I think you're only pretending not to understand. It's pretty mathematically obvious. If every single parent in SF said I will go to private or move if my child doesn't get into a school with an above average California API score, and only 65% of San Francisco Public Schools have above average California API scores, then inevitably 35% will move, no matter what we do, and we can't possibly satisfy all. However, if only 65% of parents insist on this as a condition of staying in SFUSD, then it is possible to satisfy all, because 35% may live near a mediocre school but prefer to go to that school than drive across town, and make the best of it. For instance, I know parents of kids at James Lick, a below average school, who would rather go to James Lick than an above average school such as Hoover. Why? Because they live a couple blocks away and James Lick has a good GATE Program and mainly gets low test scores because many of the kids are learning English and speak Spanish, and it's easy to go from James Lick to Lowell because of it's status as under-represented. It's the same at the elementary school level, many parents would rather their kids go to school close to home than a better school that means them driving an hour or more every school day. This is easily proven in the fact that many who could get into a west side school by applying, don't, and you can see that by going to the schools.

So it's very simple, if every parent will only be happy with an above average school, and 65% are above average, you automatically make 35% unhappy. If only 50% are that insistent, it's easy to make all satisfied. I think you're pretending not to understand basic logic just to argue, but this is mathematically true. Many parents want to go to schools not rated as above average API.

The trick is to give everyone something they want, create enough alternatives to guarantee parents who are unhappy near a poorly ranked school an alternative they can drive to, while simultaneously guaranteeting everyone who wants an opportunity to go to school near home that chance, the green chance to walk to school, or bike to school. The current system doesn't want to give families certainty or satisfy all. Jane Kim said it was more important to have diversity than educate kids. Another board member has a daughter who stole or "borrowed" from a credit card and is a high school dropout. In my view, anyone who raised a high school dropout shouldn't be on the board, because poor parenting is a big reason we don't have all our schools over the California API average.

You're just defending the status quo by pretending not to understand. You're not being genuine.

San Francisco is full of wackos and I am not going to give my name, which leads to an address, each time I post on line. The problem with neighborhood schools, which I support, is that people say what about a person who really wants a good education for their child and feels that the only opportunity to go to a good school is in another neighborhood? Some people bring this up out of concern for these disadvantaged people, which is why I'm trying to find a solution, I'm starting to think you only bring it up to argue, because you intentionally pretend you don't understand when I know you do. But here it is, basic logic.

If you say they can go to the top neighborhood schools, you're saying everyone can go to the top neighborhood schools, then there isn't enough space for everyone at a few schools and then you have what we have now, a computer lottery in which you can't build communities, people can't more into a neighborhood and have certainty in planning their children's future, and many people move out or go to private school, causing more segregation than we had before this system. So you can't solve the problem by saying this person can kick someone out of a school a block from their house, becomes someone will lose in such a scenario. However, you can say we will have enough alternative schools that any such person who can't get into said school, and some will still be able to because there aren't enough neighborhood kids to fill up all the schools on the west side, can go to an alternative school, which is usually pretty good. Language schools are self-selecting, they are good because the people who want their kids to know another language know a lot about education and care a lot, but there are other alternative schools like Rooftop.

I'm not giving an actual stat but a hypothetical for the purposes of explanation. We know many parents are very obsessed with which school their kid will go to and will apply to the top ranked API school. We also know that many will just go wherever is close to home and would rather do so, even if it means going to a school that has a lower API Score. For instance, under the current system, anyone in public housing could get into a top West Side School, or Marina District School, so when you see not many make that choice, it is obvious most don't prefer to go to these higher ranking schools from some areas. 65% is just a guess. It could be 80%. It could be 50%. It is almost certainty between those two. The point is, it is not everyone. If no one would be happy in a low rated school, then it would be factually impossible to please everyone. SF is an above average school district and more than half of our schools are above average, but many are below average. Some people will go to these schools happily, or not appeal. Some would rather their kids learn Spanish, even though the school may not be highly ranked. The question is, can you guarantee everyone who wants it a neighborhood school while simultaneously guaranteeing everyone who is upset enough about going to a neighborhood school that they would move or go to private over it a chance to go to an above average California public school. I believe you probably can. If you read it again, you'll see that what you're saying isn't what I said.

