As mentioned on SDR, tonight is the School Board meeting to discuss the Kindergarten Enrollment process and what policy they have decided upon moving forward. Of course the best source of information for all things school district is not the school district website itself, but Mike McMahon’s website, who has essentinally consolidated as much information as humanly possible on one page.
Of course the big announcement is that after all the meetings and letters and feedback, the district has decided that the policy that is most equitable is the lottery system. And the lottery would only be applicable if there are more kids than slots, but from the reaction that you get from even mentioning the word lottery, you would think we were talking about another lottery altogether.
Here is the reasoning that the district has given as to why they selected the random drawing as opposed to leaving it first come, first serve. With the caveat (as always) that it only kicks in IF there are more kids than slots, if there are less kids than enrollment slots then it just goes to the first come, first enrolled. From Mike M.’s website:
…After thoughtful consideration of input garnered from community meetings and other communications, staff is recommending the revision to AR5116.1 as originally proposed. While many parents said they would prefer to maintain a First Come, First Serve process, most parents acknowledged that a random drawing was a fair and equitable means of determining priority. Most people also recognized that a random drawing provides no advantage to any parent, regardless of personal circumstances. As public school educators, it is our obligation to recommend policies and regulations that are both equitable and fair.
It’s clear that Edison will continue to have problems with enrollment for at least the next five years, but even the neighborhood produced survey by the Edison parents showed a gradual reduction in the number of students within a five year period. What the school district needs to do, moving forward, is to do an extensive survey of neighborhoods that are or are suspected to be impacted in the near future (2-3 years). That way they have an idea of what capacity issues they will be facing in the future. While I know that this was the goal of the demographic report recently done, with the closure of three West End schools and a projected surge in children in Bayport, for which accurate numbers were never collected in the demographic report, the district doesn’t want to end up with another capacity problem on their hands. Particularly because Ruby Bridges has so many variables that affect the enrollment numbers, most noteably Coast Guard families who often are not even in the area during the Kindergarten Roundup areas, let alone would be around to participate in a head count.
But all in all, I believe that this decision of the school district that, under the circumstances, is the most equitable. And it should be the responsiblity of the school district, not to protect the property values of families when planning policy, but to promote equity in how they decide (if necessary at all) which kids end up diverted.
Or, we could just use Jack R.’s idea and rename all schools to “Edison” and problem solved! 
I needed Google to confirm my hunch about the meaning of your “Lottery in June . . ” reference. Dark humor indeed
(Thinking back to the 1970s, I still can’t figure out why middle school teachers repeatedly showed that movie to us, along with the movie about that Civil War soldier running through the fields. Hmmmm, what we’re they trying to tell us kids?)
Comment by tony_daysog — October 23, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
I wonder why the Edison Neighbors survey skipped all of the triangle bounded by Tilden, Park, and Blanding. These areas have apartments mixed in, thus higher density. Seems as if the figures might be even higher.
Also they missed a lot of houses on Lincoln– why?
Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 23, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
#2
Can’t you take a hint?
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — October 23, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
#3
Umm, no, apparently I am too dense to take a hint. I live on another street that was surveyed that has apartment buildings the entire block across from me. And what good would it do to their cause to find out later that even MORE kindergarteners might need to attend?
Or were you hinting something darker related to the short story reference? Just leave a dunce cap on my porch, please, because usually the phrase “Can’t you take a hint?” to me is like saying “Get lost” or worse and I am sure you wouldn’t mean that.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 23, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
No Kevis, you are far from dumb. It was not meant as an insult.
The portion of the attendance district that you describe has many renters and the housing is not as expensive as other areas of the zone. If that area is excluded from the zone, test scores will go up and home prices will rise. The people west of Tilden are expendable.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — October 24, 2007 @ 5:51 am
#5–Thank you.
Well OK, but I thought that the intent of their survey was to get info for possible moving of the boundary line, which would seem to be even more indicated if the triangle area showed a lot of potential students. I guess that instead the point of the survey was to show that the people within the closest areas were opposed to a lottery.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 24, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
Wow, I can see you guys love a good conspiracy theory.
The Edison Neighbor survey was a volunteer effort. About 780 houses were hit by 7, maybe 8 people. It was a ton of work and, as nice as it was meeting all those neighbors, I don’t want to do it again any time soon.
The areas covered correspond more or less directly to the localities within which the volunteers lived. We walked our local streets. If an area wasn’t covered, it’s because we didn’t have time or resources to cover them. If there wasn’t a volunteer resident in that area, it likely didn’t get covered.
We didn’t survey with any goal other than to generate demographic data for the Edison District. The report we posted takes no position on policy, boundary changes, lotteries, etc., and never attempts to claim that the data is representative of the entire Edison District. It just makes simple statistical observations from the data that was collected.
