AUSD Enrollment Policy Revision

Kindergarten Enrollment Process

August, 2007

In prior years, the District staff would establish an enrollment timeline for a series of events including including information nights, determination of Open Enrollment status for school sites and establishing enrollment dates for Kindergarten and other grades enrollement. Typically the Kindergarten enrollment was in early March, grades 1 to 5 was about one month later. In 2007, the dates were moved up to give parents better information on their child's enrollment status.

In February, 2007, the Alameda Sun wrote on article on Edison kindergarten enrollment process. In a Letter to the Editor, a Fernside resident voiced her opinion about the enrollment dilemma facing Alameda Unified School District. After receiving comments from the public during school board meetings, staff prepared a recommendation to change the Kindergarten enrollment process at June 26th Board meeting.

John Knox White covered the initial meeting on his blog Stop, Drop and Roll with an entry entitled: The yellow copy is for you, the pink copy goes to accouting, the blue copy is for our files, the grey copy….. Over the Summer, the Edison School Neighborhood Network worked on a flyer that was distrubuted in the Edison attendance zone. In addition, they circulated a petition, resulting in 173 signatures. As a result, Board members received numerous EMails. John Knox White followed his first blog entry with another one titled: Kindergarten Enrollment, take 2. Lauren Do's Blogging Bayport also posted an entry Portable Education.

At the August 14th Board of Education meeting, staff presented a recommendation to revise Kindergarten Enrollment process. 15 speakers spoke in opposition to the proposed revision that will replace the first come, first serve process with a random drawing whenever there are more applicants than spaces available.

The revised proposal was scheduled to be voted on at the August 28th meeting. The Board decided to delay making a decision to a later date in order for staff to provide more information on facilities and attendance boundaries changes.

The Alameda Sun prepared an article titled: Kindergarten Conundrum after the 8/14 BOE meeting as did the Alameda Journal with their article titled: Edison lottery plan placed on hold.

On August 21st, the Edison School Network Neighborhood met and developed an action plan of next steps.

In an August 31st Alameda Journal article, the Superintendent mentioned a report that will offer an "inventory" describing overall space in the district, including classrooms and offices.

In September the School District posted a communication titled Issues & Options: Enrollment on the District website encouraging individuals to send their comments. At the September 25th BOE meeting, the Superintendent presented information regarding a comprehensive planning process to address changing district demographics, enrollment imbalance between schools, inconsistency of high-quality education programs and long-term fiscal solvency. Local blogs Stop, Drop and Roll created an entry titled: Smells Like Teen Spirit and Blogging Bayport created an entry titled: Tipping the Imbalance. The Alameda Sun article and Alameda Journal article covered the announcement of the task force.

On October 9th, ESNN published a Area Survey that was a result of a a door-to-door survey of residences in the Edison School District, to sample the number of kindergarten students expected to enroll at Edison Elementary School in upcoming years. This report was sent to the Board of Education with this cover letter. In addiiton, ESNN published a copy of a letter sent to parents from the Edison principal requesting future student information.

On October 17, the District published a response to series of questions that the ESNN group has submitted to the Suprerintendent and Director of Student Services. On October 17, the editor of Blogging Bayport attended the Ruby Bridges/Paden Enrollment created an entry titled: Round Em Up Little Kiddies. Stop, Drop and Roll published an entry The Wall in anticipation of the first read at the October 23 BOE meeeting. Blogging Bayport published an entry; Lottery in June corn be heavy soon on October 23rd. The Alameda Journal published an article titled: School officials to discuss kindergarten lottery policy on October 23rd.

At the October 23 BOE meeting, there were 13 speakers with 10 speakers requesting that the staff recommendation not be adopted. One speaker presented the idea of an advance registration system that could be used. The idea involved allowing parents to register their child as early as birth and would set their enrollment priority at the time of registration. The Alameda Journal published an article: Lottery plan loses parents' support and the Alameda Sun published an article: Tough Choices for School Enrollment.

On November 9, the Alameda Journal published an editorial titled: Kindergartner lottery not ideal, but it's fair. On November 13, Blogging Bayport had an entry titled: Bubble Bubble Toil and Trouble. The Alameda Journal published an article titled: Officials set to vote on school lottery.

At the November 13 meeting the Board approved changing the Kindergarten Enrollment process. The next step in the process will be addressing the anticipated shortage of 230+ seats at elementary schools across the district in the next 5 years. The Board is expected to make initial decisions in February, 2008.

On November 14, Blogging Bayport had an entry titled: Baby Mama and Daddy Drama covering the side drama about news piece shown on the 11/8 Alameda Currents episode regarding the kindergarten enrollment issue. On November 16, the Alameda Journal covered the Board action with an article titled: Trustees approve kindergarten lottery and the Alameda Sun article was titled: Kindergarten Lottery Approved.

The discussion now shifts to the work of the two task forces charged with the responsibilitiies of developing recommendations to address capacity and program issues in the District.

On January 22, the District announced a community workshop on Recommendation of Elementary Capacity Task Force. On Monday, February 4, at 6:30 p.m., at Paden Elementary School , 444 Central Avenue , the Task Force will report to the community on the recommendation it will make to the superintendent. This workshop is an opportunity for parents, staff, and community to provide feedback on the Task Force's work prior to the Superintendent making her final recommendation to the Board of Education on February 12.

With the end of the two week enrollment period for 2008, Stop, Drop and Roll published a entry titled: You Got to Enroll with the Punches.

Proposed Change to Enrollment Administrative Reg 5116.1
Annotated Version of Kindergarten Roundup Process
AUSD Board Policies and Adminstrative Regulations Click Go and Enter: ALAMEDA for username and public for the password
2006 Demographic Study Prepared for AUSD, June, 2007 Revision
March 13th BOE Meeting Powerpoint from Demograhers
2006-07 School Attendance Zones (a very large 6MB file, does not load everytime, try twice or save the pdf to local hard drive and open there)
2005 AUSD Facilities Master Plan Capacity Numbers new capacity study being done in Fall, 2007
School Site Demographic Data
9/25 BOE Meeting - Superintendent's Powerpoint Presentation on Educational Excellence, Boundaries and Facilities
ESNN Questions for AUSD
AUSD Response to ESNN Questions
Edison School Neighborhood Network Area Survey (published 10/8/2007)
Notes/Suggestions from First Two Community Meetings
Notes/Suggestions from Last Two Community Meetings
Other District Practices of Kindergarten Enrollment 10/23/2007 BOE Meeting
Demographic Report Presented at November 13 BOE Meeting
Adopted Kindergarten Enrollment Process
Revised Timeline for Task Force Activity Issued by the District 12/5

I did a little searching for a district using this system and found that the Pleasanton Unified School District has been successfully using a similar system for years. They base priority for enrolling in any neighborhood school on enrollment date followed by earliest move-in date to the city of Pleasanton. Here is a link to the Pleasanton policy: http://www.pleasanton.k12.ca.us/pub/BoardPolicies/5000 /5190-REG.pdf

I think the system that Andy proposed is actually superior to the Pleasanton system in that it provides so much important data to the district. It also takes away the stressful uncertainty of a lottery or first-come/first-served policy. And it allows people to make informed decisions before moving into an area.

I hope you will consider this option and request district staff to explore this option further before any decision is made.

Edison Resident 10/23/2007

I was unable to attend tonight's meeting. I would like to offer my comments regarding the kindergarten roundup policy.

1. Please find a way to keep siblings of a family at the same school. There is absolutely no way to be an involved parent with children at multiple elementary schools. And logistically it would be impossible to drop and and pick up very young children, who cannot be left alone, at different schools that start at the same time.
2. Please consider boundary changes, including the buffer zone option. Though difficult, if the demand is truly there (and hard demographic data needs to be gathered to make this decision) it is the only way to preserve neighborhood schools where blocks of families attend together.
3. If a boundary change is not possible, please pass the early registration process.
4. Lastly, please do not cover the tiny Edison playground with portables. Change boundaries or use Island High to expand Edison or start a new school.

Edison Resident 10/23/2007

While I'm sure there will be a strong voice supporting the old system, I am writing to support the proposed changes to the enrollment policy. The lottery is the only fair method that affects all families in the same way. First come, first serve is not a reasonable process and discriminates against families who could not camp out in order to get a spot. Given the tight enrollment at Edison, it seems certain that boundary changes are the longer term solution, as painful as that will be for the community.

