Kindergarten Enrollment, take 2
At the end of June, the Alameda School Board postponed a decision about a proposed new policy for enrollment in Kindergarten. (We covered it here) The recommendation comes on the heels of 60+ parents spending the night on the concrete outside of Edison School in order to make sure their children got into Edison’s kindergarten program.
Three years ago, I stood in the line for 3 hours before registration began, buying into the hype of the time that anybody not lining up would not get it. Unlike this year, the hype, was oversold. At the time, I felt it was ridiculously unfair that parents like myself, with available free time, could stand in line to get their kid into school, while parents who worked early, or for other reasons couldn’t spend three hours in line, lost out.
Which brings us to the presentation at tomorrow’s (8/14/07) Board meeting (agenda here, could someone suggest to the AUSD administration that if a board member can post the agenda and information about it, the admin should be able to do so as well), where the district staff will explain to the board, their recommendation for a new district policy on kindergarten enrollment. (A vote on the matter will be held August 28th).
Unfortunately, just like in June, the agenda packet is not available through the school district, and the agenda item is once again called “8.) Revision of Administrative Regulation 5116.1.” Honestly, this is insultingly ridiculous. How anybody, other than administrators and bureaucrats are suppose to know what this means is beyond me. I said this a month ago, I’m saying it again. When AUSD staff continue to name agenda items like this, one can at least excuse the concerns of residents that the admin is trying hide this issue. The could have called it “proposed policy change regarding kindergarten enrollment,” and people would have know what it was.
As with everything in Alameda, there is a brewing controversy.
Really, there are two policy issues involved in this specific enrollment concern:
1) The kindergarten enrollment policies are currently such that in a year where a specific school expects to be overenrolled, parents sleep out over night for a space (like star wars geeks, but without the costumes).
2) The Edison and Otis districts are gaining population, making this a possible recurring problem in these elementary schools (the consultant’s report on school enrollment is available from Mike McMahon’s website here). This would say that there is a big “redistricting” question that should be discussed as well.
These two issues are actually separate of each other, as the first (the enrollment policies) should be set up to function no matter what the boundaries are for the schools. Even if they move the boundaries for Edison and Otis, the current enrollment procedure stinks.
The second issue is whether or not the elementary school district boundaries are correct for future enrollment projections. The district’s demographic consultant doesn’t think so. They made the following recommendation to the district in March:
While District-wide there is excess space, East of Park has more residents than capacity at the elementary and high school levels. This situation is likely to worsen, as this is the one area (besides areas with new housing) that is likely to experience enrollment growth. This suggests that the District may wish to realign attendance boundaries, increase facilities, or provide incentives for residents to enroll elsewhere.
We recommend that the District take a closer look at attendance boundaries after Fall 2007 enrollment and student address data become available. If the process begins early in the school year, there would be enough time for the Board to decide whether to adjust boundaries before the end of the calendar year and would leave plenty of time to implement the changes before the beginning of the 2008-09 school year.
The boundary discussion is fraught with all kinds of tradeoffs, but this is a discussion for another time. No matter what happens with the district boundaries, the board needs to adopt new enrollment policies, and personally, I think these are miraculously egalitarian and at the same time flexible.
The Administration’s recommendation is remarkably simple. When registering for kindergarten, priority is given to families who live in the enrollment district. If too many of these people are enrolled, then siblings of students already at the school are given preference and the rest of the students are entered into a lottery to determine their priority. The current process prioritizes families who live in the enrollment district, but siblings have no preference, and the priority for enrollment is “first come, first serve” leading to campouts on the school grounds.
The term “lottery” seems to evoke images of San Francisco’s school enrollment in which kids are sent all over the city for school. This proposal is NOT that. There is a chance that some kids would end up attending a school not in their enrollment area, but there is already that chance. This policy merely levels the playing field giving all families that live near a popular school an equal chance at enrollment.
Further, the policy doesn’t require that students be enrolled in a school outside the enrollment district, it allows for the adding of additional classrooms, as Edison is doing this year, which to me makes this imminently flexible and wise.
The School Board should tackle the re-districting issue soon, but in the mean time, push forward with these proposed enrollment changes.
There is a group tha has formed to raise concerns about this proposal, you can join them here if you are so inclined.
dave
August 13th, 2007 at 11:18 am
People pay a substantial premium to live in the Edison zone. The district is well aware of this, and in fact plainly acknowledges so in its demographic report. Add to this fact the generations of precedent for neighhborhood schooling in Alameda and you have the makings of a legal firestorm. I’m no lawyer, but it looks to me like a person who pays for Edison and is denied the privelege of it by fiat has a case against the district. The 5th amendment forbids taking of property w/o due process or fair compensation, and is backed by a couple hundred years of court precedent.