Comment by Andy Currid — October 24, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
Nice try Currid … we weren’t born yesterday.
Comment by Roberto — October 24, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
#7
“If an area wasn’t covered, it’s because we didn’t have time or resources to cover them. If there wasn’t a volunteer resident in that area, it likely didn’t get covered.”
How convenient that the volunteers were only from certain blocks.
“We didn’t survey with any goal other than to generate demographic data for the Edison District. The report we posted takes no position on policy, boundary changes, lotteries, etc., and never attempts to claim that the data is representative of the entire Edison District. It just makes simple statistical observations from the data that was collected.”
If the data isn’t representative, then it is of little statistical value. So then why do it? You cannot make even “simple” statistical observations if you exclude certain portions of the population. Also, those conducting the survey are not political neutrals. It is simple political maneuvering in the guise of a scientific survey. It has no value. If you wanted to do a real survey, you should have consulted with a professional and conducted a legitimate one.
Oh, and by the way, three out of four Alamedans think that the people in the Fernside are more trouble than they are worth.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — October 24, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
Lottery again…I remember when the homes at Bayport were being sold by lottery. It seems like there should be a better way.
Comment by Joel — October 24, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
Lot
http://www.onelook.com/?w=lot&ls=a
# noun: a parcel of land having fixed boundaries (Example: “He bought a lot on the lake”)
# noun: (Old Testament) nephew of Abraham; God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah but chose to spare Lot and his family who were told to flee without looking back at the destruction
# noun: anything (straws or pebbles etc.) taken or chosen at random (Example: “They drew lots for it”)
# noun: any collection in its entirety
# noun: an unofficial association of people or groups (Example: “They were an angry lot”)
# noun: your overall circumstances or condition in life (including everything that happens to you) (Example: “Has a happy lot”)
# noun: (often followed by `of’) a large number or amount or extent (Example: “A lot of money”)
# verb: divide into lots, as of land, for example
# verb: administer or bestow, as in small portions
# name: A surname (very rare:
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — October 24, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
#9
Simple yes/no question – have you actually read and understood the survey report?
Comment by Andy Currid — October 24, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
I am really disappointed with those in this community that believe a lottery is the best plan for a solution to the growth of a neighborhood. “Leave it to the luck of the draw?” If that is the best ‘plan’ AUSD’ planners’ can fathom; what’s next for the city?
Here’s an idea the TC can contemplate:
As the west end gets over-populated due to the proposed growth and the traffic jams at the tube become overwhelming for the “deciders”; Alameda can have a lottery to determine which drivers can use the tube at different hours of the day. Would that be the most fair way to solve traffic problems?
I am sure there are many other options for Edison other than a lottery. For dealing with their anticipated rise in kindergarteners my first thought was the obvious: boundary line adjustment. Perhaps instead of keeping those closest to the school, instead transfer those closest to the school students would be being transferred to, hopefully the change in distance to the ‘new’ neighborhood school would be minimized. Also worth considering is not transferring Kindergartners at all and instead move the 5th graders who could be taught either at the next closest Elementary school or have some 5th graders start at Lincoln, reaping the benefits of a better library / media center, and music labs. I honestly don’t know how much room for additional classes Lincoln has now that their expansion is complete. Earhart used to have mixed grade classrooms, and also used to have a 6th grade class. As AUSD’s largest elementary school it is absolutely one of the most distinguished in the district winning National Blue Ribbon honors in 2005. Only two schools in the entire county achieved that… I just don’t understand why so few options are being discussed.
Leaving the solution to chance is the polar opposite of good planning.
Comment by David Kirwin — October 24, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
I am amazed. I agree with David Kirwin. Not about boundary line adjustment, but that people really aren’t considering the many alternatives that exist other than a lottery.
Perhaps you have noticed that there are maybe 2 new houses in the Edison boundaries, so why is there a problem? When this school was built, there was no 20 to 1 rule for primary, there was no child care on-site, there was no library/media center (now in what used to be the kindergarten room), and kids went to school there grades k-4 and went to Lincoln Middle for 5-8. So now it takes more classrooms to hold the same number of kids because of 20-1, and there are more grade levels there, and some of the rooms are being used for other than classrooms. Even when my son and daughter went there in the 90’s they started school with 30 kids in their kindergarten classes. Oh, right, and kindergarten was only 1/2 day so that there could be a morning class and an afternoon class in the same classroom!
The problem: it takes 4 more classrooms to accommodate 20 to 1, 1 more classroom for the media center, 2 more classrooms for 5th grade, 1 more classroom for special education, 1 more classroom for the computer lab– oops! we are down 9 classrooms to handle the same number of students plus 5th grade.