I think it's crucial we make San Francisco competitive with suburbs, or else we'll have a situation where the parents who believe in public school and care about education move to suburbs, which we don't want. We have to tell people you can move to the Sunset District and get the same deal as if you move to San Rafael or Orinda or Burlingame, a good public school close to home and convenient to get to. We can have better schools than there because we have very motivated students. I don't want to keep losing famlies. However, it is also very important that we help our most disadvantaged residents get out of poverty and improve within a generation, so we don't have long-term cyclical poverty. So that in 25 years all neighborhoods in San Francisco are like the Richmond and Sunset in test score averages.

The current system has failed these children. We've had it for 45 years and have a big achievement gap. The argument before was put kids together, and they'll act like one another, learn from each other. It hasn't happened. We need to try something different. To pass this, we need to provide those who live near a bad school and don't want to go to it an opportunity to go to an alternative school. However, to fix the poor performing schools, with many students whose parents aren't educationally motivated, we have to make wholesale changes.

As Omar Khalif, Students' First School Board Candidate, has said, Education is the great equalizer. If we can fix education, get everyone to take it seriously, make sure children have good teachers and listen and learn from them, we will get rid of all poverty in San Francsisco within a generation. If you go back and read the platform of the people who put in the plans of the '60s and '70s, this was the goal, to that within a generation this would be unnecessary because equal schools would solve the issue of poverty. However, it didn't happen that way. We haven't focused on study habits, on paying teachers more but getting rid of seniority as the only determinant of pay and who gets laid off, and tenure. We haven't focused on giving principals real power to recruit better teachers if the ones he or she has working for him aren't working hard and getting results. We haven't focused on parenting, tutoring, or many other things. Our schools serve the students who want to learn, but don't inspire those who don't.

The current plan covers this up. It makes it so we can say look, Galileo's API went up (because we bused in 20% of their population from the Sunset and Richmond who previously would have gone to Washington and we know score well on tests traditionally). We don't say, we have 3d generations in public housing in the bottom 20% of California students. How can we fix this, make sure every child can read, can do math, at a top level? We are too politically correct and focused on the status quo to fight for what is right. We need to put more money into these schools that are at the bottom, but make sure it's spent well. We need to give top principals and teachers more power. We need to allow the most disruptive students to be suspended or expelled so that we focus on the 90% of kids who won't disrupt the others in an extreme way. We need to focus on true change, not dishonest number shifting and magic tricks.

Do you have any solutions Don, or are you just going to continue to criticize something you previously said you believed in? Instead of trash talking, tell me how you would solve the problem. How would you make it so we educate all our citizens well, raise up those in poverty so poverty in San Francisco becomes a thing of the past, and make San Francisco as attractive a place for the educated middle class to raise kids as anywhere else in the Bay Area? Do you believe in seniority? Tenure? Higher pay for teachers who perform well? Higher pay for all teachers? Tax increases? Spending cuts in other parts of the budget to pay for more education? Changes in how we motivate kids with low scores? What is your plan, instead of just attacking me, tell me your plan. Don't bother pretending you don't understand the stats anymore, I know you do. Anyone with any mathematical knowledge can understand how it is possible depending on which percentage demand certain schools. What is your plan to make San Francisco's education improve for all our children? To close the achievement gap? How would you do it if you were Superintendent?

Are you now saying you hope this measure doesn't pass, that we should now go back to a lottery system?

As to why don't I just say X, I am saying that. The highest priority for the 2/3 of schools, or so, that are traditionally neighborhood schools, should go to proximity, after siblings. A person within the zone should get priority before the person who lives far away, so yes, then alternative schools would be a means of saying if you live near a school you don't like, then you have another option. I don't believe someone living 3 miles away from Alice Fong Yu should be able to have any chance whatsoever of displacing someone who lives 3 blocks away. If there is space, they should have a chance to go there, and then a chance to go to any of our wonderful alternative schools. If anyone doesn't have such a chance, we should build more schools in the popular areas, re-open Cabrillo in the Richmond and Poly Tech. High School as an elementary or K-8 in the Sunset, and new and innovative alternative schools.