Has the Board considered this? Are they going to pay the aggrieved parties a six figure settlemnt to compensate them for their purchase price?
On a related note, has the Board considered that a lotteryby its mere existence could dilute Edison’s performance? Involved parents are the core of E’s success. A lottery is a significant disincentive to involved parents to invest in the area.
Have the boardmemebers considered their own political future? Installing a lottery will be hazardous to their re-election.
dave
August 13th, 2007 at 11:26 am
I went back and read the first entry of the series. In it Mr White notes that his childrens’ slots at Edison are already assured. One wonders if he would favor the lottery if they were not.
Lauren Do
August 13th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I don’t mean to sound flippant about this because I imagine that there are parents that are dead serious about this issue and about their right to control the outcome of their children getting into the desired Kindergarten by waiting in line 3, 4 or 12 hours before the enrollment date. People may pay a “substaintial premium” to live in the Edison school district, but I can’t imagine that there are any assurances when you are signing your contract to buy your home that when and if you have any kids they will be assured a slot in your school of choice. Therefore the district has made no guarantees that just because you live within a certain area on a map that your kid will be able to go to that school. If it’s full, it’s full.
While it is a shame that there are just not enough spots for all kids, it’s not the end of the world. There are other good schools in Alameda.
Personally, I think the lottery system will make the enrollment process as fair as you can get in this sceanrio. Is it fair that the single parent can’t queue up at midnight the night before and camp out because someone has to be home to watch his/her child(ren)? Is it fair that parents with one parents perhaps on a swing shift can’t make it out there because they have to work to support their children? Are these parents any less “involved” in the education of their children simply because they don’t have the luxury to take time off from work or hire a babysitter simply to stand in line for Kindergarten enrollment because others do? What’s the next step, are better off parents going to start hiring professional line standers to secure their child a coveted spot in Edison’s Kindergarten class?
That’s my $0.02, since I don’t live in the neighborhood, I don’t really have a stake in what happens, but it seems a shame to raise the specter of lawsuits to further burden an already burdened school district because of a proposal that no one knows for sure if that outcome will be all that terrible.
dave
August 13th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Oh but you DO have a stake.
A lottery can only be considered fair if ALL students in the district are subject to it. If it’s only at one school, some families are at risk while the rest of the households in the district are not.
If Edison goes lottery, there’s a strong chance that YOUR childrens’ school will soon after, and YOU might find your kids trucked off to a school out of your neighborhood.
dave
August 13th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I’m starting to see a pattern here. Those who don’t believe they face a lottery think that others ought to.
Jack Boeger
August 13th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Seems to me that siblings should have a preference, but lotteries = bad. Just look at San Francisco. Who wants that?
The situation at Edison is surely a drag but it’s just the first of many nasty bumps taking kids through public education. If anything, it’s a reminder for the parents that life isn’t necessarily fair so they better be diligent and resourceful.
johnknoxwhite
August 13th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Under the current system, there is no guarantee. you stand in line, and if you are at the end of the line, you do not get in. Under this scenarie, the bumped families also moved into the area expecting to attend Edison, I’m unclear on how that’s any more fair.
Under each system (current: line standing, proposed: lottery) the same amount of people attend Edison and the same amount of people are assigned to other schools. None of that changes.
All that changes is one method is equitable for all families living in the Edison District, the other allows certain families a leg up based on their circumstances and network of friends.
At the end of the day, the school district could decide to just keep adding portables to the Edison Playground in order to accommodate the extra kids. There’s nothing in the policy to reduces the likelihood.
dave
August 13th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
The installation of a lottery indicates that the district is likely NOT planning to add portables. They can fix this problem by declaring that they will do so and disaowing the lottery.
johnknoxwhite
August 13th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Except that disavowing the lottery doesn’t fix the problem of prioritizing who gets in and who doesn’t. Disavowing the lottery doesn’t help one extra kid from the Edison enrollment district attend Edison school. Whether it’s the lottery or The Line, the number of kids is the same.
dave
August 13th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Obviously, disavowing the lottery doesn’t add a student. Adding a portable or some such other capacity increase is what adds students. Disavowing the lottery restores parents’ confidence and trust in the district.