So there are a number of things that could be done without boundary change that could produce the result needed:
1. Remove on site child care for a few years and use the child care portable for classroom space.
2. Increase class sizes to accommodate the bulge.
3. Reduce kindergarten to 1/2 day and run two classes per day per classroom.
Some of these changes might induce parents to go to special programs at other schools, as was done in the past by creating a magnet school at Paden when it reopened.
It is a bit funny to me that when my children attended in the 90s, Edison’s test scores were only about 4th or 5th of the Alameda schools—everyone was clamoring to get into the “top”, Earhart or Paden, and then Bay Farm when it opened. There were plenty of out-of-boundary students at Edison.
I don’t think anyone will seriously consider increasing class sizes… yet it is far from clear that small class sizes have produced better results.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 25, 2007 @ 1:21 am
#12
Yes, I did. Those four courses in data analysis I took as an undergraduate paid off. ESSN is an interest group, not a scientific survey institute. It does not matter how many spreadsheets you use if the data itself is questionable. Those conducting the survey were members of the interest group. The whole premise is flawed and the results are of no value — except perhaps to the interest group itself.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — October 25, 2007 @ 5:51 am
#12
The ESNN “survey” repeatedly refers to the “Edison District”
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/ESNNSurveyReport100907.pdf
There is no Edison District, only the AUSD. Edison is a school in the AUSD.
Also, the map on the last page of the report is damning. The “survey” was not conducted in the Edison area, but in the Fernside. Forty percent of the school area was excluded from the survey — primarily the area west of Versailles.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — October 25, 2007 @ 6:42 am
#15:
Your data analysis classes probably taught that it’s not statistically valid to extrapolate from a sample dataset (e.g. our household sample) to a population (e.g. the Edison district/zone/area/pick your term) unless the sample is statistically random.
As the report notes, our sample is not statistically random, so we cannot infer anything about the Edison population from our sample. So we don’t do that. Instead, we look only at the sample data and pull out statistics from that sample. Those statistics are indicative of nothing other than the households in the sample, and the report never represents them as anything else.
#16:
The survey was conducted in the Edison Area. All the houses within the survey lie within the Edison Area. Since the Edison Area is a subset of the Fernside, then by definition the survey was conducted within the Fernside.
I think you’re underselling your point by saying 40% of the school area was excluded. Why not use the numbers within the report and say that 68% of residences were excluded? It’s a bigger number – that’s got to be all the better for convincing people of your point, whatever that is.
Comment by Andy Currid — October 25, 2007 @ 8:53 am
A neighborhood is dynamic entity that goes through boom and bust cycles as it relates to the number of children. The Superintendent has created two separate task forces to address the policy/planning issues related capacity and program equity. The staff recommendation related to Kindergarten Roundup is meant to address those times when the boom cycle in a neighborhood exceeds the planned norm.
At Stop, Drop and Roll you can read John Knox White’s take on this issue:
http://johnknoxwhite.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/the-wall/
Comment by Mike McMahon — October 25, 2007 @ 9:09 am
As Andy noted in #16, the survey’s conclusions reflect only those of the home surveyed. However, as others have noted, the survey does not represent the total area served by Edison school because the area west of Versailles was not canvassed. Residents of the excluded area may or may not agree with the opinions expressed in the survey. So, as I read it, the survey represents the opinions of the Fernside neighborhood – a subset of the total area served by Edison School.
BTW, nice title LD.
Comment by Neal_J — October 25, 2007 @ 9:39 am
OK for all of you wondering about the title, I spoke with Tony Daysog last night and it refers to short story that was adapted to a short film, which was shown at Chipman during the 70s.
Here is the wikipedia entry on the short story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lottery
Comment by Mike McMahon — October 25, 2007 @ 11:40 am
#17
You say “The survey was conducted in the Edison Area. All the houses within the survey lie within the Edison Area. Since the Edison Area is a subset of the Fernside, then by definition the survey was conducted within the Fernside.”
The Edison boundary area is most emphatically NOT a subset of the Fernside district. Everything from Versailles and Lincoln west and south is not Fernside. Going east on Lincoln, the boundary is in the middle of the block, but you can see it when you go from a stucco 1920’s house to a wood exterior Victorian. On the north, Fernside Blvd is the boundary of Fernside, with Fernside Marina a separately developed, later district. The area east of Fernside where it curves around is called Eastshore. So there are lots of areas in the Edison attendance zone that are not Fernside.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 25, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
Kevis, you are right, I was incorrect when I said the Edison area is a subset of the Fernside. It’s the other way round.
But how does that change anything? It’s still a fact that the survey was conducted in the Edison Area. We surveyed about 32% of it, and made no claim that what we surveyed was representative of the whole Edison area.
Comment by Andy Currid — October 25, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
I think everyone is just trying to get you to see that the survey as a whole was pointless/useless.
Comment by Mark D — October 25, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
RE #9:
Oh, and by the way, three out of four Alamedans think that the people in the Fernside are more trouble than they are worth.