The best measure of success in SFUSD is average test score, closing the achievement gap and how many children are in SFUSD year to year. We've been failing in 2 of 3, though our average test score is improving. I hope we start improving in all 3, plus improve our environment and traffic. Vote Yes on this when it comes up for a vote. It will be the right thing to do.

John Bingham,

I cannot make heads or tails of what you are saying. Sit down, compose your thoughts and lay them out logically and with enough language clarity and mathematical precision that the reader can understand without straining. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Ima Akolet from a rural village in Papua New Guinea. I left my home because we send kids over 50 KM from one village to another in order to diversify. Imagine all the lost time walking through the jungle each way. 1 out of every 10 students never make if back due to cannibalism, tigers and snakes. I want all students to attend their local public schools in PNG. If only 65% of families would go to their local neighborhood school instead of private we could make all schools better. I ended up having to send my children to private school in PNG so they would not have to spend 8 hours a day in transit. But after they imposed a high tax on private schools I came here to America. What a shock when I found out that you want to do impose the same taxes on private schools. Now I'm going back to New Guinea and plan to home school my children. I just want to live a simple life where I can choose to buy $800 shoes if I want.

I'm glad to hear that at least one person from Papua New Guinea shares our concern for neighborhood schools. We like you also have to suffer dangers in getting to school, but instead of poisonous snakes and cannibals its Muni and crosstown traffic. I hope you will stay in America whether you choose to homeschool, go private or take your chances with public.

Your questions are the same questions that many have, not just about the neighborhood schools measure but also about the new assignment system.

I gather that some neighborhood children will not be assigned to neighborhood schools because those with preferences will fill up all the slots. I say "some" because the preferences will be more utilized where demand is highest. So your local school, Malena, not being a prized school, will probably not have much preference utilization and you will be assigned there. However, if you are one of those that gets a preference from CTIP1 you are likely to get a coveted school of your choice. So I wouldn't be too worrried if you live in a CTIP 1 area.

If the neighborhood schools measure were to be made policy you would not have the option of choice because proximity would be the only criteria for assigning students.

maybe someone already brought this up. The Broads of Education already changed the system in favor of neighborhood schools. So why do we need a ballot measure to do the same thing again? i don't get it. What could possibly be the purpose of this?

The new system for 2011 is worse than the old system. The neighborhood system would at least be better for traffic and the air quality, but has issues as well. You wouldn't have no chance, but you wouldn't be able to, as now, win a lottery and make it so you go to a popular school and a family within a half mile or so has to go to the school you don't want to go to across the street from you, so you are passing each other in cars every day instead of biking or hiking it. However, you will have an equal chance to go to alternative or foreign language bilingual schools, and could get into a better school, and many will, particularly the most persistent.

Part of the problem with this measure is that a school which has a bad rep now not only has a lot of challenges, but then is abandoned by the conscientious parents who live near an area, so it really becomes a school of only children whose parents don't care. How do you make such a school better? Every system has problems, the ideal is to integrate as much as possible and also keep families here. There is no perfect solution. Hopefully by the time this is on the ballot people will see that the current system is better or someone will put a measure on the ballot for charter schools and ending the current tenure system. I doubt it though. I still don't know how I'll vote on this. It's sad all around. There should be 10 measures on the ballot about schools.

1. Neighborhood preference-keeps traffic down and guarantee close if wanted.
2. Sales tax to build more schools where popular and bus those who choose to such schools, so such parents can choose this option, and get more racial balance and diversity without forcing anyone reluctantly afar.
3. End tenure. End seniority as method of pay and promotion.
4. Charters to the degree in which parents request and want it.
5. Vouchers for private schools so there is true competition.
6. End to testing or drastically reduce it.
7. Pay more for science and math teachers.
8. Send the best teachers to the challenged schools, and extra pay to take on those challenges.
9. Parent education for parents whose kids have poor grades.
10. Parcel tax for smaller class size.