Alameda Resident 10/23/2007

Unfortunately, I'm unable to attend tonight's meeting, but I just wanted to voice full support for the staff recommended changes to the enrollment policy. I think the new policies reflect the district's commitment to not only keeping families and communities together but also bringing back a level of dignity and fairness to the public school enrollment process that our great school district deserves. I also feel that the staff's community meetings were an effective way to get more public input from the entire school district and not just from one well organized and vocal group from one area.

Edison Resident 10/23/2007

I am writing to express my family's deep concern over the possible change in enrollment practices being considered for Alameda Elementary schools, particularly, Edison Elementary.

We live within walking distance to Edison and are saddened by the thought that we may not be able to walk our young daughter to her neighborhood school when she begins kindergarten in Fall 2010.

As Alamedan's, we all pride ourselves in our deep sense of community, small-town values and commitment to family. In fact, this was a main driver in our purchasing a home in Alameda. A lottery system would contradict these values we all hold dear.

For our family, a lottery system would lead us to seriously consider moving out of Alameda. Over the last decade we have seen Alameda go from a cute "undiscovered" (if not a bit worn-down) town, to a charming little community of involved families, fun shopping and dining, cleaned-up streets, gorgeous homes and healthy economic growth -- all things we are proud to have witnessed. We are excited to be a part of a prosperous city growing in all the right directions. We fear a lottery system would drive many of us out of Alameda, which would not a a positive direction for the City of Alameda.

Please understand we are sympathetic to the difficulties the School District faces -- over-enrollment is a tough problem (on an island with no room to grow!) but it is an important decision that deserves careful thought. Our family urges you to work hard to find a solution other than the lottery system. Please keep our communities in tact!

Edison Resident 10/23/2007

As a new father, relatively new Alameda resident who moved for the schools among other reasons, and Board member of the Fersiders Homeowner's Association, I am comfortable saying that this decision is neither good for the school district or the Fernside in the long-term.

I know that I will not be leaving our daughter's education to chance and neither will other parents who have the option -- so the school district will be losing the revenue and involvement of many of those most capable to give of their time and resources. <\p>

Please listen to the xxx's and the other parents. <\p>

We are building a very nice community in the Fernside with all the new families with young children and it's sad to see the school becoming a dividing line as the school board rations it's services to the neighborhood. <\p>

Edison Resident 10/23/2007

I am deeply concerned about the lottery for kindergarten enrollment at over-enrolled schools. The lottery is a poor, short-term solution for a this problem. Children, families, and all Alamedans will all suffer from children not attending their neighborhood schools. Community will be lost, families already strapped for time will have to commute their children to school, Alameda streets will become more congested and polluted, and our property values will suffer as our neighborhoods will be less desirable for families.

Over-enrollment is projected to get worse in the coming years. Under the current lottery plan, my 3-year old daughter’s chances of enrolling at Edison will be slim and the thought of her not attending a school that she can walk to with our neighbors is discouraging to me. Alameda treasures its small-town atmosphere and neighborhood schools are often centers of the Alamedan communities. The Alameda School Board should consider it to be mission critical to find ways to increase capacity at the over-enrolled schools. I read in the paper that the school board “takes pride in having neighborhood schools.” It is not enough to simply make that statement.

Edison Resident 10/22/2007

We urge the Board to adopt a modified version of the staff recommendation to amend Enrollment Policy AR 5116.1. Alameda has committed to the goal of establishing its reputation as a green city. The need to redirect students from some neighborhood schools to other Alameda schools presents not only an issue for the school system and affected families, but an important environmental, traffic and quality of life issue. Requiring people who live across the street from the school – or a block or two away – to get into their cars and drive to another part of the city is not consistent with Alameda’s goal of becoming a green city.

o be consistent with green principles, the Board should include, perhaps after a priority for siblings, a priority for children living within two or three blocks of the school (or a quarter mile circle to make it truly uniform). Adopting a “likely to walk to school” priority would minimize an unfortunate by product of redirection: having people who wouldn’t otherwise be driving get into their cars to drive around the island during rush hour.

In addition, at least with respect to Edison, a “likely to walk to school” proximity priority for students living within a quarter mile of the school is likely to increase economic diversity and also may enhance racial and ethnic diversity.

We chose to live on Broadway (despite the traffic) because we take smart growth seriously, and we wanted to be able to walk to public transportation to get to work, walk to the market, and, most importantly, walk to our neighborhood school. When I raised this point at a meeting on October 15th, someone responded by saying that these are small neighborhood schools, and that everyone lives near the school. But it’s simply not true that proximity is immaterial. A person who lives even half a mile from the school is far less likely to walk young children to school and far more likely to get into a car in the morning to get their kids to school, and that is a significant difference.

Edison Resident 10/22/2007

Although my first choice is to send my child to our local Elementary school (Edison) the reality is that there is a possibility that there may not be enough room for her in the coming school year. In this case my child would be diverted to a nearby school (Ottis in our case) if there is enough room. Even then there is no guaranty that she would be allowed enrollment there either. And, if I choose to send my child to a private school she would loose priority to enroll in our neighborhood school the following year.

It is my recommendation that this policy be changed to allow parents to send their child to a private school without loosing their priority to enroll in their local school the following year or when space is available. Please understand that the decision to send my child to a any other school whether private or public is due to the lack of space in our local elementary school.

I would also like to convey my dismay with the Superintendent, that she did not relay this suggestion to you in her notes from the meeting with the community as my recommendation was well received by parents in the community.

Edison Parent 10/22/2007

I was one of the Edison parents who slept all night outside in the rain to get my kids enrolled in Kindergarten this year, and I'm glad I did it. The lottery proposal you're floating is not popular with the pre-K parents I've spoken with, and none of the people in this area are happy about the effect your decision will have on our property values.

I realize that moving kids to and fro like cattle, especially in a District that does not provide transportation, is the most convenient and lowest cost solution for the District. However, you need to understand very clearly that people have been paying over $900,000 for homes in the Fernside area specifically because of the Elementary School here. It would be unwise for you to shut their kids out of this school and force them elsewhere, especially as Otis School is also over-subscribed.

I should also point out that I'm fairly convinced that some of your demographic data are wrong. In the demographic presentation by Shelley Lapkoff, she predicts that the 615 Harbor Bay appartments will house only 44 children. I wrote asking her to explain how she predicts that 615 two to four -bedroom units will house just 44 children, because that makes no sense. I think she based that prediction on a quick look at 11 children in the 144 then-occupied units, and extrapolating. Even if only 1/3 of the units have 3 or 4 bedrooms, if they're occupied by families with just a single child, that's still 200 children.

Back to my point: We want Edison district kids to go to Edison. We understand that if we've got 65 kids for 60 spots, you need to divert 5 of them. And for those five, we favor the first-come, first-served method. HOWEVER, if we've got 75 kids, we expect the District to make a fourth classroom available. Edison is one of the oldest facilities in the District, with several portable classrooms, and it is deserving of capital expenditure and rennovation. The truth is, despite your constricted budgets, this end of town is delivering more property tax revenue, and that revenue is partly due to the existence of Edison School. I know one man who sold his home in San Franciscon and paid more than $1 million for a Fernside district home, because San Francisco has a lottery system. So yes, the lottery proposal will kill home values and cause yet more families to move. If you think increasing classroom size at Edison is a difficult financial move, well... you're forgetting that not increasing classroom size is also a bad financial move.

I realize that this is inconvenient, but your lottery program is not what the residents want. We didn't work hard all our lives to get a good job so our kids could go to school based on lottery. Tracey Jensen moved across town to Gibbons Drive so her kids could attend Edison. Would she have bought that house if she thought her kids' enrollment would be subject to lottery? Would you buy a house that subjected your kids to a lottery?

If you need political support to pass a bond measure, then ask us to help and we'll open up our checkbooks. But just as God doesn't play dice with the universe, please don't play dice with our childrens' education.

Edison Resident 10/18/2007

Please understand that the ideas being generated by the "Edison School Neighborhood Network" are those of a few parents. They do not represent me or my neighborhood. Most of these individuals don't have children currently enrolled in school. They also live a block from school (conveniently out of any buffer zones). I have two objections to what the Edison School Neighborhood Network is proposing.