—-
I’m curious, what are the annoyance quotients for the Fernside Marina and Eastshore areas?
And more importantly, where is your data and evidence for this? Wasn’t that covered in the “data analysis” courses you took at Close Cover Before Striking University?
Comment by East End Mac — October 25, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
Seriously?
Comment by Mark D — October 25, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Seriously I think ANT meant 3 Alamedans feel that way about Fernsiders. Nothing else makes sense to me since this is the 1st negative talk I have ever heard about the Fernside dwellers. We all have heard more than enough about and from the new development pranksters, who obviously drank the kool-aid long ago, and now want the rest of us to lap it up.
The question some people ask is “Is it Owsley’s kool-aid, or the thin soup of Jimmy Jones?” For most of us however, it doesn’t matter which it is, our reply is the same “No thanks, we don’t want to risk that experiment on ourselves.”
Comment by David Kirwin — October 25, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
I have a suggestion. Since most everyone here is in favor of diversity and affirmative action, let’s do the following: Send approximately one-half of the white students at Edison to other schools in the district, except for Franklin.* Then replace these students with other non-white students taken from other schools in the district (but a 10% fewer number than those sent elsewhere).
This will achieve three things:
1) It will move Edison’s racial profile closer towards Alameda’s overall school profile
2) It will reduce Edison’s enrollment to a manageable number
3) The “lucky” Edison students going to other schools will have the advantage of experiencing more diversity first-hand than their peers remaining at Edison. **
This is effectively what happens in San Francisco’s public schools and, of course, at the University of California. Except it’s the Asian students who are displaced by others. All in the name of diversity, of course.
Since you are mostly enlightened progressives, this plan should pose no problems for you.
* Along with Franklin (~50%), Edison is one of two elementary schools out of ten in Alameda with a majority white student enrollment.
** By far, Edison has the highest white student enrollment of any other Alameda elementary school (~70%)
Comment by James Chen — October 26, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
#27
Wouldn’t parents who wanted their children to experience differing cultures have moved to another school zone? Yet, the growth seems to be taking place in the Edison zone, which primarily white. What makes you think that Edison parents would consider themselves lucky if their children attended a school with greater diversity?
Wouldn’t property values drop if the local elementary school were no longer overwhelmingly white? Isn’t it the whiteness that makes it so attractive? The schools are also good at the two Bay Farm schools, but I don’t see a frenzy going on there.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — October 26, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
James,
I’m not sure about the particulars of your suggestion, but Berkeley has tried to balance enrollments, not by race as you suggest, but by many socio-economic factors. I don’t know whether it has been good or bad for the delivery of education, but it’s certainly expensive to run the busses. Berkeley still suffers the same “achievement gap” even though their schools are integrated by decree. Maybe that tells us something about the achievement gap, like our schools can’t solve all of the problems and issue of society, and a lot of development, scholastic and otherwise, takes place at home and places other that school.
Alameda embraces neighborhood schools and that I believe is an important aspect. Our neighborhoods seem fairly well balanced, but I have not compared enrollment levels of individual schools. Perhaps it is more important to better balance the neighborhoods than to bus students.
Comment by David Kirwin — October 26, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
Re # 27
Great idea James Chen but you’re forgetting the new thrust of the enlightened school district. It’s “equity”!
So instead of a “racial” profiling, we must put in place a “dumb” profile. Let’s take approximately 40% of the smart kids at Edison and scatter them through the rest of Alameda’s schools. Then, we’ll vice-versa 40% of the dumb kids and head them to Edison. It may not reduce Edison’s enrollment immediately but over the long haul it should bring “equity” across the board and Alameda will truly be Levelville.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 26, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
Sorry Jack, but what you fail to understand is that the Edison zone is like a Shangri-La
http://www.pbs.org/mythsandheroes/myths_four_shangrila.html
If children were to ever leave the Edison zone, they would become mere mortals. That is why parents would rather send their children to private school than have them attend another public school in Alameda.
So what about those other 90 percent of elementary school children in Alameda? One almost never hears about them in the press these days. It seems like AUSD efforts are focused on a small number of families from one of the wealthiest areas of town. For the rest of us who are paying the bills for our public schools, this does not seem like money well spent.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — October 26, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Quote of the Day: “Wouldn’t property values drop if the local elementary school were no longer overwhelmingly white? Isn’t it the whiteness that makes it so attractive? The schools are also good at the two Bay Farm schools, but I don’t see a frenzy going on there.” – Alameda NayTiff
Bingo! Alameda NayTiff has stumbled upon the answer. Basically, it’s all about race. More specifically, the unwillingness of white liberal parents to send their children to public schools where whites are not in the majority. Case in point: Amelia Earhart and Bay Farm Elementary Schools are academically equal to Edison. However, their student bodies are now more than 50% Asian. This makes them less desirable to white parents. We’ve seen this happen throughout the liberal Bay Area–in Fremont, Cupertino, San Francisco, Berkeley (UC) etc. Liberals say they love diversity. The truth is they’re the first out the door when things start looking “darker” (or “yellower” in this case). Another classic case of “white flight”, brought to you by the area’s enlightened progressives.