Maybe 10 more. We should really focus on education, not weird things like condemning the invasion, protesting the U.S.S. Missouri, naming a dump after George W Bush, all that other stuff.

I hope someone gets more education measures on the ballot. As for the Board, useless grandstanders, I've seen it on Cable and I can't remember the last intelligent thing any one of those people said.

I can't really understand what 11:15 is saying either, but I know that this is NOT true:

"However, you will have an equal chance to go to alternative or foreign language bilingual schools, and could get into a better school, and many will, particularly the most persistent."

Under the new system, you get to keep your assigned school while you simultaneously apply for another school. Under that kind of system there is no reason NOT to try to get a better placement since there is no downside. This will increase the number of applications for alternative schools ,while the number of seats remains static. Those that do win the lottery, which will be much less likely than before, will open up spots at the schools initially assigned to them. But the likelihood is that those will not be highly sought after schools in the first place as they would not be applying to other schools if they like their assignment. One should remember that if you get an alternative placement via choice you do lose your previously assigned school at that juncture.

As for the neighborhood measure it just says that the choice system will remain, which isn't really saying much given that choice is a requirement of both State and Federal law anyway. Choice will remain - what's left of it after choice applications skyrocket in comparison to openings.

"Guest", do you mena Rooftop? Maybe we should make it so that if you apply to an alternative, you risk losing your neighborhood school, but if you take it, you don't. Spots at a coveted school like Rooftop shouldn't go to people who are lucky enough to already live near a desired school, and should be for those that need it most. Maybe they should go back to where you wait in a line so parents who really want to get their kids into Rooftop can camp out and show their grit. It'd give parents a chance to put up or shut up. My parents got me into Rooftop that way. That shows which parents just like to complain and which would brave the cold fog all night because they'll do anything to help their children. Rooftop is amazing. I thank my parents every day for their sacrifice. I bet that would separate the whiners from the achievers real quick. At least no one could say they had no chance.

First off, there will be lots of people who live near a coveted school but don't get it due to the preferences. If 25-50 percent are siblings and CDC preK residents get dibs after, then CTIP1 after that - it is very easy to see how 40 K seats at any more-desired school could evaporate long before the average neighborhood resident could get in.And just living near a coveted school does not mean you won't be needing to find an alternative placement since the next closest school might also be in the same position. It is a little confusing. I've said it before - if SFUSD thought it could accommodate most or all neighborhood residents, why would they need to give a preference to low income IN ZONE residents who attend the CDC attached to the elementary? If everyone who lived in the zone got in, why would any body in that category need a preference?

As far as camping out, it favors those who have the time on their hands or whoever can afford to hire a baby sitter for 2 or 3 days straight. This is not the way. If you want to show grit, buckled down and do everything you can to offer assistance to your school in your spare time.

Having more alternatives is essential. Maybe the alternative schools should be the ones that employ preferences so that more neighborhood residents get their neighborhood school. The down side is that those that live near a poor school but don't fit the bill for any preference have a reduced chance of getting an alternative.

your ridiculous story. You have quite an imagination. Sleeping on the street isn't showing grit. Homeless people have plenty of grit. That isn't what students require to get ahead. If you want to stand in line for a week to get a ticket to see the Rolling Stones that is your business. But espousing such a method as district policy for student assignment shows just how poverty stricken your thinking is - not to be confused with the colorful story of your downtrodden roots.

Read through some of the former comments on this thread that explain the benefits to neighborhood schools. You came late to the discussion. I support a neighborhood school system in which communities play a larger role in the school and district resources are put into strong community outreach programs. Schools won't get better just by lack of busing, or by proximity to home. Students don't get smarter just by sitting next to more able classmates. Education isn't like a contact high. You actually have to work at it and communities will have to do the job that families alone seem unable or unwilling to do in some cases where failure is highest.