But you’re not worried - you’ve got your piece of the Edison pie.
Mike McMahon
August 13th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
I have put together one place that recaps the activity related to proposed enrollment policy change.
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/enrollmentpolicy.htm
dave
August 13th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Thank you Mr. Mcmahon.
A few questions:
When is the matteer scheduled for vote?
How do you plan to vote?
Do you favor a solution other than a lottery?
Is it true that non-residents of Alameda can attend Alameda schools? If so, is this part of the Edison problem?
brandons
August 13th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I would also like to answers to these questions-
Thank you Mr. Mcmahon.
A few questions:
When is the matteer scheduled for vote?
How do you plan to vote?
Do you favor a solution other than a lottery?
Is it true that non-residents of Alameda can attend Alameda schools? If so, is this part of the Edison problem?
David Forbes
August 13th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
re #12 & 13: Currently the Board is scheduled to vote on 8/24. This issue has nothing to do either with non Alameda residents, or indeed, insofar as this seems to be an Edison discussion, anyone from outside the Edison attendance zone.
First, the District currently has a first come-first served policy if there are too many kids in a given year for a given school. After the overnight camping earlier this Spring at Edison, staff has proposed that if there are too many kids FROM WITHIN THE ATTENDANCE ZONE, priority be assigned by lottery instead of the current first come-first served policy.
Secondly, to answer the question posed in 12 &13 “Is it true that non-residents of Alameda can attend Alameda schools?” - Yes it is true. It is State law that children of people working within a District may be enrolled in that District. These students are, however, far enough down on the list of priorities that this issue is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
David Forbes
dave
August 13th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Mr Forbes:
A vote is scheduled in a mere 10 days?
-The AUSD web site still does not have the agenda
-The agenda, kindly provided by Mr. Mc Mahon, is titled in such thick language as to be unrecognizable.
-The meeting and vote are occurring at the peak of vacation season.
As Mr White alludes in his intro, we are to be forgiven for smelling a rat.
You, and indeed the entire board, are overdue for a reminder that YOU WORK FOR US.
David Forbes
August 13th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
My apologies - the vote is currently scheduled for the 28th, not the 24th.
David
dave
August 14th, 2007 at 4:06 am
14 days is still unduly hasty.
Blogging Bayport Alameda
August 14th, 2007 at 6:23 am
Portable education
Stop, Drop and Roll has been covering the phenemenon which is the Kindergarten Round-up process for Edison Elementary School on the East End. And tonight, School District staff will be making a recommendation to the School Board regarding a change…
Alameda NayTiff
August 14th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Isn’t this also a problem of perception? Are five-year-olds going to be doomed for life if they attend a different Alameda elementary school? The Edison frenzy continues to grow. What will become of the children of parents who believe that paying more for a home entitles them to a better education? And what happens to the children who attend Paden or Lum? Are these children going to be marred for life? There is something very disturbing about this whole discussion.
dave
August 14th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Naytiff:
I’ll type this slowly to help you understand it:
Neighborhood schools are a longstanding tradition in Alameda. As a native, you are of course aware of this. Some folks pay up to get into a given neighborhood because of its school. People pay Fernside prices to be in the Edison district. Others pay Bayport prices to be able to walk to Ruby Bridges. There are other examples around town.
Having paid that premium, a good portion of their homes’ value and utility comes from that easy access to school. Some of this is tangible, ie test scores. Some is intangible, such as the joy of walking your children a couple of blocks to school, seeing neighbors, etc.
Pause. Read again. Are you with me so far?
Now imagine an arbitrary change in policy, a fiat, that results in your children not going to their neighborhhod school. Your neighbors (ie your kids’ playmates) do get to go. Families in other elemntary districts enjoy their local schools. Your kids, however, are sent to a school across town that in addition to distance may well have lower test scores.
Other parents in other elementary districts are not exposed to this risk. You are. Suddenly, your home has less value and utility to you, while most others have not lost value due to government fiat.
Again, pause and regroup. Any questions so far?
What has happened is that government, in this case the school board, has taken property from you without due process or just compensation, (see Bill of Rights, Amendment #5) because of an arbitrary number drawn out of a hat — a hat from which most other parents are excused from drawing.
Still with me?
Do you now see the unfairness of this? Do you now understand that there are both economic and quality of life issues at stake here?
This isn’t a matter of believing one is entitled to a particular quality of service based on price tag, though the class envy that drips from a few posts here indicates that some people will cling to that petty jealousy. It is a matter of fairness — to receive treatment from the government equal to what others in the same district receive.
