Round ‘em up, little kiddies

Last night I went to two meetings in my neighborhood (note to City officials, maybe it would be better to plan to not have two meetings in the same neighborhood in the same night at around the same time).  Of course, I got home late, which made me late for the first meeting about the Kindergarten Enrollment process that have been happening at other schools.   The turnout was okay, glancing at the sign in sheet after the meeting it looked like a majority were Ruby Bridges (or future Ruby Bridges) parents, a few Paden and  Washington.   There were some AUSD staff there, one School Board member: Janet Gibson, and some parents that work for the Coast Guard, which added another interesting layer on this enrollment process, at least for Ruby Bridges which the boundary lines encompasses Coast Guard Housing.

Some parents had some really good thoughts during the meeting, a few parents commented that the structure of how the process would work if there are more kids than available Kindergarten slots would work better as a diagram than a narrative.  And they are entirely correct.   What I walked away with was a sense that this issue is a lot more complex than just: do we institute first come first serve (aka queuing at ungodly hours) or random drawing (aka lottery).   There are various factors that the school district looks at before they just throw up their hands and say, “oh well let’s just start diverting kids.” 

There were also some good ideas that have resulted from these meetings, one was brought up by School Board member Gibson who related that at another meeting a parent proposed the idea of earlier registration for Kindergarten, evidently in some countries, they allow parents to register their children for school as early as birth up until they are school age.  Of course the registration would have to be renewed each year, but it would give the school district at least an idea of what to expect in enrollment number 5 years down the line and be able to plan for it rather be blindsided by an influx of 5-6 year olds and their anxious parents.   Certainly this doesn’t really help for families of the Coast Guard who sometimes move to Alameda only 3 months before the start of school and entirely miss the Kindergarten round-up process earlier in the calendar year.  

This meeting probably wasn’t a good gauge of what some of the other elementary schools are saying, but in the informal straw poll taken at the end of the meeting, given the option of (1) first come first serve or (2) random drawing.  The ratio was 2 : 5 : 5.  The last number belongs to parents who liked neither option and would rather see one of the closed schools open up to accomodate more children.  Of course, that would likely work in the Ruby Bridges area seeing that there are three shuttered elementary schools (Woodstock, Longfellow, and Miller), albeit being used for other school related purposes right now, within a few blocks of Ruby Bridges, but wouldn’t work for Edison.

The sibling priority option was polled for overwhelmingly, even for those parents without children currently in school.  If the school district still decides to go with the “first come first serve” policy I still think they should give priority first to siblings of students already enrolled.  Because while parenst talk about wanting their kids to be able to walk to school and that it would be a hardship to drive their diverted kid across town to some other school, it would be more of a hardship for parents to have to take one kid to one school and then another kid to another school, IF anyone was diverted. 

One comment that came up is that the school district needs to do a better job of communicating to parents of what is going on in the district.   Although Mike McMahon got big props from practically everyone of making infomation readily available on all topics.   One of the most interesting parts on his site under the enrollment policy information are the emails received regarding this topic.   This is one of the emails that I really appreciated, and that I will leave you all with is this one from an Edison parent on Oct. 16:

I write this email in response to what I heard occurred at the meeting tonight at Otis school regarding the enrollment policies under consideration in the district.

Unfortunately, I could not be there for work reasons, as I am sure is the case with many parents in the district. I did, however, hear of some of the events that took place, and have been following the issue as closely as I can.

First, let me say that I don’t think that polling the meeting is an effective way to determine what the parents in Alameda want to see happen. There is obviously a vocal group of parents that are opposed to the lottery idea, and they were in force at the meeting I am sure. Notwithstanding that group’s opinion as to what counts as a parent’s commitment to their child, there are often good reasons why parents cannot attend a function like tonight, and for that matter participate in a marathon camp-out to enroll in school. Our votes/opinions are no less important.

So let me add mine, to get rid of the first come first served policy (policy is really a bad description – this last enrollment at Edison was more like a confused, unorganized free for all). I won’t bore you with more self evident statements about how unfair this “policy” is, but it is, and should be changed for that reason. This is public school, so the test as to who gets in to the neighborhood school doesn’t (or shouldn’t) depend on “how far you are willing to go for your kid,” even if that were truly tested by this flawed policy. Everyone has a right to go to school here, whether you own property, are a single parent, are disabled, mentally ill, whatever. In any event, I am sure we could all think of our own and much better tests of each other’s commitment to our families and our children’s suitability to attend a particular school. Private schools have better ones, like interviews, essays, financial commitment, etc. But this is public school, so why are we thinking about it in these terms?

Aside from the inequity of this system, in my view, by continuing this non-policy the school district would be ducking its responsibility. Do you think that you can rely on the parents’ good judgment to just sort it out themselves come enrollment day (as it sounds like most parents want)? It’s too late this evening to write them down now, but I could tell you several anecdotes from last Edison enrollment which would disabuse you of that belief.

Also, please don’t be swayed from the sensible sibling policy. It is good for kids (siblings feel comfortable at the school they have seen their big sibling go to), good for the schools (parent involvement, teachers get to know families, etc.), and good for parents (I can’t imagine having to rush two kids off to two different schools – someone will be late, or left by themselves to wait in line). Aside from that, there are compelling safety reasons to have this policy – what if there is an earthquake, or other city wide emergency – one parent can’t be in two places at once. These are good reasons to have this policy, despite the fact that “only” children wouldn’t get the benefit of it. I also strongly support giving the children of teachers’ a preference. For all the talk of keeping neighborhoods and families together, I don’t understand not supporting a sibling and teacher preference.