San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

Just pinging the board...

with Scripps, you are looking at gradually declining school age population. this means SDUSD will gradually bus more and more kids from outside Scripps to keep the school filled up.

ocrenter,

Is this because in the older parts of Scripps, the children of the homeowners are growing out of school age ? If that is true, then other neighborhoods like Carmel Valley would have the same problem, wouldn't they ?

The difference between SR, on one hand, and Carmel Valley / Stonebridge, on the other, is that SR is part of a big school district. If SDUSD sees falling enrollment in SRHS and rising enrollment in City Heights, they may decide to bus excess students to SRHS. But they can't bus them to Carmel Valley (unless CV's school district approves such a large scale interdistrict transfer, and it surely won't approve that - or else it will be the superintendent's head on a platter).

Besides, CV and Stonebridge aren't in real danger of falling enrollment any time soon, they are both desirable areas and there's a lot of free land available. CV and Stonebridge can easily double their populations upon buildout. 4S Ranch can triple the population. Scripps Ranch is more constrained in that aspect.

The assumption that ocrenter seems to be making is that school-age population "south of the 8" will keep growing, or at least it will not decline as fast as Scripps Ranch. This seems to be a bit unjustified to me. San Diego is more or less completely built out, areas south of the 8 are already densely packed and hispanicized; even if we magically replace each white City Heights holdout retiree with a hispanic family, that's not going to tilt the scale that much. On the other hand, white holdouts aren't going to leave all at once, hispanic immigrants will eventually assimilate and go through demographic transition. The official SANDAG forecast is slow uniform growth of school-age population throughout the city.

At least on the northern side of scripps ranch, near scripps poway pkwy (aka "new scripps" or "Miramar Ranch" or "Scripps ranch villages") feeding Dingeman & EBS schools, I see a lot of young kids.

Unscientifically, there might be 10% kids in my son's KG class that are from outside SR. However all of them live on the other side of 15, in Mira Mesa/Sorrento Mesa. I have met some of these parents and I am not concerned about them attending SR schools.

Not sure of the situation in Jerebek, MRE, Marshall or SRHS schools. Maybe the "old" scripps ranch is getting "older" and this is a bigger issue at middle school/ high school levels.

Eugene,

Thanks for the good explanation. I didn't know that a school district would bus students from as far away from Scripps as from "south of the 8". I thought the district would go to nearby areas like Mira Mesa/Sorrento Valley or Tierra Santa. Does anyone know how a school district would go about doing this ? Previously, I like Scripps a lot but this issue concerns me.

Enron,

I think you are right about the difference between north & south Scripps. I know a parent who lives in Mira Mesa & tried to get her son into Dingeman, but she couldn't. He ended up going to Jerabek.

The busing is for racial integration, right? Like in Los Angeles and Pasadena

San Diego unified school district (under which Scripps Ranch falls) offers "choice" program wherein students can apply to a school different from what is assigned to them by their place of residence. (Details here. http://old.sandi.net/enrollmentoptions/o... )

In my opinion this system is good. It keeps good schools in the district full, while ensuring that the students filling these schools come from motivated families, who really want to attend these schools. Thus I don't think it results into any degradation of school quality.

This should not be confused with "busing", which San Diego unified does not have. The busing (which in my opinion, a ridiculous solution thought of by courts) forcefully moves children around the school district randomly to achieve racial balance in schools. However it is in decline all over USA and I see no reason why it will ever be imposed on SDUSD in the next 10-20 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregati...

It is a fact of life that SDUSD buses some low income kids from south of the 8 to schools in La Jolla, Mira Mesa and Scripps Ranch. In some schools, the percentage of non-local students can be 30% or more.

Case in point: La Jolla High. 20% of students in La Jolla High get free/reduced price lunches. I make more than twice the reduced price lunch threshold for my family, and I can't afford a decent house in La Jolla. How is it possible that 20% of kids in the school are that much poorer than I? The answer is, obviously, they don't live there, they were bused in ...

I don't know how they would go about doing these changes if they occur in the future. They can ramp up busing, they can redraw school boundaries, they can build new schools south of the 8 (if they can find the money) ... no one knows really.

They may not call it busing and use any number of euphemisms, call it "Voluntary Enrollment Exchange Program", "magnet schools", but it is what it is. Yes, it's voluntary, if you live in City Heights and you want to attend a crappy local school, you're free to do so. And, since it's voluntary, it's more or less one way.

