Laserfiche WebLink
<br />15. <br /> <br />16. <br /> <br />-30- <br /> <br />continue its erroneous enrollment practices potentially harming my <br />son's enrollment prospects andotherRamsey kindergarten <br />enrollees by unfairly administering and lliniting the lottery as set <br />forth in M.S. 124.D. 10 Subd. 9(3). <br />My:first concern for administering the lottery (that I do not believe <br />the defendant will follow and should be ordered to follow until <br />further.legislative change in statutory language) would be that all <br />Ramsey kindergarten applicants are givenan equal chance forthe <br />.available36 kindergarten spots-equal to those pupils within 2 <br />miles of the charter school and greater than 5 miles from the next <br />public school, and those kindergarten pupils with older siblings <br />currently enrolled in the charter school that are from Ramsey. (The <br />"SIblings" are limited to those of Ranisey residents and are <br />discussed immediately below). <br />My second concern for administeri:ri.g the lottery (that I do not <br />believe the defendant will follow and'should be ordered to follow <br />until further legislative change. in statutory language) would be <br />dealing with the "sibling" preference as outlined in M.S. 124D. 10 . <br />Subd. .9(3). (Note that the "sibling" inequity is created onlyon the <br />assumption that Ramsey residents have preference under the <br />current statutory schemed in kindergarten and grades 6-12.) Some <br />background information is necessary. Based upon my discussions <br />with school administrator Daniel De Bruyn, clearly since 2004- the <br />charter school was deliberately interpreting the r:elevant statute at <br />issue (assuming there were more applications than spots) as giving <br />no'resident preference to Ramsey kindergarten residents or . <br />Ramseygrades 6-12 residents. The result was obviously a <br />prejudiceto all Ramseyresident applicants and an unwarranted <br />enrollment benefit to ail non Ramsey residents \vhich was the <br />. statedgoaI of Mr. De Bruyn. For example, a past erroneously <br />admitted non-resident kindergarten pupil (at the expense of a past <br />kindergarten Ramsey applicant) would have advanced grade levels <br />and would now have a kindergarten sibling. Is this kindergarten <br />"sibling" of an erroneously admitted non resident student on equal <br />preference status to those kindergarten Ramsey applicants? If yes, <br />the erroneously admitted older siblings with kindergarten <br />"siblings" are now lopped into pool of potential preferenceci pupils <br />so diluting the pool with the result of continuing prejudice to <br />Ramsey applicants. A more equitable result in my opinion to <br />(discussed in #12 above) deal with erroneously admitted siblings <br />wotiId be to leave the erroneously admitted students in-the <br />defen~t school that have already been admitted but no~ allow any <br />further benefit to the erroneously admitted student's kindergarten <br />siblings since this will avoid the perpetuation of the erroneous <br />enrollment policy.. My suggestion would al'so discontinue the <br />perpetuation of prejudice to Ramsey residents. My suggestion <br />. . <br /> <br />-167- <br />