Kindergarten Sibling Waitlists Explained
Thanks to StepJ who let us know the district had posted a document about the kindergarten sibling waitlists. There are 148 siblings on the waiting lists for schools that are not their attendance area school. There is a fairly even city-wide distribution of siblings who didn't get their sibling assignment with the largest for Kimball at 19 and John Hay at 18.
Here's the document summary:
"The following chart shows results for non-attendance area K siblings who applied for their
sibling’s attendance area school during Open Enrollment. In summary:
• 556 non-attendance area K students applied for their older sibling’s school.2
• 73% of these applicants (408 students) were assigned to their sibling’s school.
• 27% of these applicants (148 students) are on waiting lists for their sibling’s school.
These results are in addition to:
• Students assigned to their attendance area school their older sibling attends.
• 132 K siblings assigned to the Option School their older sibling attends.3
Of 54 attendance area schools:4
• 65% of the schools (35) have no waitlisted siblings
• 15% of the schools (8) have 1-5 waitlisted siblings
• 11% of the schools (6) have 6-10 waitlisted siblings
• 6% of the schools (3) have 11-15 waitlisted siblings
• 4% of the schools (2) have 16-20 waitlisted siblings
Waiting lists will be managed aggressively by the Enrollment department beginning after Open
Enrollment and through September 30. (This will continue throughout the summer.) It is
anticipated that, as schools work with their enrollment data, additional K siblings on waiting
lists may be offered seats at the requested schools.
2
Graham Hill has two entry grades: PreK (3‐year‐olds) for the Montessori program and K for the general education
program. Information includes combined data to reflect both entry grades.
3
Since the entry grade at South Shore is PreK, information is for PreK siblings.
4
Total does not equal 100% due to rounding. "
Other interesting items from the document:
Here's the document summary:
"The following chart shows results for non-attendance area K siblings who applied for their
sibling’s attendance area school during Open Enrollment. In summary:
• 556 non-attendance area K students applied for their older sibling’s school.2
• 73% of these applicants (408 students) were assigned to their sibling’s school.
• 27% of these applicants (148 students) are on waiting lists for their sibling’s school.
These results are in addition to:
• Students assigned to their attendance area school their older sibling attends.
• 132 K siblings assigned to the Option School their older sibling attends.3
Of 54 attendance area schools:4
• 65% of the schools (35) have no waitlisted siblings
• 15% of the schools (8) have 1-5 waitlisted siblings
• 11% of the schools (6) have 6-10 waitlisted siblings
• 6% of the schools (3) have 11-15 waitlisted siblings
• 4% of the schools (2) have 16-20 waitlisted siblings
Waiting lists will be managed aggressively by the Enrollment department beginning after Open
Enrollment and through September 30. (This will continue throughout the summer.) It is
anticipated that, as schools work with their enrollment data, additional K siblings on waiting
lists may be offered seats at the requested schools.
2
Graham Hill has two entry grades: PreK (3‐year‐olds) for the Montessori program and K for the general education
program. Information includes combined data to reflect both entry grades.
3
Since the entry grade at South Shore is PreK, information is for PreK siblings.
4
Total does not equal 100% due to rounding. "
Other interesting items from the document:
- "One potential strategy, eliminating full-day K classes and offering only half-day K classes at some schools, was not employed as a strategy to accommodate non-attendance area K
siblings. " - "A link on the Enrollment website where families can indicate if a child will not be
attending Seattle Public Schools has been upgraded to make it easier to compile data
submitted online. This will help us collect data to see if attrition is going to be higher
than projected and, therefore, where additional space is available to admit waitlisted
students. " - "Portable classrooms will be added at a small number of schools."
- "In other cases, a classroom at an upper grade level could be freed up by increasing
class size in upper grades, and/or by creating split grade classes. " - "In some cases, K class size was increased slightly. This was a common approach if the
number of siblings who would have been waitlisted was small."
Comments
First, they significantly over-enrolled the school but hope that at least 10% won't show based on historical data, that may or may not apply in the current economy and with the new SAP.
Next, even though they enrolled enough children for 5 K classes, they are still only funding 4 K teachers, again, because they hope for 10% attrition. If more children plan to attend than expected, there is talk of having split-grade classes instead of a 5th K, because the district has decided to fund teacher positions based on total school size, not size of each grade-level cohort. I know our local administration would prefer another K teacher to having to do split grade classes throughout the building (and, yes, it could ripple up through all the grades because many are already at class size capacity).