The old days when you could just send your kids to school and they do the rest... those days are over. The failure of schools is in large part the result of failure in the community, exacerbated by reduced education spending, unusually high teacher rotation and a break down in school behavior standards.

Neighborhood schools will only work in every community when the families, businesses, churches and other community and governmental organizations get behind their local schools and make the necessary efforts to build them up. The main problem with the Quality Neighborhood Schools For All is that they think that if you just send kids to school near home that alone will solve the problem. That is not true, though it does make the problem easier to solve with the children closer to their homes and communities. But there are several more steps and those steps won't take place organically. This is the big fallacy with Students First. You have to create better schools through policy. They are not go to magically happen just because you don't have busing or you travel less.

They need to elucidate a comprehensive policy, not just one component to overall reform. Otherwise, they will just be viewed as a self-serving lobby for higher performing families. They also run the risk of churning racial animosity if they don't represent a broad spectrum of families. To their credit they are reaching out to various groups, but they need to create a platform explains in very clear terms why someone like yourself living near a low performing school would want to vote for neighborhood schools. Most of the votes are in the southeast. I hope Students First can answer your question. I am no longer a part of that group and do not speak for them.

Yeah, I can't figure you out man! One thing that's cool about SF is it's neighborhoods. You don't get that most places. Real unique and cool. Kids should benefit too from that. I think neighborhood schools would be cool. One thing I notice, you don't see all the neighborhood kids hanging out, like you would most places. Then this guy is for something, against it, I don't know man come on. I gotta go.

I can't follow this thread anymore. Do you think that SF is the only place that has neighborhoods? We here on planet Earth have had "real unique and cool" neighborhoods for at least several millenia.

What about the fact that some neighborhoods have different racial percentages than others? What if one neighborhood is all Hispanic, and another is all Black, and another is all white, and another all Asian? It's not quite like that but close. Kids need to go to school with kids of other races, to end racism, to fight racism. Private schools are part of the problem, but part of it is people trying to not rent to black people, to Hispanic people, doing credit checks, which are racist by nature, etc. I say, integrate the neighborhoods first, then have neighborhood schools. Put some projects out in the Avenues, make some white people move to Bay View, some Asians move to the Mission, mix it up somehow, our City is still too racist to have neighborhood schools. I can't tell you how often I go out and see 8 people having dinner or hanging out, all of the same race. Mix it up a bit. Racist bullshit!

You may be right, I'm just saying it's too bad. It's a shame man. Maybe it's getting better, I wasn't here then. It does seem there are a lot of so called liberals who are pretty racist deep down. Oh my, junior might go to school with minorities, let's move to Orinda or work extra hours and send our kid to a racist expenive school like Hamlin. I think a lot of people in this "progressive" SF are not so progressive at all in terms of diversity, they'll happily send their kids to school with well-behaved Asians who speak perfect English, but won't in a realistic way, in the real world, fight for integration. NIMBY is alive in SF and should be dead if it's so progressive. So racism and separation move on. Not all, but many in SF are very conservative, to me if you move to an all white place or go to Hamlin, you're not only Republican, but a very conservative Republican who doesn't believe in integration at all or making any sactifice to help other kids than your own. Yeah maybe it'd be cool if instead of isolating all the blacks in projects the way they do, they put in expensive market condos instead of rebuilding a projects in the Bayview, but then used the money to buy a few apartment buldings scattered in the avenues and let black people live there. On Section 8, so we all integrate. Racism doesn't end by itself, you gotta work at it.

Dave's point is that everybody who doesn't do exactly what he thinks is right is racist and that would include himself. I'll bet if you look at his own record he's doing everything he can to keep his own kids in his upscale neighborhood. Maybe he should rent his house out for half price to Section 8ers and move to a downtrodden neighborhood. He's all hot air. A real bullshitter through and through.