Quote of the Day #2 – “It seems like AUSD efforts are focused on a small number of families from one of the wealthiest areas of town.” – Alameda NayTiff
Yes! This would seem to indicate that the placement lottery will NOT happen as long as white students remain in the majority at Edison. Why? Because the school board is afraid of driving away the last large cluster of whiteness in the AUSD. This the school board would never do. History tells us that lotteries, busing, affirmative action etc. only happen after the “tipping point” has been reached. Berkeley (BUSD) imposed busing only after most of the white students left. San Francisco (SFUSD) imposed racial quotas on its top high schools only after virtually all of the white students left. In other words, the school board will bend over backwards to appease Edison parents as long as whites remain in the majority. After the whites leave, anything goes.
Comment by James Chen — October 26, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
James Chen, you are full of it. When Earhart and Bay Farm School were on top in test scores and overcrowded because of a bubble, many people wanted to get in those schools, and there were heated meetings about what to do with the extra students. And you cannot tell me that these are “white” schools too. Now that area is declining enrollment so it isn’t a big issue, while Edison is a school that through various reforms and enhancements has become too small to accommodate its neighborhood. People are committed to neighborhood schools– that is why they like Alameda schools because the administration is also committed to neighborhood schools.
Instead, why don’t we turn your question on its head and ask, “If the Edison boundary area is so desirable, why haven’t more Asian-American families purchased houses there?”
As far as your statements about BUSD go, I say prove it. Court ordered busing, as it was, intended to rectify de facto segregation in BUSD. So how had the white students already left? Berkeley High is about 1/3 white, the same as Alameda High, where the Edison School students will eventually go to high school.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 27, 2007 @ 1:49 am
#33
>Instead, why don’t we turn your question on its head and ask, “If the Edison boundary area is so desirable, why haven’t more Asian-American families purchased houses there?”
Good question. For decades the Fernside was “Whites Only.” This was not an informal policy, but a legal one. The properties had deed restrictions that required that the houses be sold only to white people. Decades later you still see the result of that legal prohibition. I would be interested in seeing how others answer the question that Kevis raised.
The enrollment problem in Edison is not just a bubble issue. It is about who is now buying homes in the area. Parents could decide to buy homes on Bay Farm where the schools are equally good, but they are not. Why?
AUSD needs to be very careful what it does about Edison, as any policy that causes further segregation will be called into question.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — October 27, 2007 @ 6:36 am
Re. # 31
Alameda NayTiff, you are so full of it. My wife and I pulled our kids out of Edison school (and other east end schools) when we moved from the east side of Alameda to the west side of Alameda. They were mortals in the east side schools and they were mortals in west side schools. They all turned out just fine. So subtract my four from that 90% you never hear of. Furthermore, who gives a rats ass what the press reports on? I don’t spend on education for “press reports”.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 27, 2007 @ 9:02 am
“Parents could decide to buy homes on Bay Farm where the schools are equally good, but they are not. Why?”
Because there are jet and prop airplanes flying at low altitude at all hours over the houses, perhaps?
Comment by Jack B — October 27, 2007 @ 9:28 am
Hold the presses … James Chen is back with his delusionist rantings about race! Man, you have an inferiority complex … get over it or see a shrink.
Comment by Roberto — October 27, 2007 @ 9:35 am
Ah yes, “white flight”-denier Kevis Brownson. It’s good hearing from you again.
Unlike global warming, school statistics on racial enrollment are all posted online, and anyone with one good eye can also see for themselves firsthand (you can’t see carbon dioxide, but you can see race rather easily). Greatschools.net is a nice website that has all the statistics and data on schools that you need.
Berkeley and Alameda are very much alike in that their population is 60% white overall, but their public schools’ white enrollment is at 30% and declining by about 1-2% per year. Why is this so? I’m not white nor am I a liberal, so I don’t pretend to know what motivates liberal white parents to pull their children out of public schools when minorities start to dominate numerically–even when the schools are excellent academically. But Bay Farm Elementary and Amelia Earhart are perfect examples of this trend–at both schools Asian students are about to become a majority of the population. ANd contrary to your statement, their enrollment is increasing, not declining.
Contrary to your statement, the Berkeley busing was not court-ordered but has always been and continues to be voluntary (see here: http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=15306). However, these efforts have been for naught as white student enrollment continues to plummet and white parents have sued the BUSD for its most recent attempts to alter its “school assignment” formula (see Daily Cal article). Historically, these last-ditch efforts to desegregate have always failed, and so it is likely that Berkeley–like San Francisco and Oakland–will see a mass exodus of its remaining white students fairly soon.
