No Child Left Behind and School Assignment?

Got this question from a blog reader:

"I was wondering if you knew anything about ESEA ("No Child Left Behind" Act) and how it impacts school assignment in Seattle. Our friends have a kid at Madrona K-8, and they recently received a letter from their principal informing them that, due to Madrona's poor performance under ESEA, they have the opportunity to transfer their child immediately to either Leschi or Stephens. Now, Leschi I can understand, since it's under-enrolled. But Stevens? Isn't it full?"

Anyone know whether students getting reassigned from "failing" schools according to ESEA get preference for student assignment? I've sent this post to Tracy Libros, Enrollment Services Manager as well. If I get a response, I'll post it in the comments here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Students who accept the offer of re-assignment as a result of ESEA sanctions do NOT get priority assignments at their new school. The usual tie-breakers are in place.

The NCLB act is, in a number of ways, disingenuous. This is but one of them.
10/2/06, 9:37 AM
Anonymous said…
Thanks, Charlie. So what you're saying is that in the next few weeks (since students have the option to move immediately), a mini round of student reassignment would take place, with all the usual tie-breakers? And this is assuming that the number of available spots is limited? None of this has been communicated to the parents, as far as I know.
10/2/06, 1:30 PM
Anonymous said…
Ummm... there usually isn't much reassignment as a result of NCLB, just a handful of students across the district.

I suspect any students requesting re-assignment under NCLB would just go into the appropriate place on the waitlist for the school of their choice. If the school has available space, I would reckon that the kids are simply assigned on a first-come, first-served basis.

I don't know if more people would take advantage of re-assignment under NCLB if they were offered more attractive choices, but the District is under no obligation to offer an attractive choice, just schools that are not under similar sanctions. There is no guarantee - nor any need for a guarantee - that there is space available at those schools.

Strictly speaking, the District could offer Montlake and then tell everyone who requests it that there is no space available.

As I wrote, the NCLB act is, in a number of ways, disingenuous. This is but one of them.
10/2/06, 5:20 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more