Right on. Another factor is the private school elite people usually are the ones who use their political power to keep taxes low so that public schools are laying off teachers and underfunded. The 2/3 majority was mostly paid for by these types, so they are happy to spend money on their own kids' education, but will fight any taxes to improve educaion for the masses, whom they hope to oppress and control. Real nice. It's always been that way. They don't want poor kids to get as good an education as their kids. Most of the power elite are Masons. Obama hasn't changed anything. It's by design, it's how the ruling class wants it.

ha ha ha

I think that the more people take their kids out of public school the happier the anti-Masons would be. More money to spread around on indoctrination on anti-Masonary.

That's the new jack world, you can have it all and consider yourself part of progress and a liberal. It used to be you had to do something to be part of the left. It's racist to have class segregation in our society, and when people go to school together, they learn from one another, they see people are not that different, they make friends across racial and class lines, etc. It seems the definition of a racist has become so narrow most people think the only racists are the ones who lynch people or directly discriminate or hold klan meetings. How convenient. How very convenient. No one is racist. Blacks are still 30% poorer than whites and have 10% the wealth, but white people needn't do anything about it, just segregate your kids and as long as you vote for Obama the sellout, you are a good person. What BS.

Equal results are not required for society to not be racist, but equal opportunity is. You can hardly claim people have equal opportunity in life if there are elites who never spend time with the middle or lower classes during their childhood, especially when many jobs come from who you know, not what you know and criminal nepotism is rampant. Not to mention the money spent on their schooling. Jonathan Kozol wrote a book on how bad public schools are in this area and how the better schools spend far more, which is why neighborhood schools as an idea sucks, but it is even worse with private school. I don't think Matlock is even claiming he's not racist, he's just reacting sarcastically to specific details to try to obfuscate things, these people know what they are. He admits it. You don't have to call people niggers in public to be racist. Nothing ever changes in the U.S. Even with a black president, big whoop, then people say we shouldn't raise taxes on the rich because they work so hard and we must reward their extreme sacrifice and it turns out they don't work any harder than anyone else, just had a silver spoon in their mouth from birth and worked the same number of hours but make more because they didn't have equal opportunity, they had superior opportunity, and thus superior results. Then the SAT Test puts in questions to words they only teach in elite private schools. No one has a problem with an adult who outworks another adult making more, but when you give huge advantages and disadvantages to children based on class, that's not liberal. It will probably always happen, but don't say you're a progressive if you believe in that. Not all rich people do thank God, but a lot sure do.

Just what America needs. The elimination of private schools for public only. Then national standards and a national education doctrine to educate all students equally and to imbue them with the values of our corrupt leaders.

We need to go in the other direction like they have done in Sweden. Let everyone choose what kinds of schoos to go to and have the government provide assistance for tuition. Eliminating public schools and the massively wasteful bureaucracy.

Amanda, give me one example in history in which a socialist country has provided more freedom, more wealth and attracted more people than the imperfect but unparalleled American enterprise.

Interesting post but what if these kids don't want to do homework or make much of an effort? What then? What if you are a kid and just goof off all summer. You gotta work hard and try to be like the kids you see working hard. I teach at a top Middle School in SF, one of the top 3, and many of the so called disadvantaged kids don't show up when I offer to help them for free, and I end up helping mostly Chinese kids, some white and other but not much. The hippies had this the poor can never be wrong attitude, and it just isn't like that, it's not all their fault and we should make an effort to have kids in school together, I will send my kids to diverse public schools, but you gotta want it and put in the hard work, so yes the rich have to show they care and not do nonsense like keeping their kids away from the public schools as a sign of elite holyer than thow racism or classism, which is really the same damn thing, but the poor have to do their part too if we're all in this together. The parents have to be able to convince their kids they can do better than them and that their career isn't limited by their mistakes and that it is possible for anyone to become an entrepreneur, an accountant, a lawyer, an author, etc. I hope if I raise my kids really well they'll work really hard and have great success and one day be beautiful wonderful successes, but don't forget where they came from, but you probably think that's bad somehow, I don't get you gramps, some kids slack off. Asians are in the worst schools and don't even think about all that baggage and say hey, time to study, just work it, my mom's poor, my parents don't speak English, my future is riding on how much I study, no excuses, get it done. I do think you're right somewhat, but you gotta get all to work hard and do it. I'l not conservative at all, very liberal, but Bill Cosby did have some points. Lots of kids, you hear every excuse, my dad left us, I don't wanna study today, my mom's poor, so I'll watch a show or play loud music all Summer, my mom hit me, some teacher insulted me, people used to be slaves, California should be part of Mexico, come on man, you study and you succeed and you don't, you don't, no excuses, do or do not, there is no try, get with it kids, I gotta go back to work in a couple weeks and deal with this and I tell you, not all poor kids are noble doing their best and the rich are kicking them around, some have a great opportunity at a good free education and just blow it. I'm all for taxing and paying teachers more and getting better people and all that, and I work many extra hours for free, but don't make the poor into saints, cauze if they were, they'd only be poor one generation, you got 5 generations and the same thing happened to each, I forgot to take birth control, someone said pot was cool, I didn't study enough. One thing you guys can forget is studying is hard work and you make a big sacrifice of time in a key young part of your life and you need to do that, but you also need to show respect for the kids who do study those long hours and hold them out as examples, I always praise the kids who show excellence, but I don't always feel the other kids care much, but I try to do my best and all that. So those are the thoughts of an insider. Think about that.