Back to Alameda, Alameda NayTiff brings up an excellent point about the historical basis of Fernside’s racial make-up. I would also add two other factors:
1) Housing turnover in Fernside is much slower than in Bay Farm. A majority of the residents in my neighborhood have lived there for 30+ years.
2) Asian homebuyers tend to want newer houses, and so they naturally gravitate towards Bay Farm Island
Which brings us to the core issue in Alameda and throughout Blue-State America: How can we convince white liberal parents to enroll their children in public schools where they are no longer in the majority?
Comment by James Chen — October 27, 2007 @ 9:38 am
Call me delusional, but in 10 years, Alameda’s school system will mirror San Francisco’s and Oakland’s. The public schools will be 80-90% minority, and most white students will be attending private schools. Racial segregation–in the public schools in partucular–is a reality in the liberal Bay Area.
I guess this means I won’t see seeing Roberto at the PTA meetings! Perhaps at the Alameda Democratic club meetings?
Comment by James Chen — October 27, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Re # 38
James,
The answer to your core question is: You nor anyone else can convince white “liberal” parents to enroll their children where they are no longer a majority. It’s not a race thing, it’s a political thing. You no doubt understand that the liberal elite needs victims. Not to rub elbows with or move in next door but to assuage their own guilt complex. That’s why you see the “hate Americka” posts on this blog.
Right, Roberto?
Comment by Jack Richard — October 27, 2007 @ 9:58 am
James Chen
The bubble at Edison is caused by recent housing turnover. People who have lived in their houses 30 years do not generally have children going to kindergarten.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 27, 2007 @ 10:37 am
And I believe the reason that Bay Farm and Earhart have declining enrollment now is that the new housing is now older and their children are older and going to middle and high school and college. Alameda High is bursting at the seams.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 27, 2007 @ 10:39 am
Actually, two families on my block have been here for more than 30 years–they grew up here as children and now they inherited the houses from their parents. And now they have kids! You can see one of these families on my latest blog posting on pumpkin carving.
For those of you just watching, this is a perfect time to watch liberal thinking in action. I’ve stated my hypothesis, given facts and statisitcs, contributed my observations and provided references. In response, I’ve been called mentally ill and delusional by one liberal. Another more-thoughtful liberal has provided a counterpoint, but she has mistated facts and does not provide any data, only vague generalizations.
Rational observers, take note of the liberal response: namecalling and unsubstantiated opinion.
Comment by James Chen — October 27, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Au contraire. Bay Farm elementary schools are NOT facing declining enrollment. This week’s Alameda Journal cites the issue of larger-than-anticipated classes at Bay Farm Elementary. One can reasonably assume that Amelia Earhart Elementary enrollment is steady; otherwise they could utilize the undercapcity at Earhart. You can see the article here: http://www.contracostatimes.com/search/ci_7287289? (”Lottery Plan Loses Parents’ Support”)
Please get your facts straight.
Comment by James Chen — October 27, 2007 @ 11:10 am
From the CC Times article:
” A recent demographic study predicted that overall district enrollment will drop by about 106 students by 2011 and that the decline will take place mostly on Bay Farm Island and at schools located between Park and Webster streets.”
I also read the study so that is where I got the idea of declining enrollment at Bay Farm and Earhart, despite the recent addition of a kindergarten class at Earhart. Please see table 2, page vi.
From page 23 of the study, re the area east of Park St, not Bay Farm, “Chart 18 shows grade progressions in this subarea. In most years, the elementary
cohorts have grown by two to four percent as students progress to the next grade.
The very positive grade progressions mean that many families are moving into the
area, a result of housing turnover (although some may be transferring from private
to public schools as well).”
So get YOUR facts straight Mr. Chen. I read the study before I posted. Your “facts” about the families you live near are only anecdotes, although illustrative of one reason that Edison might remain more white as a legacy of the covenants.
You have not proved your assertion about BUSD, either.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 27, 2007 @ 11:43 am
The study is just a study. Like a weather prediction or forecast. The study’s forecasts are not facts. It’s a prediction–a bad one at that.
This year, Bay Farm Elementary added a K-class. That’s a fact.
Just like the fact that the “most diverse high school in America” (Berkeley HS) has dropped from nearly 50% white enrollment to around 30% in 10 years. You can read the hysterical rantings of white liberals about the new (2005?) “school assignment” process at the “Berkeley Parents’ Network” site here: http://parents.berkeley.edu/recommend/schools/berkeley/
They are quite an amusing read. It turns out that white liberals loved to make “diversity kool-ade”, but when it came time to drink it, they ran away as fast as they could. Check out this latest post (June 2007) from a parent here:
“We are not satisfied. we went thru the lottery system this year and got our last choice, the school that is the farthest from our house. Our child will not be attending school with any children on our street. There is another school 1 block from our house. And out of 20 families we know who went thru the lottery, no one is happy with their assignment (except for one who got into Cragmont Spanish emersion)”
“I agree with you about the travel time issue. Sending my child on the bus instead of being able to walk to school seems very burdensome and frankly, a waste of gasoline.”