One is the "Buffer Zones". I did not buy my house with "buffer zones". I live a block and a half from school but along the western border of the Edison district near Park Street. I want my children to go to school with their neighborhood friends. A buffer zone would mean that from year to year the children from my block could be diverted to different schools depending on beginning Kindergarten enrollment that year. I don’t see how their argument of keeping children in their neighborhood school can support diverting students at all, buffer zone or not. They are only thinking about their own street and children, not mine.

Secondly, it’s painfully obvious that they don’t have children in school yet by the suggestion that middle school start in 5th grade. Having children leave elementary school and start a whole new school in fifth grade is a very scary idea. I feel that sixth graders aren’t even ready for that transition in the current system and would prefer elementary schools be K-6.

I understand that the district is under pressure to realign enrollment for a variety of reasons. But I can guarantee a public outcry if the boundaries are changed, that goes for Elementary and Middle School. Please don’t let the so called Edison School Neighborhood Network fool you into believing they speak for the parents at Edison school. I know they misrepresented the districts proposal for new enrollment changes when they asked for signatures on their petition and they didn’t even canvas my neighborhood at all.

I believe the proposed district enrollment policy is fair and should be put in place for 2008-09 enrollment. Alowing parents to camp out is terrible. I also believe "buffer zones" are a smoke screen to try to ensure that this elitist group furthers their own goals of guaranteeing their own children enrollment. Please don’t consider this idea.

I would also like to know why these individuals were even at the Earhart and Bay Farm community meeting. Are they now trying to represent those schools as well?

Edison Resident 10/17/2007

I would like to state that the person (xxx xxxxx) that is the main speaker of a proposed "Buffer Zone" lives very close to Edison school so her property value would not be affected by any change to district lines.

The ESNN is a very small group that does not speak for the majority of my neighbors and friends.

I would like to know how this small group get their ideas published on the district website. A lot of the "solutions" they have come up with are not only ridiculous but inflamatory. At one meeting I sat in on, they suggested that renters should not be allowed to enroll at Edison school. They also suggested that there should be priority given based on when you bought your house.

They also canvas the Fernside neighborhoods and spread false information, such as a lottery would be city-wide and that the School Board is trying to "sneak through" changes in Kindergarten enrollment. This is all done in order to get their petitions signed.

I am very concerned that this elitist and entitled group is getting way more attention that they deserve.

Edison Resident 10/17/2007

I would like to thank you for taking the time to listen to community input on the kindergarten enrollment issue, both through these e-mails and the community meetings.

As the mother of two young children who hope to enroll in Edison in the coming years, I support sibling priority, but I do not support a lottery.

We moved to the East End of Alameda two years ago from Oakland, primarily because of the quality of the schools. We did not move to Berkeley specifically because it uses a lottery for school enrollment.

We decided to make the financial stretch to buy a home in an area with good public schools so we would not have to send our children to private school.

I believe there are three factors' driving my neighbors' opposition to a lottery.

• Educational quality
• Convenience
• Neighborhood cohesion

As a working mother, I would love the convenience of having my neighbors walk my children to and from school. And I believe a neighborhood school, with active parent involvement, creates cohesion both at the school and in the greater community.

But my biggest concern is educational quality. I chose to move to this area because Edison is an excellent school. Despite what was said Monday night at Otis, that all Alameda schools are good, you yourselves know they are not equal. There are other schools in the district I would consider sending my children to, but not all of them.

I understand there are concerns about the equity of first-come, first-served. I have also talked to two single mothers who have said they would rather find childcare for one night rather than have to drive their children across the island to school every day for their length of their elementary careers. I also don't think it is unfair to "reward" parents who are willing to go the extra mile for their children's education, even though I don't relish the prospect of "camping out" to enroll my child in kindergarten.

If you do enact a lottery, I hope it includes some provision for parent choice, such as allowing parents of diverted students to rank their choices of where they would like their children to attend, assuming space is available.

But if some of the projected numbers are correct, neither a lottery nor first-come, first-served is going to solve the underlying problem of too many students for the East End schools.

I am heartened that the superintendent has begun a process to address this problem.

It appears there could be at least 80 kindergarteners again this fall at Edison, and there is currently space for only 60.

I support adding portables so as many neighborhood children as possible, if not all of them, can attend Edison.

But if that proves unaffordable or otherwise infeasible, I think you have no choice but to shrink the Edison boundaries, even temporarily while we deal with this "bubble," if that's what it proves to be.

Diverting a quarter or more of the neighborhood's students seriously undermines the integrity and benefits of a neighborhood school.

I also support the idea of pre-registration when children are very young to help the district with its planning. At the very least, the district should be gathering information on younger siblings at kindergarten registration. (I don't think the ideas of early enrollment or priority for long-term residents are feasible or fair.)

Edison Resident 10/17/2007

I was glad to attend the October 15th meeting at Otis School for the discussion of the current and proposed enrollment policies as they pertain to Edison School . Although there was much discussion on these two options, I feel that there may be other more complex options to be explored.

In regards to the current kindergarten enrollment policy and the situation at Edison Elementary School, I feel that it is very important for community members to understand that if a group of parents arbitrarily decides to start a line for registration on a date other than the registration date, it no longer becomes a situation where every child has equal access to their local neighborhood school.

Instead, the first people in line will consist of those “in the know”. They will be families who live close to the school and can see from their kitchen windows that a line has started; they will be ones who happen to be walking by or are at school for other reasons; and the will be the lucky few who are called by their friends in line.

The families at the end of the line, however, will more likely be parents who were out of the loop. And they will be single-parent families, ESL families, and those who cannot leave their children for the night.

Even well-connected families, not having planned to spend “X” number of days in line, may find themselves caring for a sick child or on a business trip. It takes a certain amount of resources to be able to drop everything in your life to go stand in line for a day, two days or a week. Not every family has these resources.

This first-in-line system clearly does not treat all children in the neighborhood equally. And if it continues the school population will no longer reflect the diversity of the Edison neighborhood.

The other option presented by the district is that of a lottery. This option seems to be highly undesirable to many families in the Edison School district .

It appears that the “best” solution will be far more complex, involving layered or perhaps flexible district boundaries. If the hard work is done to set-up buffer zones of enrollment, it could be beneficial to the district as a whole. The system could be used whenever and wherever the district has over-enrollment at a given school. And by setting up flexible boundaries or zones, a student is assured that they attend their next closest school (the closest school for children on the west side of a zone will not be the same as for children on the east side). Parents too, can understand when they move into a neighborhood that a given home is within one of these buffer zones.

The larger immediate issue, of course, is not the handful of students that have been diverted in past years but the 20 – 60 students that may not be able to attend Edison in the next two or three enrollment cycles and for the years that follow. In the past, diverted students quickly returned to their home schools when space arose. This current enrollment bubble will be different. It is highly unlikely that two or three classes of students will be able to return to Edison . So, if diverted, it will most likely be for their entire elementary schooling. This represents a real loss to the Edison community and the students, and a hardship to the affected parents.

I think these children should be accommodated. I urge the district to add the facilities / portables needed to provide these children with an education at Edison from kindergarten through 5th grade. If the flexibility does not currently exist in the districting, then it will have to be at the school itself. Stagger lunches, recesses, and usage of the multi-purpose room. Hire new teachers. It can all be done. Perhaps the Edison PTA, who currently gives gifts to the school in excess of $50,000, would be willing to assist in significantly reducing some of these costs. It will be tight for a few years but you already have a very involved and energetic community motivated to preserve a rewarding experience for our children. At the same time, I urge a move to a more flexible district system, so that future bumps in enrollment can be accommodated.

Edison Parent 10/16/2007

I write this email in response to what I heard occurred at the meeting tonight at Otis school regarding the enrollment policies under consideration in the district.

Unfortunately, I could not be there for work reasons, as I am sure is the case with many parents in the district. I did, however, hear of some of the events that took place, and have been following the issue as closely as I can.

First, let me say that I don’t think that polling the meeting is an effective way to determine what the parents in Alameda want to see happen. There is obviously a vocal group of parents that are opposed to the lottery idea, and they were in force at the meeting I am sure. Notwithstanding that group’s opinion as to what counts as a parent’s commitment to their child, there are often good reasons why parents cannot attend a function like tonight, and for that matter participate in a marathon camp-out to enroll in school. Our votes/opinions are no less important.

