Changes to prevent sitting on charter spots THIS YEAR?? Maybe!

[Anonymous]

They are allowed to 1) flag the names and grades of students enrolled at more than one school; and 2) flag the names and grades of students enrolled at one school at wait-listed within reason at others; and 3) share the names and grades with the affected schools (only). This does not provide personal information above and beyond what is necessary for schools to plan their budgets realistically (which is pegged to enrollment) and to prevent parents from literally gaming this system in a way that prejudices other families. I say BRAVO!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster said the the PCSB would be sharing information on families who had accepted at multiple schools. So, don't accept at multiple schools and your information should be kept within PCSB and the schools to which you applied.

But to discover that a family has accepted at two schools ALL the charters have to compare/share note and information.

Yes, to get everyone who accepts at 2+. But for the most popular charters, if even just they do this, that will go a loooong way to moving the lists if people have to commit to one and let the other go.

This final choice will happen eventually, it has to unless you clone your kid. Better for it to happen early in the season than the first week of school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just completed an enrollment packet today and it asked for my child's SS#. I absolutely do not want that shared with unknown people or schools I would never consider.

What makes you think they would use SSNs? Several schools already use first name last initial and birthday on their wait lists, which seems to be enough to distinguish between people.

[Anonymous]

If the Charter Board is going to do this, which is a great improvement, the should be proactive to announce this and be specific about what information will be shared to accomplish this task. Transparency keeps everyone happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the Charter Board is going to do this, which is a great improvement, the should be proactive to announce this and be specific about what information will be shared to accomplish this task. Transparency keeps everyone happy.

Maybe they're still working out the process? Isn't this the 1st this has been floated here? It's important that official communications be thoroughly thought out - they'll no doubt announce the details when the details are final.

[Anonymous]

http://www.latinpcs.org/apply-enroll/newly-admitted-students.html

This form on the Washington Latin website seems to be a part of the duplicate enrollment prevention process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.latinpcs.org/apply-enroll/newly-admitted-students.html

This form on the Washington Latin website seems to be a part of the duplicate enrollment prevention process.

I can't open it right now but if it's basically like a PP said CM is doing which asks you if you've accepted anywhere else and asking you to notify the other school, that's progress!

[Anonymous]

Perhaps this is a stupid question but what advantage does one have for sitting on multiple spots at the same time? They have to make a decision eventually. Is it just that they want to take as long as possible to decide?

[Anonymous]

MV required the same 'no duplicate enrollment' form.

[Anonymous]

I'll give you a real life example. My kid is at Brent, but accepted to both LAtin and BASIS. We think Latin is what we want-- but Latin is moving to a renovated building over the summer-- what if there is a terrible fire during renovation and Latin is left without a home? It may be nice to change course and go with BASIS instead, especially if the in-boundry school has also had some disaster that affects the 5th grade next year. It is nice to keep BASIS in the back pocket.

However, we are not actually going to do this. Assuming the shadow say at Latin goes well we will immediately inform BASIS that we are out. OTOH, this is made easier by the fact that BASIS doesn't have a waitlist (currently) for 5th grade, so I feel pretty confident that even if disaster strikes both Brent and Latin, we will be able to still get into BASIS.

Just giving you a glimpse into the mindset-- not agreeing with it. I think going through the list of admits and nudging the duplicates to sh** or get off the pot is a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Just because a parent accepts a spot at one school does not mean that they wouldn't be willing to give up that spot for another. You can't expect everyone to hold on for their number and not register anywhere. Just like you can't excpect parents to not take their number 5 choice in fear that if they do they will be bumped off of other WL. Its a catch 22. No one wants someone holding on to multiple spots.

[Anonymous]

Last summer (2012) I held a spot at two charter schools, my son's current and the one he ended up at, for about 10 weeks.

Partly, I did it because I could at no cost. Partly, I was leaning towards the new school and the language immersion charter wasn't going to fill the slot given school policies. so, what I did was delay informing the old school that he would be leaving.

But, I could have changed my mind and left the new school going to the WL in late August.

We did get an e-mail from the PCSB in mid-August, they had flagged the duplicate enrollment. This year, filling out that required form, I would have needed to either lie (which I wouldn't do) or let the old school know sooner.

[Anonymous]

Will this mean that kids can only hold ONE publicly funded spot? (which would be a great idea IMHO). I can see how this would work within the charter system but some parents also hold OOB spots at DCPS schools and spots at Charter schools and I can not see who benefits from that. I know that you can only hold one OOB place but it seems you can hold an OOB place and a charter place at the same time. Holding multiple public funded seats is in no-one’s interest except the procrastinating parent. I do not see why all schools should be held to ransom by the fact that some parents want to have multiple place holders across town. Does anyone know if there will be a limit on holding an OOB spot AND a charter seat?

[Anonymous]

I'm the one who posed the question about privacy, and I'm not trying to say people should be entitled to double-enroll their kids or anything goofy. Just wondering HOW they're doing this without breaking the law unless - as some of you have noted - by getting written consent, individually. And the reason why I thought of this was remembering what was in LAMB's application form, viz.,

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), a Federal law, requires that LAMB PCS, with certain exceptions, obtain your
written consent prior to the disclosure of personally identifiable information from your child’s education records. However, LAMB PCS
may disclose appropriately designated “directory information” without written consent, unless you have advised the LEA to the
contrary in accordance with LEA’s procedures. The primary purpose of directory information is to allow the LAMB PCS to include this
type of information from your child’s education records in certain school publications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will this mean that kids can only hold ONE publicly funded spot? (which would be a great idea IMHO). I can see how this would work within the charter system but some parents also hold OOB spots at DCPS schools and spots at Charter schools and I can not see who benefits from that. I know that you can only hold one OOB place but it seems you can hold an OOB place and a charter place at the same time. Holding multiple public funded seats is in no-one’s interest except the procrastinating parent. I do not see why all schools should be held to ransom by the fact that some parents want to have multiple place holders across town. Does anyone know if there will be a limit on holding an OOB spot AND a charter seat?

There is currently not a mechanism to link enrollment between DCPS and PCSB schools. A huge database project "SLED" was supposed to happen, spent millions on, and never worked out, which would have provided a data link.