There are two ways to do that.
1) Put everyone on lottery. If some must risk it, then all must. I’ll spare you a description of how that story ends. I daresay even the thickest here in blogville can grasp the detriment that would result.
Or:
2) Add portables, or expand capacity another way. Ensure that all Almeda families get acess to neighborhood schools.
Simple: Do what’s fair, and both 1 and 2 are fair, or walk into a legal firestorm. As I type this I wonder why the board is considering anything but the fair options, this really should be easy for them.
2 additional points:
– You’ll note that public opinion among Edison parents, current and future, is running strongly against this proposal. For all the troubles of standing in line, Edison parents agree that is a better solution than a lottery becasue, as Mr White notes, they can control that process. Stand in the rain all night? We’ve all done worse than that. Camp out for 2 days? Such things are easy when you do them for your children. Single parent? Take a sick day, get a sitter, call a friend. All of these are a big PITA, but parents are willing to do it because they simply trust themselves more than a lottery. Note that I’m not advocating keeping the current system, I think #2 above the right answer, I’m simply stating that parents will jump many flaming hoops to avoid a lottery. The board MUST respect the wishes of parents.
–Those who are unaffected by a lottery seem quite blase about it. Some have bluntly suggested that Edison parents are wrong to oppose it. Such people are either hypocrits or naive. Many of the former seem to be those who are already in Edison w/o risking a lottery. The latter are those in other elementary districts that face a lottery soon.
Mark
August 14th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Like Franklin before it, Paden elementary was closed for a time because of low enrollment. When it was reopened there was an explicit effort to have kids enrolled from out of district because the school faces the water and unlike other schools doesn’t draw from a clear and well defined topographical radius. At the time of re-opening Paden also started to incorporate some developmental methodologies, which became a big draw for out of district parents looking for such cutting edge techniques.
We bought the house we bought because we stumbled on it, it was a probate, and when we did think schools the books rated Edison as best and our realtor lied and told us we were in that district. We weren’t making the decision based on schhols anyway, as we figured out we were in Lum district and found it’s rating adequate. We did come to Alameda because of young kids and schools.
As it turns out both our boys cross enrolled to Paden for their entire elementary educations, as did many kids from the Edison district during that period. With our first child we entered him in the school’s K-1 in April and avoided the lottery by filling a vacancy left by a student from a military family who had just been transferred out. They had a sibling preference, but we were required to go through the lottery for our second child. Our second child missed the lottery cut but got priority on the waiting list do to being a sibling and/or being high in the lottery among those who missed the first cut. There were no children from the actual Paden district going through a lottery at that time.
As many down sides as there may be to a lottery, I don’t understand how people could think a first come/ first served sleep out to be a superior method. And what are other alternatives, other than temporary classrooms?
One would be advised to find the best alternative school. We did NOT like driving to the opposite end of the island from where we live, but ultimately were more than happy to do so for the quality of education our children received.
dave
August 14th, 2007 at 9:22 am
You don’t have to agree that a wait in line is better than lottery, Mark. You can have your own opinion. But when an overwhelming number of the parents affected DO prefer it to a lottery, you must at least respect their choice. And so must the board.
Mark
August 14th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Is that the case Dave?
I still disagree. I am a socialist at heart. The multi-job parent(s) who rent are a real minority in the East End, but such persons exist and usually the reason they would work long hours is to afford the rent to live in the better school district. Person’s such as that deserve priority over any numerical majority of upwardly mobile people. I am presuming here that the former have less time and flexibility to camp out.
If I were on the board and sworn to represent your interests here as a majority, I would want to canvas the actual population involved and get lots of feedback on people’s circumstances before voting. Alameda in general and this population in particular, are small enough to make attempting this feasible. But I reiterate that I would vote on principles over the majority opinion unless and until I could be convinced that the population whose interests I’m trying to protect either doesn’t exist or is not being unduly harmed as a class.
Mark
August 14th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Dave p.s.- If the majority you identify is that of a head count of a meeting turn out, I again defer to the parents who may work nights or are too beat or overwhelmed by life circumstance to be activist types who show up at meetings OR camp out lines. You shouldn’t worry about them anyhow because much of the time this type of person would be too overwhelmed to meet a lottery deadline either..
dave
August 14th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Mark:
I clearly stated I don’t favor the sleep out method. But it is better than the lottery as demonstrated by its strong public support vis-a-vis a lottery.