From what I understand, there are less kids bussed into Scripps Ranch this year due to budget cuts.

I'd say that 90% of my kids classmates at their SR school are our neighbors. Seems like the majority of "others" are from Mira Mesa, Sorrento Valley, etc. Plenty of "choicing" but it's generally kids from within our neighborhood.

As for the original question, I'd say that you probably couldn't go wrong with either Sabre Springs or Scripps Ranch schools.

I agree, schools in either area would be a win. I'm in scripps and have family in sabre springs--good areas with good people. My personal opinion (3 kids in scripps schools) is that ultimately it comes down to parent involvement and their luck in getting a compatible teacher more than points on a scoring chart.

I do think the numbers listed are 08, here's what they advertised this year:
EBS: 954
Marshall: 897
SRHS 841

sorry gn, was away.

to answer the question, the problem with scripps is demographics.

there's no new housing developments. within the SCHS draw area. But there is plenty of new housing in adjacent poway school district areas that entice high earning families.

most homeowners, even if they would prefer to downsize and move away, if they can't get the right price, they'll stay put. therefore, new families with children don't move in.

last major home developement within Scripps was nearly a decade ago. give another decade, and all of the kids from that era would have moved through the schools.

so the area would be primarily empty nesters. so where do you think students will be coming from 10-15 years down the line?

a couple of comments relative to this thread...

As far as busing: SDUSD does do busing in some cases.
- Children may be bused for magnet schools. My sister teaches at Spreckels - which is a magnet. A large percentage of their kids are from the neighborhood or choiced in (no bus) but even with budget cuts a good percentage of Spreckels kids are bused in.

- For students who live in the boundary of a failing school (no child left behind). They can choose to attend another school of their choice, within the district - and the district pays to bus them there.

As to Scripps elementary... I learned an interesting nugget the other night. It is one of 3 schools in SDUSD that chooses NOT to have a GATE program. Obviously, their test scores are good and one can presume they have a decent percentage of GATE identified students. But they've chosen not to have a program. I don't think that should be a deciding factor, but it is something I just learned. (Another is Barnard, and I forgot the name of the third.) Again - I don't think the GATE thing is a deciding factor in any way. The teachers there may do a fine job of differentiation, etc... and not want the hassles. The budget allotment is NOT a motivating factor for schools to have a GATE program.

http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profi...

There's enough children in the area to keep middle & high schools near capacity for the next 10 years.

http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profi...

Based on their estimate, there should be enough children in the area to keep MS & HS at today capacity for the next 20 years.

That's what I said!

I fail to see this as an issue so much in itself as a proxy for how ridiculously expensive housing still is. If it weren't and you didn't like the school or district your child were moving into next year, you'd just sell and move. Problem solved.
Josh

UCGal, can you elaborate on the 2 points you made above ?

the data is interesting.

if you add up students from all of the feeder elementaries, every grade average about 500 students. the middle school is averaging around 500 students per grade as well. that is very consistent at every grade level.

but once you go to Scripps High, suddenly in 9th grade there's 200 additional kids for a total of over 700 students.

so we know SDUSD is busing in close to 30% of the high school freshman class.

now let's look at the demographic numbers.

the bulk of Scripps' population is between 40-60, that population is 12,000 strong. you figure this is also the population that is supplying most of the kids in school.

there's a sharp drop off in population from 6500 40-50 year olds to 3000 30-40 year olds in Scripps Ranch.

that's a greater than 50% drop off in population.

so if Scripps Ranch as a community is not replenishing its reproductive population, then the future is a school filled with 50% bused student base.

give it 10-15 years and pull this post up, you'll see.

That's in large part because it's hard for most 30 year olds to afford a house in Scripps Ranch (even if they want to live their to begin with). It's a "move up" neighborhood. The pattern is exactly the same in PQ, Poway, Carmel Valley.

Where are all the 30 year olds? Mira Mesa, Clairemont, Mission Valley, University City.

IIRC, median first-time homebuyer age is low 30's. Median woman's age at first childbirth is also pushing 30 (especially among college-educated women, typical in Scripps Ranch), second child occurs closer to 35, fathers are even older ... by the time children are in high school, parents are usually in the 45-50 bracket.

To prove the "inevitable decline of SRHS" hypothesis, we really need to demonstrate that there's an insufficient inflow of new families with children to replace children of current residents who grow up and leave.

right, 30-somethings can't afford scripps now. but they were able to before the bubble.