So, assuming we are not unique, I truly believe that once again, the district is making decisions without local input and putting a lot of stress on everyone, because much of this won't be resolved for months. I also suspect that wait lists won't move until they know that the 10% over-enrolled are not planning to attend. So even if you know your neighbor is not going to your desired school, that spot may not be available to you until more than 10% of those enrolled have opted out.
I do think a careful reading of the document suggests what Lori reports -- that the schools are over-enrolled, and with the requirement that attendance area students will be accepted when they show up in September, that waitlists will not move until then. They leave open the possibility of "higher than expected attrition", but that doesn't seem highly likely to me.
it'll be interesting to hear more about what people are hearing.
Our school has reportedly received a handful of calls from families who live elsewhere in the US and even abroad that are moving to Seattle before September and want to know what to do to enroll at the school. And the 120 already enrolled does NOT count those families, obviously. So even if there is 10% attrition as hoped, there could be any number of children (3? 5? 10?) that will be claiming spots this summer.
Can you elaborate on this? Our school is not being funded for the full number of gen ed teachers we need because special ed and bilingual kids do not count as 100% of a student under the weighted Staffing Standards Model. If schools are being staffed based on the number of bodies assigned, maybe we will get credit for all of the teachers we need. Are you saying that the WSS model is being revised right now? Is this in writing or posted somewhere?
Or are you just pointing out what has always been true under the WSS: that all the kids 1st - 5th are added up and divided by 26 or 27 and that tells you how many 1st through 5th grade teachers they will pay for?
K teachers have been a separate line item from 1st-5th on the budget allocations. Is that changing?
look at McDonald. 13 kids total in 1/2. 3 kids total in 3/4/5 combined!
look at QA elementary. 14 kids total in 1/2. 7 kids total in 3/4/5. Wow.
The data is irrefutable. Parents did NOT want to move their eldest into a younger sib's school. They wanted the youngest to follow the oldest.
AND, on one hand, placement of 75 percent of the incoming K sibs seems good...until that number is flipped around. 25 percent! *One fourth* of all families in this situation did not get a match. That does not feel like "every possible mechanism" being used to me. But no doubt the district will call this a crowning success. What do others think?
The district anticipated MacDonald was to have 92 students, but only enrolled 52. BF Day will likely have only 30 students.
JSIS on the other hand has 103 currently assigned (and was funded for 81) and they anticipate 98 expected to show.
Good luck with that! My suspcion is even more will show up before September. By and large, people in the neighborhood and the people wanting into the school have both the motivation and means to move into the school's service area. No siblings got in to JSIS and there are 52 kids on the waitlist. Does the district really not see how this will play out?
The district has botched the handling of JSIS. They could have made MacDonald an international school like many in the community wanted. The parents would have put in the resouces and time to bring the school up, and they would have filled the school -- not just in the Kindergarten, but across the grades. Instead, we have the ridiculous situation of paying, what, 14M to open a school for 50 students?
They also could have made JSIS an option program, as it should have been all along. More seats would have been filled in the neighboring schools and JSIS would get the stability it needs. It'll be interesting to see what happens as the district tries to fill positions for immersion teachers at the last minute when too many kids show up in September.
I'm farily certain the JSIS boudary will have to be drawn in fairly soon. It's clear that it is already too big, and folks will move into the new area to gain access. The new SAP won't be giving families in this part of town the promised stability with the new SAP.
Seriously, I can't figure out if the district is just too dumb to be able to anticipate what's going to happen, or they're just too pig-headed to do the necessary things to fix the problems they've created.
Watch all the maneuvering sure to arrive this fall to keep from making the language immersion schools into OPTION schools.
"Ohhhhh waa waa waa. We couldn't do that. It would mess up our neighborhood boundaries."
Yup. Right. That is why they should have sucked it up and handled it last year. Or the year before. Or the year before. But that would have taken program management, vision and positive leadership, none of which the staff involved has.
Oh, Dr. Libros is good with the numbers and all, but in the end, she is putting boundaries and numbers around PROGRAMS that the flippin district has yet to define.
Rant not over. Rant just begun.
Oh, and why would the District not listen to parents on offering specialized programs at McD and Sandpoint? See above.