But I must say, I am relieved that you are not a public servant. Openly favoring one socio-economic class over another is not approprite for an elected official.
Neal_J
August 14th, 2007 at 11:33 am
As one of the many who camped out at Edison in January (#3 in line!), I feel that a more equitable solution to the problem is a lottery. I only happened to be third in line because I live close to the school and saw a line forming. Others were quick to join the line only if they were well-connected in the Edison social network. This left many out in the cold, literally, if they did not have either community roots and/or the ability to sleep overnight on the pavement. This rationale is clearly unfair. A more equitable solution is to lottery the available slots to Edison-area kids.
However, lacking some sort of enrollment cap, a secondary problem exists which is limited space. Edison will temporarily “solve” the problem this year by repurposing an existing portable classroom. If the school’s enrollment continues to surge next year, the site has limited capacity for additional portable classrooms and playground space. The District is likely to face lawsuits from parents if overcrowding is not foreseen and addressed. Clearly therefore, and in concert with a lottery, the School Board should establish an enrollment cap.
Ultimately and sadly, there may be no way to avoid denying some Edison-area kids from attending Edison School. However, the rules to determine who, and how many, get in to the school should be logical and impartial and the existing scheme is more akin to an endurance competition on “Survivor.” The tribe has spoken: establish a lottery and an enrollment cap.
Alameda NayTiff
August 14th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Regarding #20.
It isn’t that I fail to understand what you are saying. I simply do not agree with you. There is no right to attend a certain school when you buy a home. Our realtor made this very clear to us. He told us that school boundaries change as do school policies. If a real estate agent mis-represents or lies about that, then you may have a case against the agent. You cannot suffer a damage to a right that you never had. If people perceive that their children have a right to attend a certain school, then the problem is with their perception and not the school district.
dave
August 14th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Naytiff:
I hope this isn’t too complicated a thought for you, but here goes:
Changing a boundary, while it comes with pain, is an equitable solution. It affects everyone in the rump zone equally.
Exposing people in a zone to a lottery penalizes some while rewarding others.
Both situations are unfortunate. The first one, however, is fair. The second is not.
dave
August 14th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Neal:
You are confirming the pattern of hypocrisy — those already in Edison blithely suggesting that others be kept out.
Neal_J
August 14th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Well, I don’t think I said that nor was it implied, Dave.
It would be great if the capacity of the school could be doubled to accomodate every kid, but that’s not feasible. Given that space is limited, it seems reasonable to employ a scheme that gives everyone an equal chance instead of basing it on who can sleep on the ground the longest.
Clearly those affected will embrace whatever solution gives them the best odds of achieving success as indicted by your comment below. Just because folks embrace an idea, doesn’t make it fair.
dave
August 14th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Neal:
Please re-read your post, in particular this excerpt:
–
Clearly therefore, and in concert with a lottery, the School Board should establish an enrollment cap.
Ultimately and sadly, there may be no way to avoid denying some Edison-area kids from attending Edison School.
–
And then tell me again how you didn’t say that ther peoples’ children should be denied Edison, even while yours are safely in.
Mike McMahon
August 14th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Was able to make a copy from the District website of the 2006-07 School Attendance Map. This ia very large file (6MB) and as a result loading it from either website is spotty. Try loading it twice and if that fails, save a copy of the PDF directly to your hard drive and open it.
http://mikemcmahon.info/SchoolMap07.pdf
Tonight I am looking forward to hearing from all interested invididuals who posted here, at Blogging Bayport or Edison School Neighborhood Network as a Google group.
John Piziali
August 14th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
stop the war, build more schools…good night. John P.
dave
August 15th, 2007 at 4:55 am
Strongly agree, John.
dave
August 15th, 2007 at 4:56 am
Speakers at the meeting were UNANIMOUSLY opposed to a lottery. Will the Board listen to the people?
andy
August 15th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I hardly think the speakers at the meeting last night were representative of the school district population. For a start, they were all from Edison, and this discussion is about a district-wide policy, it doesn’t just apply to Edison. One positive outcome from last night’s meeting was the board agreed to defer a decision on this until October, which will provide time for more analysis and (hopefully) comment from people on both sides of the argument.
I was one of the speakers last night and yes, I am opposed to the lottery. Having camped out in line in 2005 and 2006, both my kids are now in Edison, so I don’t exactly have a direct stake in this matter. A lottery is statistically the fairest way to decide who to divert when there are two few places at the school. But I recall my own feelings when I was standing in line - I preferred that opportunity to influence the outcome rather than leaving it to chance.
