Comments on: You’ve got to enroll with the punches.

By: Stop, Drop and Roll » Friday morning thoughts.

Stop, Drop and Roll » Friday morning thoughts. — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:10:09 +0000

[...] in mind (great community, knowing people cursorily in it) I wanted to go back to the discussion about Edison Enrollment this year. Whitney wrote [...]

By: whitney

whitney — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:16:57 +0000

There’s no way to know for sure, but It’s also possible that the Edison KG numbers ended up being lower than expected in that the publicity surrounding the potential overcrowding and lottery might have dissuaded families from moving to the neighborhood. Through word-of-mouth, I’ve heard of families deciding NOT to look in the Edison-area for this reason and instead looking in other neighborhoods where they thought it would be less crowded. I also wonder if whatever percentage of people who would have used false addresses of family or friends to get their child into the school chose not to this year — knowing Edison KG registrations would be under a microscope? I guess it would be interesting to know if the KG round-up registrations at other schools were higher than usual this year.

Lastly — regarding being careful in our use of data — are you sure about this 92 number from Edison last year? I thought it was 82 who applied at KG roundup — they added the extra KG class — and then two were diverted. I bring this up as I see this 92 number is now also being stated on another local blog. I’m pretty sure it’s not correct.

By: Kerri L.

Kerri L. — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:40:10 +0000

No, thinking ahead is not the challenge. I’m all for forward thinking, and if the entire mission of the ESNN was just to notify the school district of the numbers I would gladly join them. I was at the meeting when it was suggested that renters not have preference to get into Edison, I was also at the same meeting when the idea of a buffer zone was suggested. (to refresh, a buffer zone would guarantee certain streets entry while leaving the others to chance).

The greater challenge is changing the perception that the world will end if a child doesn’t get into Edison school. Or the perception that if a child doesn’t get to walk the school with their neighbors, he/she will become an outcast.

By: dave

dave — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:39:34 +0000

There is a strong indication that next year will be a problem. Is thinking a year ahead so challenging?

By: Kerri L.

Kerri L. — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:45:01 +0000

Right on, John! I was wondering when someone was going to point out the fact that the sky did not indeed fall onto unsuspecting Edison-ites. It is very likely that this year everyone who wants a spot will get one, as has been the case at Edison for many years now.

I hope next year will continue to surprise the ESNN crew.

By: John Knox White

John Knox White — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:06:39 +0000

I see that based on this year’s correlation between the Survey and actual applications, that the number of applications would be less than last years class by one or two. That it’s a one-year bump and that the school should be able to accommodate it without having to divert. Which should make everyone happy.

All without anyone sleeping outside. everybody wins.

By: dave

dave — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:38:09 +0000

Ah, progress.

Now that is itsn’t meaningless, do you see how it does indicate a likely over-enrollment, possibly a significant overage?

By: John Knox White

John Knox White — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:42:28 +0000

You are correct. “Meaningless” was a bad choice of words. I’ve corrected the above post to reflect my intent. Thanks!

By: dave

dave — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:42:17 +0000

The real worry of over-enrollment was never really ‘08, it was ‘09. The ESNN document shows the surveyed homes projected to take ~75% of the slots. One-third of the homes, three-fourths of the slots: evidence of an enrollment problem waiting to happen.

Compound that with the fact that a large number of the children were not born in Alameda county and it becomes obvious that the district’s K/B survey undercounts. Yes, the ESNN survey has limited value as a predictor of firm hard numbers, but it is by no means “meaningless” as you label it above. Put down your slide rule for a moment & you will see that it portends a significant over-enrollment. To reject it because it doesn’t state an integer is a far greater error of management, no matter how much you think it helps your argument.

And “vitriol”, eh? If calling out hypocrites is vitriol, I guess I need to update my dictionary, it’s clearly not “progressive” enough.