“It also raises another issue for me, What about the detrimental effects of this lottery on the sense of community in a neighborhood? I remember growing up in a neighborhood when all the parents went to the PTA meeting together. They’d knock on each others doors reminding them to go. If I had known what school my children were attending ahead of time, I would have been supporting that school since the children were infants. Instead we get assigned to a school I have never even seen because its so far from our house.”
“I would also like to know how to get into a discussion about this issue as well. It seems like if you express any negativity toward it, you are stigmatized as almost racist. In the school we got assigned to, the 5th graders had a writing assignment up on the wall about the school assignment system. One child said, ”White families in Berkeley have teamed up with George Bush to try to go to school with only other white families…” or something like that re: some past lawsuit to reverse the lottery system. So if this is the propaganda the schools are actually spreading to the children, no wonder it is so un-PC to bring it up.”
“I don’t know one family who is happy with their assignment. I know a lot of families who are either moving away or choosing private schools. Its a shame. Berkeley really needs to think about the needs of their families and their neighborhoods. And if the point of all this is to increase diversity, that is great, but the fact is that we chose to live in a really diverse neighborhood. So if we all got to go to the neighborhood school, it would still be diverse. So if there are any organizations of parents trying to reverse the school assignment system. I’d love to find out about it and join up immediately. just don’t get it.”
Here’s the link (top messsage): http://parents.berkeley.edu/recommend/schools/berkeley/berk-choice.html
Did you see the George Bush reference? Great stuff! Be prepared for similar things in Alameda soon!
Comment by James Chen — October 27, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
Be prepared for similar things in Alameda soon…once enough of Edison’s white students leave, of course.
Comment by James Chen — October 27, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
ROFLMAO … chen and Jack are a nice pair! I think Nebraska or any of the red states would be a good fit for these folks.
Comment by Roberto — October 27, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Alameda used to be part of Nebraska, Roberto. Before your time.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 27, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Mr. Chen,
This is the last time I am going to respond to you on this issue, because you are just ranting. I referenced the study, which shows an actual decline in enrollment from 2006-7, and you respond with anecdotes from Berkeley Parents and with an unverified statistic about the proportion of white kids at BHS 10 years ago. I had indeed forgotten that the busing in Berkeley was voluntary, but in that case it is even more interesting in that the school board would have passed it with according to you, majority white support. Anyway, it isn’t worth my time to look up more figures for you– the demographic study bases its predictions on verifiable data and it is 109 pages long. BHS still managed to produce 18 National Merit Finalists last year even with years of voluntary busing, lottery in elementary schools and bleeding heart liberals to contend with.
Alameda has had a tradition of neighborhood schools and I certainly wanted my children to go to school where they could walk when they were young, and they did for elementary. But they went to pre-school across town because that is the only place I could find the program I wanted and I drove them. When AUSD needed to move students from one area to another, often they have found ways to get parents to do it voluntarily, such as having the developmental program at Paden Elementary, the math/science Academy at Wood Middle, BRAVO at Chipman, ACLC at Encinal High, etc. I think that a solution can be found without boundary change, or a lottery, that supports neighborhood schools while giving parents choices.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 27, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
James,
As we now know, if it is fact that there is a new K-class at Bay Farm, that fact was not what was included in the article you referenced, and contrary to Earhart having a steady enrollment. Further, the article states that Earhardt was part of the spike.
All this could be attributed to people making honest mistakes in an effort to sort out lots of confusing information with time we might better spend on things more important to us. But since you choose to castigate, and generally be exceedingly arrogant and belligerent, I have
to reiterate Kevis’s admonishment #45 and point out that you still haven’t rectified the contradiction between your referring to Earhardt as having presumably “steady enrollment”, while the article states it was part of the enrollment spike.
Admittedly this is minor, even petty, but that seems to suit you. You may have some valid points, but who wants to hear it from some belligerent prick, especially an racial (Asian) supremacist?
When you bored your way out of the woodwork months and months ago and tried to straight jacket all of us white folks under your liberal guilt trip category, I told you to stuff it. It seems nothing has changed on either side of this equation.
Oh, I’m calling you delusional too. Your predictions are wishful thinking. Good luck with your pursuit of an Asian take over of the entire U.C. system.
