So the conversation about enrollment is such BS. Let's look at the changes that have been made to increase funding. How many additional students between the age of 18 and 21 have been added since the Great Kids fiasco has gone on? What about the new Pre-K programs, are those included?

I'd love to see the state investigate the false enrollment numbers that BCPSS is pushing.

Two things - #1 the growth in enrollment in BCPSS parallels the economic decline and the closure of so many Catholic schools in Baltimore city.

#2 - the last report issued by the data Dr, before he "retired' states that charters did not have a measureable impact on bringing new students into the system.

To complete this story one must first determine which schools grew because as detailed in a prior article some are shrinking.

Unscientific poll at a local dance class studio found several middle class city parents of preschool age children talking about good public charter schools and traditional schools in the area. They were envied by parents present from Baltimore county because the city parents were considering more choices than the county parents. Cannot imagine this conversation 5 years ago.

I believe the bump in City Schools enrollment over the past three years has been due to the inclusion of Pre-K students who had previously not been included in the City's count. Can anyone confirm this?

Everyone should know that pre-K has ALWAYS been included in total system enrollment numbers, and thus, enrollment gains the past three years are comparing apples to apples. See the data here: http://mdreportcard.org/StatDisplay.aspx?PV=34::30:AAAA:2:N:6:13:1:2:1:1:1:1:3

See a description of the definition of enrollment here: http://mdreportcard.org/smdef/definitions.aspx?WDATA=def&inc=enrollment

The enrollment increase started before the Catholic schools closed.

Are we so biased that we can't even accept the possibility that city schools are improving? We're nowhere near perfect, but accept it: families are choosing Baltimore and its schools because they know what's happening here.

@Simon

There were limited Pre-K seats and a huge wait list. You still validate the previous point, PRE K is driving much of the increase, because they created more seats.

@Campbell

Are City schools a bit better? Yes. Is it driving people to be live in Baltimore? I highly doubt it.

@Check

Yes, you're correct that pre-k has shown the highest growth, but it should also be noted that it's been growing each year since 2006. Also, Kindergarten and elementary enrollments numbers have each grown each year since 2007 and high school enrollment has grown each year since 2008.

I'm with Check's doubts on this one. Good things are happening at some city schools. They aren't at others. I hope all the parents do their research about the individual BCPS schools before they enroll their children.

Alonso's comments fail to make sense, as usual. He's right that enrollment turned around and stated moving back up in 2008, but that had nothing to do with improvements under his watch. Remember, he only started in 2007, and even if people like him and had high hopes, it's not like they said, "Gosh, the savior of the school system has finally arrived, I think I'll radically change my plans." Lots of stuff he takes credit for -- charters, choice, improving test scores, rising grad rates -- started before he showed up on the scene. If improvements in City Schools had anything to do with the turnaround in enrollment, he should thank his predecessors.

The high school increase is due to the large number of overage students who are being held on rolls. Schools are not permitted to move students who have not progressed to graduation off their books so the State continues to fund those pupils. It's a scam... I can find you 1500 drop outs on the rolls right now. Just because nobody looks doesn't mean it isn't happening.

@Check--You are so correct. We are told that students have to remain on roll until we can prove where they are now. Every school has these students and we are still looking at names for two and three years until someone finally withdraws them. Some are married, out of state, working--whatever. How are we being upfront about enrollment? It is a joke.

Holding students on roll has NOTHING to do with the the enrollment increase. For accountability purposes, the state measures official enrollment once per year. (see here: http://mdreportcard.org/smdef/definitions.aspx?WDATA=def&inc=enrollment) and that's on September 30th. In order for students to be dropped from roll, they have to have never showed up AND the school has to document a good faith effort to locate them. (I'm pretty sure that's the rule.) Now, you might claim that schools "scam" this system by rounding up kids to come to school one day so they can get more money, but this isn't an official policy of the city, and it's CERTAINLY not a practice that started in 2008 to account for the enrollment gains (see: season 4 of The Wire, 2006).

The reason why you can't just drop kids from roll whenever you want is because schools and districts are held accountable for educating the students on roll at their school. They're held accountable by the state through AYP for HSA participation, which will suffer if kids don't show up, and graduation rates, which count all students who can't be accounted for at the end of the year, whether or not they come back next year or even if they eventually graduate. Furthermore, principals are held accountable by the city for improving their attendance numbers in the same way they're held accountable for test scores and suspension rates.

Check and Veteran Teacher, what would you like the alternative to be? That students who stop coming to school are forgotten about by the system? The way it is now, schools have incentives - monetarily through FSF and through city and state accountability - to work to bring students into school and keep them there and educate them. Would you instead like to encourage schools to purge as many troubled kids as possible and have no one looking for them? And self-servingly, would you prefer if your school and your district received LESS money from the state?

Look, if we want to have a discussion about whether or not school choice, fair student funding, reducing central office staff or any other Dr. Alonso-sponsored policy is having an effect on the enrollment, that's a legitimate discussion, and it's one that any appropriately reflective school system should have. But to complain about just the numbers themselves...it just makes you sound predisposed to disbelieve ANY good news about the district.

@simon,

You are entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong. It was never alleged that it's a new game nor that it was "official" policy.

Wait you're right, nothing is going on... all is well.