So let me add mine, to get rid of the first come first served policy (policy is really a bad description – this last enrollment at Edison was more like a confused, unorganized free for all). I won’t bore you with more self evident statements about how unfair this “policy” is, but it is, and should be changed for that reason. This is public school, so the test as to who gets in to the neighborhood school doesn’t (or shouldn’t) depend on “how far you are willing to go for your kid,” even if that were truly tested by this flawed policy. Everyone has a right to go to school here, whether you own property, are a single parent, are disabled, mentally ill, whatever. In any event, I am sure we could all think of our own and much better tests of each other’s commitment to our families and our children's suitability to attend a particular school. Private schools have better ones, like interviews, essays, financial commitment, etc. But this is public school, so why are we thinking about it in these terms?

Aside from the inequity of this system, in my view, by continuing this non-policy the school district would be ducking its responsibility. Do you think that you can rely on the parents’ good judgment to just sort it out themselves come enrollment day (as it sounds like most parents want)? It’s too late this evening to write them down now, but I could tell you several anecdotes from last Edison enrollment which would disabuse you of that belief.

Also, please don’t be swayed from the sensible sibling policy. It is good for kids (siblings feel comfortable at the school they have seen their big sibling go to), good for the schools (parent involvement, teachers get to know families, etc.), and good for parents (I can’t imagine having to rush two kids off to two different schools – someone will be late, or left by themselves to wait in line). Aside from that, there are compelling safety reasons to have this policy – what if there is an earthquake, or other city wide emergency – one parent can’t be in two places at once. These are good reasons to have this policy, despite the fact that “only” children wouldn’t get the benefit of it. I also strongly support giving the children of teachers’ a preference. For all the talk of keeping neighborhoods and families together, I don’t understand not supporting a sibling and teacher preference.

Edison Parent 10/16/2007

Dear Mr. Forbes,

Thanks very much for taking the time to respond.

After attending last night's meeting at Otis Elementary, I am still concerned that the Board does not fully appreciate the number of students who will be diverted in 2009 and 2010 if nothing is done to increase capacity at Edison beyond 60 kindergartners. All of the examples offered at last night's meeting focused on "3 or 4" students being diverted from Edison. But from the data collected in the Edison Neighborhood survey, it looks like the class of 2009 may see more than 120 kindergarten applicants competing for 60 slots (with 45 of them siblings of currently-enrolled students). The class of 2010 might see close to 110 applicants competing for 60 slots (with 57 of them siblings of currently-enrolled students). If those numbers are accurate and remain constant, that would mean 110 students -- all non-siblings of currently enrolled students -- would need to be diverted from Edison school in 2009 and 2010. As you can imagine, the chance of an open spot at our next closest neighborhood schools will be slim to none. There is no way that any parent of a child not yet in the Edison school system to plan ahead.

I understand sibling priority is a hot issue, and it seemed that last night's meeting was stacked with parents of children already in the school system. But if the Board plans to implement a lottery system with a sibling priority -- which does nothing to guarantee that younger siblings of diverted children will be attend the same school -- the raw data shows there is nothing fair about it. In 2010, after the siblings are admitted, 50 non-siblings will be competing for the remaining 3 slots. If the Board is committed to a lottery, please seriously consider subjecting all applicants to a lottery the first year (the 2008 class), as Superintendent Dailey mentioned as a possible option, and then offering the sibling priority to future classes based on who won the 2008 lottery. At least then the playing field will be leveled, everyone will have to take their chances once, and if a child is lucky enough to win a lottery slot then he or she will win the priority for their family. No one can seriously argue that a lottery that treats everyone equally is unfair.

Please consider any solutions that will prevent dozens and dozens of children from attending their neighborhood school, whether that solution is A.M./P.M. kindergarten, adding more portables to Edison in the back near Lincoln, or even changing the boundaries. Quite frankly, I don't care which school my child attends in our general neighborhood so long as it is the same school as our neighbors and we are assured a kindergarten slot.

Edison Parent 10/16/2007

Superintendent Dailey and Mr. Dierking:

Thank you for your time, patience, and diplomacy last night at the Otis/Edison policy meeting.

I was very happy to hear that you seem committed to keeping as many children as humanly possible in their 'home' district, and I was delighted and relieved that changing the zone boundaries is no longer being considered. The District should exhaust every other avenue before considering that 'nuclear' option.

I was also pleased that 'first come first served' seemed to edge out the lottery idea, though perhaps some method of making that system more equitable is possible.

Edison is a success both because all of you at AUSD have done your jobs well, and because we as parents have done ours. This issue will affect both our children's futures and our property values (and thus retirements, college funds, and ability to support parcel taxes, etc.) for years to come.

Thank you again for soliciting our views and incorporating them into the District's plan. I look forward to the Board's next meetings on this important issue.

Edison Resident 10/11/2007

I am a parent of an almost 3-year old (xxx), living within the Edison school zone. Every morning, we watch from the window as 13 children on our "Christmas Tree Lane" block of Thompson Avenue walk to Edison School together. Five more children will join them over the next three years. Overcapacity issues must be addressed to ensure that all of the children on our street will be able to attend the same neighborhood school. A supposedly unbiased "lottery" that nevertheless prioritizes siblings of current Edison students is not the answer.

Of course, I am a biased parent. More than four years ago, we spent a fortune for a tiny old house simply so that our future children could attend school in this wonderful, community-based neighborhood. If the lottery and/or sibling priority plan are implemented, there is a very real chance that Ava and her future younger sibling(s) will not be able to attend the same school as her friends and neighbors. We will not be able to participate in community "walk-pools" or afterschool care within walking distance of school and home. We, like other working parents, will be at a substantial disadvantage to secure afterschool care because we will not know where Ava will be diverted until the very last minute. Our property values will decline because potential buyers will likely shun a home that fails to guarantee a spot in a neighborhood school. Frankly, we are holding off remodeling our home (and investing any more in our future in Alameda) until this issue is resolved and we have some assurance that Ava will be able to attend a neighborhood school. We hate to leave Alameda, but a lottery with a biased sibling priority plan may leave us no choice.

I have no idea why the Board has examined attendance boundaries for middle and high school, but refuses to examine them for elementary schools. But it's entirely clear as to why they want a sibling policy: it instantly quiets the parents of currently-enrolled children. More than one parent on my street has expressed their relief that "they're safe" because they already have at least one child enrolled at Edison. A sibling priority only protects the siblings of currently enrolled students. Those of us with children not yet in the school system are at great risk of being diverted to a variety of schools across town. Not only that, we are at risk of having younger siblings sent to schools different from the one(s) to which the older children will have been diverted. The Board's suggested policies only protect currently enrolled siblings and it is inherently unfair to parents with only one child, parents of children too far apart in age to take advantage of the priority, and parents with children who are not yet in the school system. Most important, such a policy does absolutely nothing to address what should be the goal of all Alameda schools: to have neighborhood children attend neighborhood schools.

My husband and I are strongly opposed to a lottery, and particularly a lottery that is entirely unfair because it does not treat children equally. At this point, the "first come, first served" policy at least grants all children an equal shot at attending a neighborhood school (if they are lucky enough to have parents able and willing to spend several nights camping out). But if overcapacity is addressed through re-districting or adding facility space, there will be no need for a lottery, a sibling priority, or overnight campouts.

I am happy to discuss this at any time, whether by phone or email. I plan to attend the October 15 meeting with the Superintendent, as well as the upcoming School Board meetings.

Edison Resident 10/10/2007

Last night, Janet Gibson inquired about how parents might share ideas across the various school meetings now taking place to discuss the District's K enrollment policy and capacity plans. Heather and I mentioned that the ESNN group of parents and community members had created a list of questions that were shared with David Dierking and Superintendent Ardella Dailey on Wednesday, 19 September. It was indeed our hope that the questions would help the District respond positively to the concerns folks have shared about K enrollment and capacity issues.

The questions were also posted at the ESNN website, which is accessible to all: http://groups.google.com/group/esnn/web/draft-of-questions-for-ausd .

If you have any questions, or can think of anything we might do to help clarify or facilitate ongoing discussion among parents, the District, and the community, please feel free to let us know. We also would like to express our appreciation for your time and sincere responses last night.

Edison Parent 10/3/2007

First of all - thank you so much for your great communication on this topic!!

• Am I correct in assuming that this meeting is to share the same ideas shared in June?
• Is the purpose to gauge reaction or to roll-out as finalized policy?
• Is the vote still likely to come back before the Board at end of October?
• Am I correct in assuming that if approved it would be the policy until the new task force came up with different solutions and received approval for them?
• Why would the District be in such a rush to implement change if the recommendations will be made in time to affect January Round Up?