Please, the argument that the rich help the poor by using private school is such nonsense. All educators agree and the Brown v. Topeka decision was based on it, when poor kids are isolated in poor schools, you hurt them. Your kids are succeeding on the backs of the poor, not in a way that helps them as when kids go to public school. When you choose private schools, you hurt poor and blue collar kids unquivocally. No, you shouldn't outlaw them, but how about every private school be required to let in a certain % on scholarships so that the private school doesn't have a different rich/poor or racial percentage from the public schools and general community, that would be fair, if it's really about competition and good education, not racism and segregation enforced by privelege. It isn't money, it's social isolation, Washington DC spends over 40k per year per kid but they do poorly because they know the rich whites don't want their kids near them and that hurtfull message sinks in. Here is an idea, what if the rich who go to private went to public and donated that money to the school, to pay for books, school supplies, guest speakers, tutors, you name it, to help their kids but also other kids not as fortunate in the birth lottery, who are equally human beings in need of hope and opportunity.

The answer is simple, if the rich used public school, they would have extra money, and be more willing to pay taxes. It would be more equal. They would donate, volunteer, and vote for more taxes. The rich know they can donate 10k to a commercial campaign (Meg Whitman) and save 200k in taxes, and they do, which is why the schools are so underfunded. It's all me me me me me. Do you think Meg Whitman would let us be 48th in education if her kids were in public schools? Nancy Pelosi? Barack Obama? The last President to believe in this was Jimmy Carter, remember that? He belived in social justice so much that he put his daughter in public school to make a statement. No one remembers that, but in the '70s it was considered a Republican attempt of the old white guard to strike out against integrated schools and return to the status quo, to go to private school, and liberals belived in improving schools for all, not just for an elite few. In the '70s you couldn't simultaneously send your kids to private school and proclaim yourself a liberal. Jimmy Carter put his money where his mouth was and was honest, and his daughter is as successful as any President's daughter and got as high an SAT Score (higher than either of the Bush twins), in schools that were less than 25% white. Somewhere along the line we got phony liberals like Clinton and people forgot Jimmy Carter's example and beautiful message.

Also, funding wouldn't be unchanged, the money is required from Sacramento on a per pupil basis, by the state constitution. We'd have to cut in other areas, like prisons, hundred million dollar stadiums, cruise bombers and 9 billion dollars in Iraq no one has a clue where is. Putting kids in private school hurts, doesn't help, the poor kids. And yes, everyone pays taxes based on income or ownership, so of course you pay tax anyway, but you still hurt poor kids, even people without kids pay tax of course, to encourage people to have more kids, which we need.

I doubt you're even a BG reader you're so conservative, probably just come on this site to defend the status quo which got us into this mess. Let's cut taxes on the rich, then the poor will get it, blame the victim, etc. You're old guard man. You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.