It’s not easy to argue against something that is clearly the “fairest” way of doing this, but consider this; if the goal was to be truly fair and equitable in public school admission, you’d give everyone in the district equal chance of going to the school they consider the best. In other words, don’t use geographic zoning, just use a district wide lottery. Of course, I’m not advocating this and I don’t think anyone else is. It’s what San Francisco does, and everybody hates it. What’s fairest on paper isn’t always the right solution in practice.
There’s nothing fair about public school admission. Unless you’re lucky enough to score a rental property, you have to shell out close to three quarters of a million to live in the Edison district in order to have any realistic chance of attending the school. There’s nothing “fair” about that.
So I don’t think fairness is a particularly compelling argument for a lottery. I think the main benefit of the lottery is that it would remove the less than desirable spectacle of parents camping out overnight to score a place. I’m no fan of that but the two times I had to do, it definitely beat the alternative of awaiting a lottery outcome.
Alameda Resident
August 15th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Let’s examine the flyer being circulated in the Fernside area:
A lottery-based enrollment within current attendance boundaries will:
Prevent children from attending their neighborhood school. This will negatively affect the sense of community and neighborhood that we prize in Alameda .
Decrease Alameda ’s public school enrollment (and thereby precious school funding), as many parents will send their children to private school, rather than face the uncertainty of a lottery system and the commute across town.
FACT: First come first serve (FCFS) priorization or random draw does not increase the number of spaces available. Therefore the same number of children will be diverted to another school. Maintaining the FCFS process enhances the chance of those families who are in the “Fernside Network”. During last year’s enrollment an Email alert to the Network parents was sent out when the line started forming at 10pm the night before the enrollment start date.
Even if you don’t have school-age children, you are still impacted:
The success and popularity of Edison school has a distinct impact on property values (ask any real estate agent) in the attendance zone.
A lottery system will increase traffic in our neighborhoods, as parents will be forced to drive their children to schools far from their home. (Neighborhood children generally walk to school.)
Increased traffic means more pollution and more fuel consumption.
FACT: See point above. It is interesting the flyer keeps using the word “lottery”. Since a number of parents come form San Francisco where “lottery” is despised, it is emoitionally charged term that gets people excited.
Instead of enacting a lottery, Alameda ’s School Board needs to do the following:
Effectively survey the demands for Edison School , and not just for current students at enrollment time. The demands for Edison School need to be assessed for future students (children under age 5), so there is time to thoughtfully plan and act well in advance of the increasing problem of over enrollment.
Adjust the attendance boundaries for schools with long-term high demand.
Add classrooms to the schools with persistent over-enrollment problems.
FACT: OK finally they got it right. Boundaries and facilities are only real solutions to solving the over capacity issues facing the East End. However, unless the boundaries are readjusted to make the attendance zones so small that over enrollment is not likely, there were always be a possibility of diverting students. In addition, there are two elementary schools east of Park St. Both schools that will be experiencing over enrollment. I do not see parents embracing the idea of going to Haight or Lum, possibly Earhart. Though Earhart has its own traffic problems. Adding facilities is going to be expensive and with our postage size neighborhood schools there is not much space for portables.
Other possible solutions would be to create “magnet” schools. In 1990s Paden drew parents from the East End.
Mark
August 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
#$37 I’m jammed for time and catching up, so forgive me if I’m missing something really obvious, but I missed the logic of your comment that a lottery means more traffic? Presumably the lottery is among district kids, not outside the district. When we did the lottery as outside district family at Paden it was only because the demand from within the district did not fill the scjhool.
Dave#25 WTF?
I’m not Chris Daley, alright? But declaring a socialist inclination is to say that we are all in the same boat. It’s not that I favor poor over affluent but that I want a level playing field. It’s not some big affirmative action thing, it’s just being real about the disadvantages of poverty. Libertarins suck eggs!
lina
August 19th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Are the parents who rent in this area excluded from this debate? We live blocks away from edison and I think enrollment should be based on district lines as it did when I in elementary school.
The Wall « Stop, Drop and Roll
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:13 am
[...] won’t write another defense of a single-school lottery for cases of over-enrollment (which could happen whether boundaries are shifted, facilities [...]
Every Day I Write the Book « Stop, Drop and Roll
December 31st, 2007 at 9:29 am
[...] Kindergarten Enrollment Policy at the School Board – Meeting 2 and here [...]