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

Who Is A. J. Crabill (and why should you care)?

Why You Should Care Mr. Crabill has found quite the acolyte in Director Chandra Hampson. In the course of discussions over SOFG, she says his name over and over, "A.J .says we...." Now that's not too surprising given the direction the district is heading and that it is Mr. Crabill's work with the Council of Great City Schools is how we got here. But it appears that Mr. Crabill is working very closely with Hampson and we know she wields some amount of power over the majority of the Board. Mr. Crabill is going to continue to work with the Board as SOFG is instituted in SPS. In fact, his role may become more public as it did at one SPS Board meeting in the spring where he was on the phone during the meeting and suggested the Board stop the meeting to "self-reflect." I also noticed that in a district in South Carolina, when things weren't going to plan, he blamed the Board for not following SOFG to the letter. Look for that to happen here if Board members w
Read more

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

This may only be a partial list of reasons; please, add anything else in the comments. The deadline to file to run for the Board is May 19th. Entire Board Majority NOT vetting the Superintendent in any way, shape or form. Even the Seattle Times thought that was wrong.  It was just absolute hubris and it was wrong. For the second time in just over a year , board members voted to negotiate a superintendent contract during a special meeting with no opportunity for public comment. This time, they showed an even deeper disregard for their responsibilities as public servants: Aborting a national search for a new superintendent and denying Interim Superintendent Brent Jones a chance to show students, parents and taxpayers that, indeed, he is the best person for the job. Government bodies can’t fast-forward through transparent processes just because they think they know the right answer. One other odd thing about the hiring of Brent Jones - most permanent SPS superintendent contracts ar
Read more