And frankly, where were Harium and Sherry on pushing the issue. Because Kay Smith Blum is the only one I heard speaking up for parents and she does not even represent that area. Come to think of it, View Ridge, Harium's area, is also hosed. Was there too much policy making and not enough advocacy going on from him? I think Sundquist in West Seattle falls into that same leaky boat.
Really, though, how are they going to handle it? They can't really be planning classes of 4 4/5 graders or 13 1-5 graders can they? Might be an interesting experience, but seems unlikely.
**1 Kindergarten class (21 students)
**1 Transitional Kindergarten (for cognitive/developmental delays; 12 students)
**1 Kindergarten/1st Grade class (15 K & 6 1st)
**1 2nd/3rd/4th/5th Classroom (18 students)
Total of 72 students (as of last week)
I can't imagine my child in a class of 18 2nd-5th graders, so I wouldn't be surprised to see people try to move out of that situation.
Total of 72 students (as of last week)
I can't imagine my child in a class of 18 2nd-5th graders, so I wouldn't be surprised to see people try to move out of that situation
Once again, one wonders at the district's lack of interest in talking to families. I would think that if there are only 18 students in a highly unusual and novel situation, it might pay to, oh I dunno, ask the families what they would like to be done and ask them given scenario A, B or C are you likely to stay or leave the school?
Total of 72 students (as of last week)
I can't imagine my child in a class of 18 2nd-5th graders, so I wouldn't be surprised to see people try to move out of that situation
With the right teacher, that could be a wonderful thing for some families/kids. But, isn't this sort of wide range of ages one of the things the district was slamming AS#1 and/or Summit for last year?
Wow. I can imagine a situation in which I would like that. But, it would have to be with a truly fabulous teacher. And, I'd imagine that even a truly fabulous teacher would have to work like a crazy person to do the job well.
It'll be interesting to hear what happens in practice, rather than theory. We're talking about a specific group of kids, so either those kids are planning on other options, or their families have consciously decided they could function well in that environment.
I might be more likely to consider this option if the class size was 9, rather than 18.
What will they do if the class size does drop to 9? or 4?
Are they expecting an influx when kids move over the summer?
I thought I was joking when I suggested the 2-5 classroom.
Ugh.
- 1 Kindergarten class (21 students)
- 1 Transitional Kindergarten (for cognitive/developmental delays; 12 students)
- 1 Kindergarten/1st Grade class (15 K & 6 1st)
- 1 2nd/3rd/4th/5th Classroom (18 students)
- Total of 72 students (as of last week)
I'm not sure I get a 2-5 classroom. At the very least a 1-2, 3-5.
So, it is now 6 kids in QA 2-5. Interested in hearing other real life stories. Let's face it...it is unlikely that the District will poll the families, so we might as well do it ourselves. Perhaps a little bird at HQ will take the info and do something constructive.
Same for QA and McDonald to help JSIS and John Hay. Especially as these two schools will be co-housed at Lincoln to start and could have shared some staff/principal.
I think the sibling issue is really tricky with the immersion schools particularly, because it is much harder to up and move a older sibling to a new neighborhood school when they have been learning a foreign language.
Either make JSIS an option school or set the boundaries the school can sustain.
The higher grades to start would still study cultures of the world and be able to take a second language as a part of the regular curriculum.
I'm not sure if that approach would work as I have never had children (nor had the opportunity) at an International school. But, it sounds like a reasonable method to get up and going.
I completely agree that International Schools should be Option Schools. I think the current enrollment numbers for the three new schools illustrate how the new schools could have been defined as Option schools. With enrollments of about 45 each they are not providing much pressure relief to the surrounding established schools. I suspect an Option school with a program favored by parents would draw more than 45 enrollees.
But like ZB said, I don't want anyone making decisions that will affect their child's education based on what I've posted here either! Concerned families need to call the principals, go to PTA meetings, go to the principal coffee chats, and so on to stay in the loop and have their voices heard.
I just got word that SEA representatives' vote tonight on the RttT Partnership went in favor of signing. It was roughly a 2/3 to 1/3 split, with about 130 some members present.
There were about 1/2 dozen teachers and one parent handing out flyers to teachers as they entered the meeting.
The SEA webite, as of this afternoon, had a heading "Everything you need to know about Race to the Top." There were two links. Both were basically pro-RttT propoganda.