Edison Parent 9/28/2007

I was among the group of parents with preschoolers within the Edison boundaries who attended Tuesday night's meeting.

We left confused as to whether the priority/lottery proposal will move forward on Oct. 23/Nov. 13, or if the issue is being rolled into the superintendent's larger planning process on enrollment and boundaries. (And if the latter, what that means for the January round-up for next fall's enrollment, since it appears Edison could once again be oversubscribed by at least a full class.)

I also understand that at a prior board meeting, board members had asked for information regarding the capacity at Edison and the possibility of adding portables. Did you ever get any information from staff? Tracy Jensen said something Tuesday along the lines of, "We know there isn't room for any more portables at Edison," but I don't know if staff reached that conclusion. We haven't seen any numbers.

I appreciate your emphasis on facilities and the need for possible expansion at Edison and other schools.

Edison Parent 9/28/2007

I am strongly opposed to any attempt to remove my street from the Edison/Lincoln/AHS School zones. I have lived in Alameda for 10 years and during this time have strived to purchase a home in the Edison School district . My wife two children and I have lived in cramped apartments and sacrificed penny by penny to save for a chance to provide our children with decent public education and safe diverse caring community.

We recently made this dream true come by purchasing a home at 2515 Eagle. The sacrifices that my wife and I have made to insure our children have paid off, and our oldest daughter has been attending Edison since Kindergarten. Next year my youngest daughter will be ready for Kindergarten in fall of 2008. Our block alone has three other young families who have recently moved to the neighborhood to insure our children can attend Edison School as well. The home and apartments that are on our street and neighbor-hood have been transformed through our hard work and investment in improving the area. Our effort is leading to revitalization, and is timed with the commercial development of the Nob Hill and Market Hall shopping complex. The result is a cleaner, safer, more attractive neighborhood that is increasing property values, property taxes, and sales tax revenues for city, county and public schools alike. This area which once lost it luster is brightened by fresh paint, active commerce, and the sound of kids playing on our quiet street.

Being in the Edison school district has provided the motivational engine that has fueled the families and property owners on our street to work hard and improve the area. You are gravely mistaken if you ever think you will be allowed to crush the dream we have all been working for by moving our children educational future out of Edison .

Furthermore I am willing to be an active partner in developing alternative solutions to the challenge of meeting the demand for Edison school, such as adding additional temporary structures to unused playground area, developing schedules that accommodate additional children, better utilizing current building space, developing a better system for enforcing the entrance criteria to reduce the number of children attending that do not in fact live in the district.

Please let me know if you have questions about my opinion or need help in developing solutions to the demand for Edison school.

Alameda High Parent 9/25/2007

I remember there was talk at one time about combining Alameda High with Encinal High onto one campus. Why not move the District office out of the old high school buidling and speed up the modernization to accomodate the 1,100 or so Encinal High students? Why keep two expensive campuses going? Very simplistic I know, but with the old high school renovated I would think there'd be plenty of space. Changing the borders isn't going to solve the high school enrollment problem. Even if you transfer 500 kids down there you are still left with a low enrollment on a large expensive campus. Combine to two high schools and call it a day. I'm sure you already know that you will lose large numbers of high school students to the private sector. I could give you a list of 75 families that I know will leave the public schools if forced down to Encinal.

Alameda Resident 9/24/2007

Is the BOE meeting open to the public? Where and when are the BOE meetings held? Thanks in advance for your help.

Editor Note:Meetings are held the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month in City Council Chambers - City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue. The meeting is recorded and broadcast live on AP&T and AT&T, Channel 15.

Edison Resident 9/24/2007

Thank you for being so forthcoming with all that is going on within the District. Do you have any idea of what the proposed boundary changes will be?

Edison Resident 9/20/2007

I reside at xxx Eagle Avenue and have become aware that there has been discussion to move the Edison School District boundaries in order to alleviate impacted enrollment at the elementary school. As a resident of the Edison School District who purchased my home 1 ½ years ago with the intention of starting a family, the school district boundary was instrumental both in my choice of my home and the value of my property when I offered a bid to the seller. Any attempt to change the school district boundaries will be publicly objected to by me and my neighbors.

I am interested in knowing more about what options are being considered to solve the problem of over enrollment at Edison Elementary and what the current state of affairs is at this time.

Edison Resident 9/12/2007

It is with great distress and interest that I am following the district’s discussion of how to address overenrollment issues in the Edison Elementary zone. I will join with other neighbors to vehimently oppose any re-zoning that would affect my home and my child’s future school placement as a 2009 Kindergartener. It is only one year ago that my family purchased this home for well above the price of comparable homes in other areas of the island, specifically to place our child in Edison’s boundaries.

Though I understand a difficult decision must be made, please be aware that my neighbors and I will do everything in our power to fight any re-zoning efforts. Re-zoning us to Haight Elementary would also affect our future middle school zone (shifting us from Lincoln to Wood) in an educationally detrimental and unacceptable way.

Please consider other problem solving solutions to the current overcrowding.

Edison Parent 9/12/2007

My neighbors and I will oppose any attempt to remove our street from the Edison/Lincoln/AHS school zones, should one be made. We will watch this issue carefully.

On our one block alone there are four new families with young children who hope and expect to go to Edison and Lincoln. All of us bought or rented our houses there specifically because we gain access to the excellent education available at Edison and Lincoln.

As the parent of an AUSD student, I will oppose any attempt to redraw our current school boundary. This issue affects not only our children's education but our property values as well, and we will be vocal should a change that impacts that be proposed.

AUSD Parent 8/28/2007

I strongly object to the idea of a school lottery in Alameda, as described in the Alameda Sun recently.

As the parent of an AUSD student, I oppose any attempt to institute a lottery and urge you to keep in place current school boundaries. Students need to go to the schools nearest their homes, where their friends and neighbors attend and where their parents are most willing and able to support school programs.

Edison Resident 8/21/2007

I am an Alameda resident and parent of two kids, my oldest is at Edison school currently. I have been following the recent discussions on changing the enrollment policies and procedures. I would like to express my endorsement of moving up sibling priority from 7th place to 3rd place.

My oldest child will soon start first grade and my youngest is scheduled to start next year. I have become very involved within the Edison community and look forward to the day when my younger daughter can start as a kindergartner. If sibling priority is moved up this will help ensure that my daughter will get a chance to finally attend the school she has become very familiar with, the school where she already has the support system of her sister and other friends, and the school where she can express the school pride she already has for the Edison Otters (she even knows the school song!).

On top of the reasons stated above, allowing siblings to have a priority at an elementary school allows parents to more easily coordinate drop-off and pick-up from school. For myself I am the sole care-giver and driver for my kids because my husband works long hours and so being able to drop-off/pick-up both kids at one location is much easier than trying to be two places at one time. I also think of single parents and how coordinating drop off/pick-up to two different elementary schools would be an extra burden on top of an already stressful life.

I thank you for your time reading this and also for your continual efforts to ensure the Alameda schools always provide an excellent education to all the students of our community.

Edison Resident 8/17/2007

Thanks for your continued efforts to update the now-very-interested parents in the Edison Network. I am not a parent, yet, but my wife and I are new residents and homeowners of Alameda. We hope to begin having children in the near future and the quality of schools in Alameda was the no.1 or no. 2 reason why we bought here. The other reason being proximity to SF where we both work.

First off - please excuse my ignorance, but I'm just getting to know Alameda - and BOE policies for that matter (no kids!).

I have a couple of questions/suggestions - I wanted to contact you directly about them first, but feel free to post this message on the google group if you think others would be interested.

1. Despite the current state of home loans, home prices in Alameda seem to continue rising; I assume that property taxes collected by Alameda are as well. I may be simplifying issues here, but shouldn't the City be kicking in more funds to accommodate the facility/enrollment needs?

2. Does Alameda or the school board conduct regular/annual surveys for continued determination of demand for kindergarten/elementary school spaces? Just an observation here, but there seems to be a demographic shift happening with older home owners retiring/passing on, etc and new home owners (like us) moving in. - forgive me, I haven't read the demographic report just yet. If there is a need, I can surely line you up with a few marketing research and polling colleagues of mine to assist, likely at a discounted rate if not pro-bono. I serve on the local board of the Northern California / Pacific Northwest chapter of the Marketing Research Association (www.ncpnwmra.org) and the SF American Marketing Association (www.sfama.org) . CfMC is in the marketing research industry as well, but it's our clients who do the work you would want to do.

