No limitations? They decide to take constiuents to breakfast, lunch and dinner they charge it to the taxpayers? Sorry folks. If the school board sets up in advance and in public a business allowance with limits and rules so be it. And, they only returned the money when they got caught. No one conferred on them unlimited use of the public purse whenever they deem it business. Back to Garcia. He knew all along during the 15 months what they were charging and never said a word. He owned them and got a free meal at Morton's courtesy of the taxpayers. I read about him - just like he charged the taxpayers of Nevada $7,500 to fancy up his car with a disc changer, singing brake pedals etc. Time for him to go.

The read has been engaging- with all the parrying and dodging. I'd put the tone very close to 'civil one-up-man ship' (ni one-up-person ship). Allow me to drag this from the specific, who decides what education a kid gets- to the general, how do we compete for resources?

For education, those that can afford to look outside the public system by spending time and/or money to remove their kids from public schools. Private school, home school, these solutions require a well padded bank account or an educated stay at home parent. In certain zip codes it is an almost certain forgone conclusion that these two elements will be lacking. And if they are the kids are left in a rut to rot.

And that is someone's fault. So begins the discourse, which sooner or later devolve into a grammar contest as demonstrated by this thread. So the short list of players are: the kids, the parents, the teachers, the SFUSD, the state, and apparently, The Chron.

While I believe your efforts to be genuinely centered around the problem of equitably distributing finite educational resources between groups with economic disparity, I know The Chron is most concerned with competing for the dollars in your wallet. Maufas? Seems like she's just the little button everyone is tripping over themselves to put a shine to.

The Chron would have better served reality if it had instead ran a story like this...

All Kids Do Not Need, Want, or Deserve a High School Education: Here's Why.

Or maybe...

Farmers Agree!! College: Total Waste of Time and Money.

And this, in closing, to be true to my moniker. Is it any wonder that San Francisco, a sanctuary city, with it's sanctified illegal immigrants, is having problems meeting the educationl expectations of it's 5th generation, tax paying, Chron reading button polishers?

The read has been engaging- with all the parrying and dodging. I'd put the tone very close to 'civil one-up-man ship' (ni one-up-person ship). Allow me to drag this from the specific, who decides what education a kid gets- to the general, how do we compete for resources?

For education, those that can afford to look outside the public system by spending time and/or money to remove their kids from public schools. Private school, home school, these solutions require a well padded bank account or an educated stay at home parent. In certain zip codes it is an almost certain forgone conclusion that these two elements will be lacking. And if they are the kids are left in a rut to rot.

And that is someone's fault. So begins the discourse, which sooner or later devolve into a grammar contest as demonstrated by this thread. So the short list of players are: the kids, the parents, the teachers, the SFUSD, the state, and apparently, The Chron.

While I believe your efforts to be genuinely centered around the problem of equitably distributing finite educational resources between groups with economic disparity, I know The Chron is most concerned with competing for the dollars in your wallet. Maufas? Seems like she's just the little button everyone is tripping over themselves to put a shine to.

The Chron would have better served reality if it had instead ran a story like this...

All Kids Do Not Need, Want, or Deserve a High School Education: Here's Why.

Or maybe...

Farmers Agree!! College: Total Waste of Time and Money.

And this, in closing, to be true to my moniker. Is it any wonder that San Francisco, a sanctuary city, with it's sanctified illegal immigrants, is having problems meeting the educational expectations of it's 5th generation, tax paying, Chron reading button polishers?

I jumped back on here weeks after Norton challenged me.

Again, I dispute that it's verboten to criticize a wrongdoing elected official because of his/her race. In fact, I counter that it's racist to pronounce that off-limits because of race.

Did you make the same pronouncement, Norton, when the Guardian was criticizing Arlene Ackerman, or back when, Willie Brown?