With this, the SEA leadership is showing its true colors, isn't it?
I was told the leadership would be telling the reps at the closed door meeting that parents want SEA to sign on to this. Olga knows personally many parents that are strongly opposed to RttT, me being one of them.
How can SEA leadership presume to know that parents across the city want this? Do they have survey data?
Maybe Ramona Hattendorf (president, Seattle Council PTSA) put out an appeal to her PTSA distribution list, and got parents to write to SEA in support of the RttT Partnership Agreement. I saw her do this with the pro-RttT SB6696; I do not know if she tried to influence today's vote through this means. In general SC-PTSA leadership is playing a most unhelpful role.
To the extent she is doing this and succeeding, she is, in my opinion, abusing the trust that parents place in her leadership. I have said as much to her a number of times, so I have no reservations about saying this here.
For the life of me I can't see why any teacher would support this, unless they were persuaded by SEA leadership that the union would be excoriated by the local press and the astroturf orgs (LEV, A4E, CPPS, too maybe).
This is a poor reason indeed for SEA leadership to give to members. I hope the leadership did not do this earlier today in the closed door session.
seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/
race-to-the-top/
http:\\RaceToTheTop.pbwiki.com
I believe this is exactly how JSIS has worked for the past ten years. Part of the school was in the ELL program and part in immersion.
The inequity you speak of, is for the students stuck in the self-contained classroom.... not for the general ed population.
If the self-contained students really did have access to general ed... then you would have a beef.
I don't know much about the ELL situation, but I would suspect a similar trend.
Big Duh... Central Mom. Of course nobody wants to move their oldest child. But that was completely misses the point. If they were going to close schools and fill the remaining, and move people to their attendance area schools... younger siblings moving to reference schools IS going to be the reality. You can't just keep sending everyone to their choice school, AND giving everyone everyone the right to their neighborhood school. The 2 are competing priorities. There isn't enough room. Clearly the right move is to give neighborhood students the first preference. (which they did) People wishing to have siblings at the same school... above all else, should be able to send them to the attendance area school. What is the data on that?
Let's stop this cry-baby stuff.
" Our school is not being funded for the full number of gen ed teachers we need because special ed and bilingual kids do not count as 100% of a student under the weighted Staffing Standards Model. If schools are being staffed based on the number of bodies assigned, maybe we will get credit for all of the teachers we need. Are you saying that the WSS model is being revised right now? Is this in writing or posted somewhere?"
Actually yes, the WSS is being revised right now. I doubt it is in writing or posted. That would be nice but doesn't seem to be the protocol. GJ mentioned it at the 5-5 board meeting. At the time she said it would be done in the next 30 days or so.
Kay Smith-Blum recently mentioned the revision of the WSS in an email. She strongly supports restoring elementary counselors to the WSS.
TOPS doesn't have any level 3 students.
Level 2 kids are in the gen ed classroom virtually all of the time.
Level 4 DHH (K-5) kids have been in my kid's class almost every year, but not necessarily in every subject.
There are Level 4 kids in MS art, PE and language arts that I know of for sure. Level 4 kids do not count toward gen ed FTE even if they spend half the day in the classroom and do not count in classroom headcount so drive teachers past contractual max. Even so, they are included when possible, but sometimes need an aide and there is only one for all ten kids. From what I understand, the gen ed teachers aren't acknowledged as being the kids teachers by the District--can't access their Source records etc.
Special Education is definitely underfunded--the kids I know could spend more (maybe all of their) time in gen ed classrooms if enough aides and translators were funded. Class size of 32 with at least 10% level 2 and 10% bilingual makes it much more difficult for the gen ed teacher to accomodate two or three level four kids as well. I'm not sure it would be doing the kids any favors to just drop them in there with so little support-but you know better than I do. When Level 4 kids have been in my kid's class with an aide it has been great for all of them to have a second adult in the classroom.
Eastside Catholic students irked by layoffs [even private schools lay off "favorite teachers", the reasons given are "teacher's ability to teach a variety of classes - including AP - and [ability] to attract students during registration"];
Low-performing school may close;
[with an inmportant point made by that "re-entry" type school: low scores because when students improve, they transfer back to sending school, where their improved "score" helps THAT school. What a shame that safety nets are closing, even in Bellevue];
230 school districts in Race to the Top [SEA agrees to sign onto RITT, with MOU for negotiations]
Seattle Schools trying to make room for siblings [Seattle schools trying to make room for siblings]
I hate to hear about teacher lay offs, but if they are going to happen I much prefer them be based on a set of criteria (as this private school did) than by seniority alone.