3. Somewhat related - I have a quantitative background and prefer to use scientific indexing methods for decision making. Assuming a lottery stays in place, how about a weighted lottery whereby each registrant is indexed for priority. I'm thinking the index would consider the admission items and priority currently on the list (siblings, relocated, etc) as well as a block-vicinity score/ranking. The block-vicinity ranking would require creation of a secondary index of sorts whereby registrants on blocks that are closer to the school (or further away from other schools) receive higher rankings than others. E.g. I'm on Johnson Ave and Mound, my block-vicinity ranking would be 7, versus someone on Central and High who would receive a ranking of 6. I'm obviously simplifying, but I think you can catch the gist. Again, I'm not the person to be putting this in place, but I know a few people who could assist.

In any case - thank you for your consideration, response, patience, and support during these likely-stressful-for-you times.

Edison Resident 8/17/2007

I just saw the Alameda Sun Article dated 8-16-07 on Kindergarten Conundrum. I was surprised to hear that a petition was circulating in the Edison School District favoring adjusting boundaries as opposed to a lottery system. What surprised me is that and I did not receive a copy of the petition, especially since I live within the Edison school district (but on the edge of it). I'm concerned that the petition didn't arrive in the areas where the organizers figure will be outside the boundaries of their new school district. Has anyone suggested any specific streets that would form the boundaries for this new Edison School District?

I figure that I could guess where the new boundaries are proposed, by looking at where the petition was circulated. I'm sure that those who signed the petition would be against the boundaries if they knew that their own homes would fall outside of the boundaries.

Edison Resident 8/16/2007

Once again you win the prize for communication and I’m starting to think that information is the key to fairness. I hope that the board doesn’t make any quick decisions about the capacity and boundary issues in the elementary, middle and high schools for several reasons. First given the current mortgage situation you may have a slowdown of growth in home buying and unfortunately foreclosures which may decrease numbers. Second, if a change to enrollment at Edison takes place I think it should be accommodating the increased numbers with portables etc. There is a precedent for this as there was an issue in the recent past regarding over enrollment at Edison with upper grades. That is the least devastating choice to families who have already invested in homes in the Edison, Lincoln and Alameda High Districts. With mortgages harder to get, home values are going down also. If you add in lottery or district boundary changes you are hammering already hurting families. The timing couldn’t be worse.

As far as getting the enrollment numbers up at Wood and Chipman and down at Lincoln , I ‘m really not sure what middle schools will remain open given our budget crisis. How can you even think of changing boundaries when you don’t even know what schools will remain open? If you already know, I hope you will add that to the open forum that is taking place.

Bravo for the beautification of some of the schools. It really does matter what a school physically looks like. The students and families share a sense of pride and well being when a school is beautiful to look at. I think these kinds of improvements are under rated.

Edison Resident 8/15/2007

Alameda School Board,

You have the power in your hands to change kids lives
You have the power in your hands to change families lives
You have the power in your hands to over time change a community
You have the power in your hands to affect property values
You have the power in your hands...................

I am sure you are getting hit with plenty of feedback on your upcoming lottery vote. But I too must weigh in. While I realize no short-term solutions are perfect and sincerely hope you also begin working on the long-term solutions NOW. I implore you to not enact a lottery at Edison schools.

I'll admit my reasons are selfish. I am willing to do what it takes to ensure my kids get the best education I can afford. If I have to camp out for days I'll do it happily knowing at least I had a say in what happened to their future. This whole issue is painful for us (and I am sure many others have similar stories to tell). Two years ago my husband and I choose to move to the fernside district (from the west side) specifically to get to Edison. This came at great personal sacrifice in that we had to increase our mortgage (which is likely underwater now) to higher than we felt comfortable with but knew (at that time) with certainty that we could give our children a great public school education. Now if we lose our ability to go to Edison we don't have the funds to pay our mortgage on top a private school tuition.

We made a deliberate choice to move earlier than necessary so our kids could really grow up in the neighborhood where they would attend school. We live in a great neighborhood with lots of kids and great people. Yet now as we stand in wait of your decision - I feel frustrated. Will our choice turn out to be a mistake. Will my kids get in. Will I be able to give them what I moved to Fernside to give them. Will I be able to offer them an equal alternative?

Life holds no guarantees - but I suspect many of you are parents and know how critical it is to give your kids every opportunity possible (socially and academically).....please take the longer term view of this decision. People will think twice about moving in if this uncertainty exists. People will think twice about staying if this uncertainty exists. Over time the community will be changed if young families decide there aren't enough good schools in Alameda to raise a family here.

Alameda Resident 8/15/2007

Edison Resident 8/15/2007

My husband and I bought our first home a year ago and are new to Alameda. We have no extended family here and few friends, and were looking for a community that our kids can grow and thrive in. We know we have found it. Our neighborhood is full of kids and young families and we have been enjoying the warm reception by our fellow neighbors and Alamedans in general. We live across the street from Edison School.

My husband and I looked at many different neighborhoods across East Bay, but bought here for the above reasons. Of course Edison's excellent reputation was a huge draw for us, and we paid more for a smaller house to live within its boundaries. We have two sons, ages 4-1/2 and 3. We have been looking forward to when our eldest son can start Edison in the fall of 2008. We want to be a part of our immediate local community by utilizing our neighborhood school and being active participants in it. We would be extremely disappointed to have to send our kids elsewhere.

I attended the Board meeting last night and I was pleased at the Board's reception to the parent comments, and the conclusion that this issue needs to be researched further. For me personally, I would favor the chance to wait in line to enroll over the uncertainty of a lottery, as did most people who addressed your board. However I can understand the argument that a lottery is fundamentally more fair.

Overall I hope that serious thought is given to the possibility of expanding the school facilities with more portables. It is the only way to assure all the parents are appeased and to keep all the kids at their neighborhood school. I echo the sentiment that as homeowners we would be willing to contribute in any way we can to make this happen. We just want for our kids to be invested in our local community. We love it here and are looking forward to meeting and growing with other families in our neighborhood. I want to be able to see my kids playing at recess when I look out my window! Please give us that chance.

Edison Resident 8/15/2007

I was at the meeting last night.

After sitting through the entire discussion about the lottery, I think the thing that impressed me the most was the lack of communication and outreach for this item. Sorry you were short of staff this Summer but I believe the law says there is a 72 hour posting regulation and that it must be stated in language that the public can understand. Because these two mandates were not followed, I think the people felt there was the intention to "slip this by". I found out about this meeting and the agenda through a neighbor who heard from a friend who overheard a conversation about this. You addressed this and denied the intention to sneak it through. Thank you.

I also did not know that another k-class was added to Edison and Otis. How do I find out about these developments? What will happen to these students, and the schools, when they reach 1st and 2nd grades?

The second issue was the idea of a lottery to solve too many students (the few, 1-3?) for the Edison and Otis schools. In G-8 it is clear that this was proposed to only apply to Kindergarten. But what happens when my children graduate from Edison and are eligible to attend Lincoln Middle School? Are they then subject to a lottery? I think that parents saw this as a beginning to an unsuitable solution to the need for more facilities for East Alameda. Aside from the lottery, I saw proposed the solutions to be; redistricting or more facilities. Are there any other solutions? We look to you as our leaders to seek good solutions and inform us and ask for our input to make decisions that benefit our schools and the community.

I learned a lot at the meeting and plan to attend more whenever I can. I too have to make arrangements for my children so I can represent them in the Alameda School community. We are lucky to be a two parent family but I believe that I would find a way to be present for the important issues in my children's' lives regardless of my family or work status.

There was the idea presented that parents would choose ( those that could) to place their children in private school rather than face uncertainty of enrollment. A bigger issue to ponder is what happens to an economy when there is uncertainty. People do not want to buy, plan or invest when they are uncertain. This I think would be a big impact on our community. We need to work to assure the people that there will be a place for their children in the community where they live. We, Alameda, are a unique area in this large east bay and SF community. I would like us to keep that which allows us to be nurturing and special.

I believe the point was made by our solidarity and response last night that community schools are valued. Our strenght to come together, as well as the educational community, is what makes Edison a great school.

I thank you for delaying this most important decision to allow for more information. We all make better decisions when we are well informed.

