Well bubble or not, the School Board will be making a decision on whether or not to change from the current method of “first come first serve” if there is a situation of more kids than slots available, and there is not sufficient capacity to add classes at oversubscribed schools. From the Alameda Journal:
…What concerns district officials is that the increased number of kindergartners will now create an enrollment “bubble” as the students become older and pass through the district.
As a way to deal with it, trustees also will hear tonight from a task force that has been looking at overall elementary school enrollment, along with what’s available for classrooms and other space in the district…
And I have to say that I thought the new Alameda Journal editor, Connie Rux’s commentary on Friday on the subject was very insightful, highlights:
…while a lottery may not be the ideal solution, it seems to be the most fair to everyone. There are no easy answers when a school faces overcrowding.
…
Currently a “first come, first served” policy is implemented by the district, which resulted in parents having to camp out overnight last January to try to get their children into Edison Elementary School.
Parents should not have to resort to such drastic steps. And, as critics have pointed out, not every parent is able to take time from work or their schedules to camp out overnight or wait in long early-morning lines to register.
One parent suggested at a recent school board meeting that a pre-registration system be created, to allow parents to register their children at birth for a particular school. This too smacks of unfair advantage, and doesn’t take into account the high mobility of today’s families, who may come to a neighborhood long after their children are born…
I found it very interesting that she chose to address the issue of pre-registration (aka the Pleasanton model), while I like the idea of pre-registration in order to offer the district projection numbers of possible enrollment, I am not a fan of it being used as another “first come, first serve” mechanism or else we run into silliness that surrounds preschool enrollment where parents begin registering their children in utero or, even worse, on the way to the hospital. For more information about updated numbers and acutal capacity, Mike McMahon has updated his website with these numbers. The last chart is by far the most interesting though, the current residents/expected future residents and capacity.
It will be most interesting to see the reaction of Bayporters when Ruby Bridges goes lottery.
Comment by dave — November 13, 2007 @ 8:02 am
“…while a lottery may not be the ideal solution, it seems to be the most fair to everyone. There are no easy answers when a school faces overcrowding”
There sure are easy answers. Auction off the over-subscribed slots at the most desirable schools. Highest bidders get their kids in. Take the money and apply it to the least desirable schools. That’s called creating “equity”.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 13, 2007 @ 8:46 am
Coming from someone who doesn’t have kids and grew up somewhere with decent public schools, has the whole issue of zoning, lotteries, school quality, and so forth always been such a bad problem in this area? It seems borderline insane that you would have to consider lotteries for kids just to get into schools.
Comment by edvard — November 13, 2007 @ 9:04 am
Re: #3, it’s not that hard to envision a lottery after spending a cold, rainy January night on the Edison School blacktop because the quantity of kindergartners exceeded the school’s capacity. My back and head still ache when I recall that joyless experience (but getting on TV was sorta cool)
A lottery seems to be the best among imperfect options for those few schools that face oversubscription. While some still squawk about a lottery, there has yet to be proposed a better, more equitable solution.
Comment by Neal_J — November 13, 2007 @ 10:53 am
My proposal is that they should build more schools, raise teacher’s salaries to levels that’s more inline with local economics, and apply pressure to allocate more tax money towards education.
Yes- seems like a big “DUH”, but seriously, that’s the root of the problem. Kill the problem at the root first, then work your way up.
California had one of the country’s best school systems in the 1960’s. Now they have one of the worst. If things can change that drastically, then surely the status quo can just as easily be re-reversed.
Comment by edvard — November 13, 2007 @ 11:22 am
simple as that, just at $$$$$.
Comment by Jack B. — November 13, 2007 @ 11:35 am
# 5
Or maybe lower teacher’s salaries to levels more in line with the end product.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 13, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
#2 Just how serious are you Jack?
While you are addressing equalizing the quality of schools in some fashion, I would submit that in Alameda test scores may indicate a variation between schools, that is more an indicator of the socio-economic background of the students than a wide disparity in the quality of education between schools.
There are various opinions and means to describe most and least desirable schools and your method would seem to empower the affluent with drawing those parameters.
You are obviously a smart guy, (most folks who post here could easily trump my education) and I can relate to your penchant for sarcasm, but I’m often unsure sure when you are serious and when you are pushing the envelope so to speak, just to make a point.
Taking your post here at face value, to me your idea seems intuitively cockeyed and does not seem like it would be simple to actually implement.
It seems to me that unless we are short of classroom capacity district wide which requires new schools or at least portables, that the solution is redistricting. But if we can bridge certain enrollment bulges with a lottery if needed, that would eliminate the more drastic redistricting.
Forgive me if it has been addressed already, but what of the school impact of this last batch of housing Cowan is going to be able to build? Are the square foot fees going to be at the highest levels, or was Cowan’s original agreement have him covered for that too?
I’m not clear on the details of the impact Harbor Bay had on AUSD, except the word on the street has always been that the school impacts were not adequately mitigated. I know Lincoln is bulging. Since we moved here, the line for Encinal moved east to Union in the Gold Coast. Maybe Wood was adjusted also.
Traffic gets the most attention, but I have no idea what the specific school impacts of 1500 units at the Point. In terms of the two existing high schools, those units would seem to make consolidation, as mentioned in a recent post, less likely.
Comment by Mark I — November 13, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Secondly, get rid of the “no child left behind” program. My mom has been a teacher for 35 years and absolutely despises this program.
Comment by edvard — November 13, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
# 8
1st Para: Mark, you paint a pretty bleak picture for those students at the tail end of the economy since, according to you, Alameda schools vary little in quality and each student comes packaged with his/her socio-economic background. What ever happened to the idea that education is the great boot-strap puller-upper in this society? That a poor kid could become whatever her/his vision and hard work could offer?
2nd Para: Since your first paragraph states there is little disparity in the quality of education among Alameda schools, I’m not sure what factors you ascribe to those schools which are least and most desirable.
First, I tend to agree with you that there isn’t a heck of a lot of difference between Alameda schools (at least there wasn’t when my kids were in school and they wound their separate ways through Edison, Lincoln (old), Longfellow, Mastick (before seniors), Wood, Washington, Alameda High and Encinal High…probably others that slip my memory). Second, I personally didn’t give a whit which Alameda school my kids went to. My take on education is it takes place in the home. Schools provide the mechanics only. I’ve stated before, I think my kids were better off in west-end schools only because of the diversity of opinions they came home spouting and which had to be extricated.
Once my kids got the mechanics down, none of them had any problem with college level work. Of course, in college the same socio-economic-political opinions were brought home and new and creative cleansing methods had to be deployed but they’re all more or less sane in this crazy world.
So yes, I was serious in # 2. If a parent wants to send their precious to an overcrowded school, auction the slots off and use the money to make the school with less desirable factors more desirable.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 13, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
I too doubt if there is any significant difference in the quality of education offered at Alameda’s ten elementary schools. The API scores are a slight of hand that more likely measure the economic and educational (the two are tied to each other) achievements of the parents than what is being learned in school. I think that eventually this will be realized and the Edison frenzy will correct itself. There really is nothing there and eventually parents will be unwilling to pay the property value premium.
This whole matter will run its course and the District needs to avoid feeding the frenzy by not overreacting.
I find myself agreeing with Jack R that much learning takes place in the home — as well as neighborhood, extended family, church and other social and fraternal institutions. Schools supplement a child’s education and parents should not expect the schools to do more than they reasonably can. Education has never started and ended at the schoolhouse door.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 13, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Spelling correction:
Should be “sleight of hand”
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 13, 2007 @ 6:00 pm