I find it interesting that private schools in Bellevue did not attract their target number of students during registration, while almost every single private school in Seattle is full full full, with long waitlists.
Very telling.
The siblings that got in had lower lottery numbers than the ones that didn't.
In the example you gave 23 out of area siblings apply for Bryant. For the sake of the example let's say they were given lottery numbers 1 - 23.
With only 15 open seats available they all share the first tie-breaker of sibling, it would then move on to lottery number so those with the first tie-breaker of sibling, with lottery numbers 1 - 15 would get in.
Siblings with lottery numbers 16-23 would be on the wait list, ordered from lowest lottery number to highest.
On the thread that developed into a "last one, first off" debate, teachers already said that RIFs are not based on seniority alone....
Just as in business all around the world (and here in the US) other operational (school) factors/needs are considered first, and then seniority comes into play...
I wish people would stop buying into this lie that RIFing favours (burnt out) older, experienced teachers at the expense of young, enthusiastic ones... It just is not so...
Probably within a subject area seniority applies, I'm not sure.
Of course this part is not visible at the elementary level.
WV: ablity, I have many ablities but spelling is not one of them.
I'm quite sure there is a level 3 self-contained program at TOPs grades 6-8. This has been a source of problems for several students this year. Did something happen to this classroom? It isn't known for being very good or effective. And it is ultra-self-contained, meaning students don't get out much, or possibly at all. I know TOPs rejected requests for inclusion programs this year at the school.
Students in special ed have the right, (absolute right), to attend general education to the maximum extent possible. So, if students could be in general ed all day, as you suggest.. they should be in general ed all day. Sure the funding is difficult, but why should these students, in particular, have to eat it? Funding is always difficult for everyone.
Level 4 kids DO count towards 20% of an FTE under the WSS. Art/Music/PE is a poor excuse for any sort of inclusion. The school's FTE money, and their basic ed allocation, should follow them for the entire day. That is required by law.
Level 2 kids count 100% (I think), but maybe it's 80%. These students should be in general ed nearly all day.
Level 3... count as 50%. So, if you're not seeing these kids... the remainder of their money (the 50%) is being used by someone else.
The disagreement you and I are having about % covered toward classroom teacher FTE is because you are only looking at K-5. I am looking at K-5 and 6-8 funding as is relevant to the different classrooms.
TOPs didn't reject requests for inclusion programs this year. I know that because I am part of TOPS and no one ever asked me. What I expect you mean (to the extent that it's true) is that a specific ed director or other administrator rejected the program on behalf of the community without asking for any input. Do you know whose name is on the decision and what the process was?
(I'm not going to reply anymore because I don't want to continue hijacking the thread-but I'd be happy to sit down with you and talk about it in person sometime.)
What gives?
Charlie posted a list of the rejected programs a while back, which included a rejected inclusion program at TOPs. He also mentioned, and, everybody knows... there's never any stated person or reason why all the programs requested are rejected. So goes it.
Hmmm. Those numbers are interesting. Perhaps I was incorrect. Maybe that self-contained thing at TOPs is level 4A or "low-incidence". That would make sense. In that case, they are budgeted at 40% given the WSS. Here it is. Note:
"General Education enrollment counts are decreased by the following contact
times:"
You can see that those 4A students are counted... but then 60% of them are subtracted.
So, each count as 40% of a student for general education staffing purposes. Meaning, they are expected to be in general ed, on average, 40% of the time. The problem with doing this, is that chairs don't fit 40% of a student. The special education audit noted that no other district in the country uses this method of allocating students to seats, and it renders a very un-inclusive environment.
I thought they had guaranteed that older siblings would be assigned to their younger siblings assignment area school, but there was some tricky wording on what you had to request. I think your situation -- K in attendance area school, older sib elsewhere wasn't supposed to happen unless you wanted it. I think you should try to talk to someone about how to get your older kid into your attendance area school.
(I'm assuming your younger sib is a K, i.e. an entry grade, and thus guaranteed attendance in your attendance area school).