Edison Resident, Prepared Remarks Delivered at BOE Meeting 8/14/2007

Alameda Unified School District is facing a major crisis that threatens the very fabric of our neighborhoods and why families choose to live in Alameda. The historic school boundaries and school facilities are out dated and no longer meet the needs of our community. Without a realignment to attendance boundaries our children may not be able to attend their neighborhood school. While there have been hints of this problem in the past, the issue became resoundingly clear when earlier this year parents camped out overnight to ensure their child’s enrollment in Edison School.

In March the Board reviewed a demographic report that concluded there is a shortage of space in the elementary schools East of Park on the Main Island and raised concerns about Alameda High and Lincoln Middle School. The report further stated that there is a mismatch between where students live and where facilities are located and that this situation is likely to worsen, as the East End is the one area that is likely to experience enrollment growth. The report clearly recommends that the District realign attendance boundaries, increase facilities, or provide incentives for residents to enroll elsewhere. The report suggested starting this process early in the school year to allow plenty of time to implement changes before the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year.

Why, after spending between sixty to ninety thousand dollars for this study, are we putting aside its recommendations that recognizes the Districts outdated boundaries and provides solutions? Why are we ignoring the experts and substituting a band-aid solution that doesn’t get to the heart of the matter and wastes precious time for the next school year?

While the proposed revision to enrollment procedures may be well intended, it is sadly misdirected because it postpones the unpleasant inevitability that the District’s boundaries need to be adjusted. The School Board needs to make the tough decision and direct staff to hire a consultant to follow through on the demographic consultant’s recommendations.

I recognize this is a controversial solution that will affect the existing students and their families as well as future students and families, but it is the proper, long-term and effective solution.

In reading the staff report, I am also concerned that the enrollment procedure does not identify any criteria to determine when provisionally enrolled students will be placed in a class or moved to another school. Who will make this decision? On what basis?

I am also concerned with the recommendation to give siblings top priority in over-enrolled schools. While well-intended, is unfair and overlooks the real issue. Should siblings be able to attend the same schools? Ideally … yes! But the way to ensure this is not to provide an unfair, first in advantage, it’s to realign attendance boundaries. If the school district boundary were redrawn, all students residing in the school attendance area, including their siblings, would be able attend their neighborhood school.

The District should also consider creating special programs that would draw students from across the island. A Spanish Immersion Program or a Science and Technology School in the centrally located, under enrolled schools may provide an incentive for some parents in a densely populated attendance zone to enroll in another school, at their option. In a district where I taught, a similar program was so popular that parents lined up each year to enroll their children into a school that offered an educational alternative to the traditional neighborhood school.

I would also like to address the lack of notification provided on this major issue that impacts all families with young children on the East End of Alameda. The staff report was unavailable until yesterday afternoon and this hearing is being held at the peak vacation time for families. This does not provide for the oopen, transparent public decision making , and There has been very little time for the public to educate ourselves on the issues surrounding the attendance lottery process and thoroughly understand staff’s recommendations. No time has been allowed for the community to weigh the implications on neighborhood schools, property values and loss of state funding when families choose to send their children to private schools. The community should have more time to understand the issues and provide alternative solutions to the Board for consideration.

As elected officials, I respectfully request that you make the tough decision and not move forward with staff’s recommendation which disregards a highly paid consultant’s advice, ignores the real issue plaguing the District, and provides an inadequate solution. Let’s not waste time with an ineffective, albeit well-intended proposal. We need to develop a long-term solution that includes innovative ideas such as creating special programs at under enrolled schools to address the mismatch between where students live and where facilities are located. We need to realign the school attendance areas and provide facilities that will accommodate the incoming population of students in the East of Park attendance area. The time to act is now! Let’s get to the difficult task ahead of us.

Edison Resident 8/14/2007

I am very sad to hear that you feel it is okay to go ahead with installing a lottery system for the schools of Alameda without the consent of the parents who work so hard to have good schools for their children.

What is your source and motivation for trying to push through this kind of change? Who thinks this is a good idea? Not the parents of Alameda I can assure you. Are you not supposed to be our representatives? Perhaps you no longer wish to serve us?

I understand that there is a real concern for the number of students in the neighborhoods for the school facilities available. I was told that the over crowding and lottery were two different issues. Then let's treat them as two separate issues. What are other possibilities for solving the problem of so many people wanting and being eligible for the schools?

There are many reasons why the lottery is a bad idea. The reason we moved here from the East Bay was because of the schools. I know there will be a lot of people dissolusioned and unwilling the accept the uncertainty of a lottery system for their children. We will loose these vaulable people, who volunteer and spend so much of their time to ensure their children have a great educational experience, to private schools. I could go on and on and I probably will in the future. But I want to get this to before the meeting tonight to voice my opposition to such a damaging and hurried solution to a problem we all need to work together to solve.

Edison Resident 8/14/2007

I am a 4 year resident of Alameda and recently learned about the Edison School vote being conducted this evening about the enactment of a lottery system.

I would like to strongly encourage a NO vote and ask that the school district consider the following:

• Effectively survey the demands for Edison School for current students and students for the upcoming 5 years to allow for effective planning
• Adjust the existing borders of the elementary schools— while Edison remains at maximum capacity, other schools in the Island are under- attendance
• Add classrooms, teachers and resources for over enrollment problems

Thank you for your consideration—and I appreciate your support. If you are in need of local citizens to help research or play a more active role in resolving this issue, I would be happy to help.

Edison Parent 8/14/2007

As one of the many who camped out at Edison in January (#3 in line!), I feel that a more equitable solution to the problem is a lottery. I happened to be third in line because I live close to the school and saw a line forming. Others were quick to join if they were well-connected in the Edison social network. This left many out in the cold, literally, if they did not have either community roots or the ability to sleep overnight on the pavement. This rationale is clearly unfair. A more equitable solution is to lottery the available slots to Edison-area kids.

However, lacking some sort of enrollment cap, a secondary problem exists which is limited space. Edison will temporarily “solve” the problem this year by repurposing an existing portable classroom. If the school’s enrollment continues to surge next year, the site has limited capacity for additional portable classrooms and playground space. The District is likely to face lawsuits from parents if overcrowding is not foreseen and addressed. Clearly therefore, and in concert with a lottery, the School Board should establish an enrollment cap.

Ultimately and sadly, there may be no way to avoid denying some Edison-area kids from attending Edison School. However, the rules to determine who, and how many, get in to the school should be logical and impartial and the existing scheme is more akin to an endurance competition on “Survivor.” The tribe has spoken: establish a lottery and an enrollment cap.

Edison Resident 8/14/2007

I received a very disturbing notice regarding the possibility of a lottery to decide where a child will go to school. I had thought that since my son was born this April I would have a few years to adjust to motherhood and would not have to get involved in school politics for at least another 4 years. Apparently I was wrong.

I was born and raised in Alameda and have strong ties to the community. I also went to Edison School and have fond memories of my time spent there and was looking forward to sharing these memories/experiences with my son when he started school. The friends I made there continued on with me through middle school (Lincoln) and on to high school (Alameda High). As Edison is just 2 blocks from my house why should I have to even consider the possibility of taking my son to another school? This would be terribly inconvenient and time consuming as I am a single mother. I know for a fact that people who live outside of the Edison school district are putting their children in this school. I think that the Board should focus their energy on making sure the children of Alameda attend the schools that are closest to their homes. This is Alameda for goodness sake how bad can the other schools possibly be? If they are that much worse wouldn't it make sense to bring them up to Edison's standards? Maybe you need to do a marketing campaign letting residents know that all of the schools are competent and if they aren't fix the problem.

I spent 5 years in South Carolina and if I would have had a child there I would have put him/her in a private school so that they would have received a good education. When I moved back to Alameda the thought of a private school had never even entered into my thought process until now. The next closest school to my home would be St. Philip Neri which I am now going to give some serious thought to.

Edison Parent 8/14/2007

I was one of the parents who camped out overnight to register my daughter in Edison School this year. I also have a two year old son who will be attending Edison in three years.

Ideally, I think there should a policy in place to prioritize siblings of children already enrolled in Edison. It seems unrealistic that parents should face the prospect of taking their children to two separate elementary schools. Please let me know if any such policy exists or is being considered.