Scripps Ranch Village development in the 90's to early 2000 added 4-5000 housing units to SR, assuming mostly 30-40-somethings purchasing at that time, that would explain why the 40-59 age bracket is so strong in SR now.

the question is where is this 40-59 bracket going? majority of them have the equity and would not need to sell. some of them would consider downgrading if the price is right, but I don't believe we will see enough 30-somethings (even when they become 40-somethings) have enough earning power or down payment to satisfy this current 40-59 bracket's asking price. the end result is these 40-59 group will just stay put and not move.

with no new housing stock within the SRHS draw area, you will see the decline in native Scripps student population when this current batch (from Scripps Ranch Village era) move thru the system.

30-somethings were briefly able to afford Scripps in the 90's, helped by the fact that housing was seriously depressed. Similar to the way how 30-somethings are able to afford San Elijo Hills today. Also that was before API scores (which were introduced in 1999, I think?) Median house price in Scripps in 1997 was in mid-200's. Those prices aren't coming back.

There are 80 or so large high schools in the county. Of these, SRHS is currently #8 by test scores. That should create enough of a drive to keep prices high. Many original owners are sitting on 400-500k of equity by now, it'll be 600-700k ten years from now ... faced with a choice to keep maintaining a big expensive 4br occupied by two people, or moving into a condo in Del Mar, many will cash out and move.

the prices in Scripps proper will likely remain out of reach due to both the schools as well as the folks with equity that don't want to "give it away."

you think these folks would cash out and move. my problem with that theory is you can't find enough new families that can afford their price. therefore these folks end up staying put.

remember, there's a lot of newer and nicer homes in PUSD nearby that are enticing well to do 30-40 somethings of today. faced with established Scripps homeowners that won't "give it away," they'll just pick PUSD locations that have more distress and therefore better bargains.

Very unscientifically, SRHS seems to have more students going to very competitive colleges than Mt. Carmel. The API at SRHS may be pulled down by the buses, but the higher end of achievement at SRHS seems to be higher. Again, this is totally anecdotally based. It is amazing how many of these private schools are cheaper than sending children to public universities (assuming that they can get in), such as:

http://www.yale.edu/admit/freshmen/finan...

The first point. The teachers may already be providing the things that GATE program teachers are supposed to provide - differentiation of teaching based on ability for example. If a child is a whiz at math - have them go deeper into that subject, challenging them. If they're weak in a subject, work to bring them up. Treat kids as they should be - of varying needs. (IMO this shouldn't be limited to gifted kids!) The problem is that some teachers assume that because a child is competent at a subject, they don't need the challenge, and spend their time on the kids who are weaker. What has happened is the bright kids then they get bored and that's a potential recipe for failure. The GATE program is theoretically supposed to address the academic and social needs of the brighter kids. The GATE program trains teachers to deal with the spectrum - including the high performers, not just the kids with learning disabilities and IEPs.

The second point - funding for the GATE program is crappy in SDUSD. Only $35/student for the entire school year. AND (this is big) because of the budget issues, the school does not have to spend the GATE funds on GATE services/programs. It's up to the school site councils and budget councils to make sure the money is spent on GATE stuff (if that's the preferred use determined by the principal and council.) Theoretically, this year, GATE funds could be spent on stuff unrelated to academics - like crepe paper and balloons for parties. (Just tossing that out as a random example - not saying this is actually happening.)

To have a GATE program - the teachers who teach GATE clusters have to have training and certification. That puts a burden on the administrators of the school to get these teachers GATE certified.

So... the three schools that have chosen not to implement GATE programs may have felt that they'd prefer to spend their teacher development money on things other than GATE specific training/certification for their teachers.

As I said - it's not an issue that I would necessarily use to determine which school boundary to buy into... but it's worth investigating.

On the subject of demographics...

Not all 40-59 year olds have kids in high school or older.

I'm a "senior mom" - 48 with a 6yo and 8yo. And while I'm one of the older moms at Curie - I have plenty of company of moms and dads in their early to mid 40's with kids in 1st grade.

I have quite a few friends in Scripps Ranch. Several are in the same boat as me - older moms with young kids.

You can't determine the age of the child based strictly on assumptions that parents reproduce only in their late 20's early 30's... too many exceptions to that rule. Even more so when the parents are highly educated with strong careers.