For Justine, if she had applied to have her youngest attend Lowell during Open Enrollment, and the younger sibling did not get in...then she could have requested that both be assigned to McGilvra.
As it turns out, if she had applied for Lowell for her youngest she would have gotten in. All out of area K siblings got into Lowell.
Hopefully, the wait list will work out for Justine - but it may be a long summer.
Layoff is done by category
and then by seniority...
The certificated teacher contract is on the SEA website.
http://www.seattlewea.org/static_content/certfinal.pdf
Its a very interesting document, and reading it will dispel some of the current myths around RIFing and teacher evaluation and salary - such as Liv Finne's assertion that teachers get paid for 12 months while only doing 10 months work...
Go to page 106 to 110 of the certificated contract.
"The SPS will provide the SEA with a master copy of the Bargaining Unit seniority list and two (2)
copies of the building seniority list given each principal/program manager prior to the beginning of
the staff adjustment process."
"The performance ratings (evaluation) of employees shall not be a factor in determining the order of layoff under this Section"
But I think what Sahila was referring to was this:
"Displacement of staff from buildings, layoff, and recall shall be by seniority, within categories,
subject matter areas, or departments."
For elementary school, this would have no bearing at all, since teachers are not assigned to categories or subjects. For middle and high school, once again, we see that within a category the riff is based on SENIORITY. If there are not enough kids to fill 7 English classes then the English teacher with the LEAST SENIORITY is let go.
It's still very much seniority based.
You had the chance to make Sandpoint a highly desirable school by starting a language immersion or Spectrum program there. But the money was denied and Sandpoint was relegated to being a tiny, poor, underfunded, undesirable school. We are the family that bears the cost of not including siblings in the assignment plan. I have seen the data on your website that congratulates itself on how clever they have been getting students into their siblings schools. But it does not say how families who didn't get that lucky are to manage.
I have written again and again asking for help to keep our family together. Moving my son out of the Spectrum program to Sandpoint where there is one 2nd, 3rd, 4th,5th grade class- something out of the 19th century, would only serve to harm our family more.
In addition in the redrawing of these boundaries we walk with my son the 0.7miles to View Ridge and will be bussed 1.3 miles to Sandpoint. Some tribute to neighborhood schools!
I am not trying to hijack the thread here, but from reading it cannot believe what I am seeing. The new schools that the district is spending millions on reopening only have less 40 kids each????? Are you kidding me?? they are not seriously going to go ahead and open these schools up are they?
What gives?
I've been wondering about this too. How does it make sense to open these schools? And are they really going to put McDonald and QA Elementary at Lincoln with only (63+46) 109 kids, yet two principals?
I've heard from one of the principals that the District will likely merge grades 3-5 in those two schools.
I've also heard that 109 was the number the District gave to Coe/QA Elem principal David Elliott as the target number of students just for QA Elem. Is this a coincidence or will McDonald merge into QAE?
It still doesn't add up, and certainly isn't worth the $48 million the District is allegedly spending to open these schools.
Not the case if, as you say, they keep it a neighborhood school and change boundaries/force to McDonald.
I wonder how the anticipation of those "new" students will affect waitlist movement over the summer and into the fall?
I recall that there had been a Board Director a long time ago who had wanted to put in an amendment to help existing SPS families over incoming families. (His amendment was something to the effect that if you had been in SPS 3 straight years, you would get a bump ahead of a family who just moved here. He thought it was something for loyalty to SPS.) Of course, it was voted down.
Interestly, Harium, if asked about getting back some private school students should be a concern for the district, always says his concern is for the existing students and families in SPS. So how does the transition plan reflect that?
Of course, this rule also applies to you and other sib families.
JSIS already had a history of
families cheating (lying about their address) to get in. Under the old plan, lying or renting a nearby apartment meant you were pushing out a neighborhood kid, which I'm sure would give some people pause. Under the new system you don't have to worry about cheating a neighborhood kid out of his seat. That coupled with the fact that families with split sibs will be highly motivated to reunite them, should make this all interesting to watch.
Any bets on how many extra kids show up by September?
But, people still can cheat and the new system would gurantee the seat for the cheaters, and that would push out siblings instead of neighborhood kids.
It's really hard to tell if that's true or not. If a school's not letting in any sibs now, maybe it might let some in later, maybe the school has decided not to let any sibs in. Maybe moving into the service area has no impact, maybe it helps sibs-- if 19 more kids arrive and they decide they have to put in an additional class and can then pull in a few more sibs.