I also understand that a lottery is being considered to manage registration for Edison School. I strongly oppose such a change. I believe capacity should be expanded to accommodate the growing population of young families on the east end of Alameda. In lieu of that, I believe the current "first come, first served" system is the best option. This at least provides some degree of control to parents. If they are motivated to sacrifice some sleep and comfort for their children, then they have the ability to increase their odds of acceptance. My wife and I moved out of San Francisco to avoid the lottery system. It would be very disappointing to have such a system put in place here.

I appreciate you consideration of my positions and would appreciate any information and status that you can provide regarding these two items.

Edison Resident 8/14/2007

We moved to Alameda two years ago with the intention of enrolling our son in kindergarten at Edison in 2009. We live two blocks away from the school on Yosemite. It is now my understanding that staff has proposed a ‘lottery’ system for enrollment in response to what happened earlier this year with parents waiting overnight to enroll their children. Though I applaud your response in asking them to clarify the proposed ‘lottery’ system further before taking any formal action, I would urge you to truly gauge the affect that a potential lottery system would have on the neighborhood, the district and the city of Alameda.

Edison Resident 8/13/2007

Unfortunately, I am unable to make the BOE meeting this evening due to family obligations, but please consider this letter as my vehement objection to the adoption of a lottery system for Edison enrollment. As many other parents have mentioned, I urge you to consider a re-calculation of the school’s boundaries (as was recommended in the demographic study for the middle and upper schools) to address the issue of over-enrollment.

Edison Resident 8/13/2007

As a properly owner living in the Edison School District, I strongly object to any and all attempts to make Edison School student attendance being determined by a "lottery". We take pride in saying that our children all attended Edison School. Parents living within Edison School District boundaries should have priority attendance without exception.

Is it true that some employees working in Alameda, but actually residing in surrounding communities, are given special privileges that allow their children to enroll in Alameda schools (e.g. Edison)? If true, this preferential treatment should be eliminated immediately!

Why do test scores vary so greatly across the island? All Alameda schools should meet the same educational standards desired by parents hoping to win the Edison lottery. When all schools reach the desired standard, there will be no need for a lottery! Vote No!

Expanding classrooms should be a top consideration. Many years ago, Kindergarten classes were both AM and PM. This allowed older kindergarten students to attend PM classes, while younger students attended AM classes. A simple solution for the present kindergarten problem.

It is my sincere hope that you will vote "NO" to this outrageous proposal.

Edison Resident 8/13/2007

I would urge that you not introduce a lottery system for attendance at Edison School. Children who play together on their streets, whose parents socialize on those same streets, who walk together to school should nor be made to separate when school time comes. Because the school board cannot make the tough decisions to limit school attendance by adjusting school boundaries on those same streets the students need not pay the price. Special attendance permits should be eliminated to make room for district students. Classrooms should be added if necessary at Edison. Efforts should be made to make other schools as attractive as Edison to avoid the overcrowding at Edison. The students should not have to make the sacrifices forced on them by overcrowding and poor planning on the boards part.

I am not a parent of children in the schools but watch the children in our neighborhood growing in a wholesome environment that is centered around a neighborhood school.

Edison Resident 8/12/2007

It was with extreme concern that I read a letter from my neighbor telling me that the Alameda School Board may make attendance at Edison School subject to a lottery. Both my children went to Edison and were able to WALK to school. As a working/commuting parent, it would have been a great hardship to have had to send them to another school. I am strongly against a lottery system. Why don't you just change the border of the Edison district as has been done in the past?

Edison Resident 8/11/2007

I am writing to ask that you do not approve at lottery system for Edison Elementary School. There are many reasons, all of which I'm sure you are aware.

A lottery would prevent our children from attending their neighborhood school. We moved to the Fernside in order to have our 2 children attend Edison (they are 3yrs and 6mos) - we did not move here to have a 'chance' to go to Edison. Changing the system now feels like a 'bait and switch'.

A lottery system would add the burden of driving my children to school rather than walking them to/from school. I'm sure many other parents would be in this same situation, thus adding congestion to the city streets.

Instead of instilling a lottery, please effectively survey the demands for Edison -- how do you know we are here and have 2 children who plan on attending (other than mention in this email)? What is your method for knowing accurately the demand? Future enrollment needs to be surveyed so that a long-term plan can be well thought out and supported by the community.

I'm sure that you are concerned about class sizes and that is probably one of the main reasons for your move towards a lottery. I am concerned about class size too. Please add more classrooms and teachers so that a lottery-based enrollment is not necessary.

Although my family cannot be at the meeting on Tuesday night, we would like for you to hear us in our plea to the Board NOT to go forward with a lottery to decide who gets into Edison.

Edison Parent 8/11/2007

We are writing as concerned parents in regards to lottery scheme that may be employed for the Edison School District. This proposal is causing enough concern amongst residents of the community that we have formed a new group, The Fernside District Neighborhood Network.

We understand that you will be voting on the implementation of a lottery scheme in the coming weeks. We are urging you to delay any action until a more comprehensive study of the proposed changes have been evaluated. As a group we would like for you to consider the following:

Carefully Evaluate and Conduct a Comprehensive Demographic Study
The study from Lapkoff and Gobalet Demographic Research of March 12, 2007 is a start; however, it’s not nearly comprehensive enough because a survey was not taken of local residents to determine the actual number of children who will be entering into the system over the next five years. Additionally, the research group, on page 46, even suggests that “additional study would help us reach a conclusion about this [enrollment forecasts]. A five year demographic study would take a few months to complete; however, it would help all of us make decisions based on sound findings.

Important Decisions Necessitate Community Involvement
The decision before you impacts many of your constituents in the community. Edison school ranks highly because parents are involved with the teachers and administration. The decisions ahead may not be easy due to physical limitations of our facilities; however, we urge you to make these tough choices in consultation and dialog with those of us most impacted. We suspect that working together we can come up with solutions that can enhance the enrollment process and be equitable for all stakeholders.

Consider the Financial Implications of the Lottery System
Many of us paid a premium to be in the Edison school district so that our children could be afforded the best possible public education. The premium that current and future residents place on the school system has a direct impact on our property values. Secondly, we don’t want to take chances on our children’s education. We suspect that many of us would simply opt out of the public education system and enroll our children in private schools if our children are unable to attend Edison. Since many of us have multiple children this could have an impact on ACUSD enrollments. Let’s work together to maximize enrollments to insure that ACUSD can optimize its student funding.

Thank you for your consideration. We sincerely hope that you will decide to delay any action until this important issue is more thoroughly researched. We look forward to seeing you at the next board meeting.

Edison Parent 8/11/2007

I do not want to have a lottery system for Edison school!

I believe that this not the answer to what may be a temporary problem.

Edison Parent 8/1/2007

We are parents of two children, ages 2 and 4, living two blocks from Edison school. Before we share a concern and request for your help, we want to say how much we appreciate your website, and the obvious time and effort you have taken to keep folks informed. To access board meeting information, demographic reports, and other district information has been extremely useful. Thanks so much for all of that!

Our issue is with the District's proposed Kindergarten Enrollment Roundup process. We are expecting our older son, Jonathon, to go to Edison for Kindergarten in 2008, but heard recently from friends that the District has decided to use a lottery process to establish enrollment in Edison’s 2008 Kindergarten class (after giving preferential for siblings). That news really has caused us, and many in our neighborhood, great concern, as you can imagine.

We read the demographic report and recommendations from Lapkoff and Gobelet available on your website, and the text of AR 5116.1, which appears to have been approved on 6/26 of this year. It certainly seems as though revising the school service area boundaries might be a better long-term solution than relying upon chance, and creating great uproar and disatisfaction across the area.

I wonder if not a prudent step to take immediately might be to really understand the scope of the 2008 enrollment problem for Edison, and Otis - rather than wait until January for a signup, and then notify parents of affected students in May? Are we looking at a problem that amounts to 5 children? 25? Or possibly more even more?

On our street alone - Johnson Ave - there are at least 3 families with their oldest children expecting to attend Edison in 2008, and none of us have ever seen a survey, or participated in a study, to establish enrollment expectations. (On our street, we have 11 children already attending Edison, and 5 more will get sibling preference under the board policy for enrollment at Edison in the next two years. So the demographic report's projections of continued increase in demand for Edison are certainly borne out locally.)

We have heard the board policy is just a proposal. And we have also heard it is a "done deal". It certainly seems as though the idea needs much more discussion and consideration.

Would you be able to share your thoughts on this issue with us?

If there is something we might do to help you, more information you might need, or assistance we could provide by participating in a survey or action group, please let