-Bok Gooey
Comment by Mark I — October 27, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Reality seems to escape white liberal minds, such as Mark’s. From the Alameda Journal article above: “Along with the extra class at Edison, the spike led to additional kindergarten classes at Earhart, Lum, Washington and Ruby Bridges elementary schools, Dierking said.” It’s in the 15th paragraph. I think I said Bay Farm elementary originally–my bad.
I do sense sone bitterness in Mark (re:”Good luck with your pursuit of an Asian take over of the entire U.C. system.”)
To all of you white liberals, most of us non-white parents don’t mind that white limousine liberals are pulling their kids from the public schools. But we don’t wish the Bay Area public schools to become segregated. On the contrary, we just wonder why you keep saying how much you love diversity, but then retreat to your lily-white enclaves (places like Piedmont, Orinda and Walnut Creek come to mind) and private schools (places like Lick-Wilmerding and Head Royce come to mind).
I guess I won’t be seeing you all at the AUSD PTA meetings!
Comment by James Chen — October 27, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
James,
I’m still not clear on what your idea is, perhaps you can explain your suggestion. The only thing I understand from your postings is that you are Asian and think rich white liberals are inconsistent in walking their talk at least about diversity in schools.
I am a white Earhart parent. I am glad my kids go to Earhart. I don’t bat an eye at the fact that whites are a minority at that school. It would not matter a bit if the largest races there were African instead of Asian. What matters to me is the quality of the education. A big part of that is the behavior of students allowed at schools. If dey be emulatin gangsta tok – tokin shit and blowing smoke at school – I’d be pulling my kids even if the school was 100% white. (white trash that would be) It’s not about race – can’t you ‘grok’ that?
I like that my kids can walk to school and that the school is part of our community. I do wish it were a little closer to our home, but with over 600 students, a mile is not too far to walk, and there is another playground by our house the kids use instead of the school during the summer and non-school hours. I do appreciate that AUSD had to close some of the ‘tiny’ (under 200 students)neighborhood schools to achieve an economy of scale, and to retrofit some buildings when Ruby Bridges opened.
I am sure you know it is illegal to segregate schools according to race. You have seen that Berkeley’s expensive bussing program of integration has not “narrowed the achievement gap”. With this in mind please restate your suggestion for me.
Comment by David Kirwin — October 27, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
AUSD faces minefields in every direction on this one. If it tries to change the school boundaries (guess who would lose out on that one, just check out the ESNN survey map to see)it will face charges of creating a zona blanca. First-come first-serve means that those in the ESNN get served and everyone else has to scramble.
A lottery would mean that some people in the Fernside won’t be able to send their children to Edison — that is just not going to happen as they believe they are in a separate district and the purchase price of their home guarantees them a slot at the school.
What is left is to just try and cram as many classes into Edison as possible. Maybe even rent some extra space nearby for additional classrooms. This option also helps to end the Edison frenzy as part of the allure of Edison is its scarcity. Accomdate everyone and the mystique fades. AUSD needs to act fast as this whole matter is going to snowball as long as the uncertainty remains.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — October 27, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
ANT – zona blanca?
I don’t think property owners have the right to dictate to the school board where the zones lay for individual schools. As a matter of reality these will, or should always fluctuate as the neighborhoods go thru lifecycles. If someone buys a house for the purpose of going to a specific neighborhood elementary school they should be informed enough to not buy at the outskirts of that zone where they could be affected by boundary lines changing to accommodate the needs of the District to not exceed max school enrollment capacity.
Comment by David Kirwin — October 27, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
I agree with Kirwin ENTIRELY (#53).
What is the world coming to?
Comment by Roberto — October 27, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
#55
I agree with you as well David, but this isn’t about logic, it is about fear desire and selfishness. Elected officials do not make decisions based upon logic, they make decisions based upon politics. Logically, the affairs of one attendance zone wouldn’t be plastered over the front page of local papers.
and regarding #35, Jack, you are a gutsy guy and I am sure that your children would do well even if they were raised in The Bronx. Now, if you could only convey that message to other Fernside families.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — October 27, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
Re. 53 et al “white liberals”
It would seem, James your problem is with “white” more than it is with “liberal”. What about non-white liberals? Any person who happens to be Caucasian and who doesn’t follow your tenants is automatically a “white liberal”. I ain’t buying that. Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Anarchist or Know Nothing there’s something in the human psyche that drives parents (regardless of color, culture, or politics) to seek what they think is best for their kids.
Yeah, Liberals (bless their hearts) may be the most vocal two-facers about it but they’re no different than the rest of us, regardless of color, when it comes to our kids.
# 57 Alameda NayTiff
I know no Fernside dwellers. I lived on another east end street that started with an “F”. And believe me, Fernsiders wouldn’t listen to me.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 27, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
Re my last. James, “follow your tenets”, is what I meant to write
Comment by Jack Richard — October 27, 2007 @ 8:40 pm