Under the current system there is no transparency about how sibs are being handled.
(BTW, I'm not advocating cheating.)
Honestly, though, this is how all districts with neighborhood/assignment schools do registration. You can move to a district anytime of the year and you are assigned to your neighborhood school. Maybe we should do some research to see how other districts handle the unknowns?
The immersion schools should be Option schools. It will be easier to do it now when McDonald and Day have room (and Beacon and Concord aren't full K-5). They can just start with geographic zones equal to the current assignment areas and shrink them year by year.
But who would be left out in this model?
How would the zone work for an option school which all the neighbors want to attend?
How could geographic "walk zone" access also provide enough access to make the option designation meaningful?
It's true the schools popularlity might ultimately force the zone to be very small.
Ideally, SPS would make existing immersion schools optional and at the same time open more immersion option schools.
"But who would be left out in this model?"
I guess people who moved near JSIS in order to have access to the school. Of course, it's hard to examine exactly who this group of people is, because the boundaries have changed (and there's now fear that they will change further).
Mind you, I feel pretty strongly that the main reason that the school should be changed to an option school is not access, but because I believe the immersion model depends on the presence of native speakers/bilingual students in the classroom. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but, unless native speakers (who don't necessarily live near by), don't get specialized access to JSIS, I suspect that the number of Japanese and Spanish speakers will drop to the point where the classroom will be ineffective.
Someone else pointed out that native speakers were never a majority in those classrooms, but I don't think you need a majority for the effect, merely a number greater than 0.
And, we're talking about JSIS, but it would certainly apply to the other immersion programs. The issue for other specialized programs is somewhat different (no "native speaker effect" for montessori), but one could worry about the watering down effects of having any parents in a highly specialized school that the parents did not choose. If they hated it they could go elsewhere, but if they just kind of didn't support it, they may choose to come, and end up undermining the program (the worry others suggest about option schools in general).
Your only somewhat correct about the RIFing in elementary schools. There are a few schools with specific categories. I know for a fact (happened at our school) that an elementary with a Montessori program cannot RIF a Montessori teacher and replace them with a teacher not certified to teach Montessori but with more seniority.
I assume the same would hold true for Immersion schools. I doubt you could replace a Spanish or Japanese teacher with one who didn't speak the language just because of seniority. The same probably also holds for PE, ESL and music teachers.
I get it given how the numbers look, but remember, we NEED those schools to open. Otherwise, the 200 kids in them, and the 400 next year, and the 600 the following year, and 800, 1000 after that will somehow (?) be crammed into existing overcrowded schools? NO way did SPS take on opening these schools unless they were certain (and about 4 years late...) that enrollments will keep rising.
OBVIOUSLY, the disrict screwed up by no offering attractive programs at these schools. That was a decision, not an oversight. It was going to be too expensive! More expensive than operating 4 schools at quarter capacity? I doubt that.
Also, if even 2 opened with language instruction/internatioal focus with plan to become immersion, I expect wait lists would be minimized throughout the system. It's not too late SPS! You can still change the programs...
In the long run, these schools will be great schools. It could have been in the short term, but instead, long term.
and Yes, all immersion/international programs shoud be option schools. Obviously, they are alternative.
I get it given how the numbers look, but remember, we NEED those schools to open. Otherwise, the 200 kids in them, and the 400 next year, and the 600 the following year, and 800, 1000 after that will somehow (?) be crammed into existing overcrowded schools? NO way did SPS take on opening these schools unless they were certain (and about 4 years late...) that enrollments will keep rising.
OBVIOUSLY, the disrict screwed up by no offering attractive programs at these schools. That was a decision, not an oversight. It was going to be too expensive! More expensive than operating 4 schools at quarter capacity? I doubt that.
Also, if even 2 opened with language instruction/internatioal focus with plan to become immersion, I expect wait lists would be minimized throughout the system. It's not too late SPS! You can still change the programs...
In the long run, these schools will be great schools. It could have been in the short term, but instead, long term.
and Yes, all immersion/international programs shoud be option schools. Obviously, they are alternative.
An online petition has started regarding the district's move to change the 3/4 kindergarten to full day without any input from the teacher, parents or community. Please sign:
http://www.petitiononline.com/heindlk1/petition.html