Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Admissions Lottery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and staff urge Whittier Regional Vocational Technical to seek exceptions to blind admissions lottery; committee cites state limits
Summary
At a school committee meeting, students, parents and a vocational coordinator urged the committee to allow exceptions — including consideration for children of staff and sibling preference — after a blind lottery placed several applicants on the wait list; the superintendent and legal counsel said state guidance prohibits local preference, and no policy change was voted on.
Logan Hardy, an eighth‑grade student at Nettle Middle School, told the Whittier Regional Vocational Technical School Committee he has long prepared to attend Whittier and asked the district to allow superintendent discretion or a temporary weighted lottery that would consider children of staff.
“My dad works here as the facilities manager…If I were able to attend Whittier, he wouldn't have to choose between work and my school events,” Logan said, urging the committee to “put students first” as the admissions process changes take effect.
Nicole Hardy, a parent and spouse of a Whittier facilities manager, said the new blind lottery removes recognition of student effort and harms families connected to the school. “A system designed to promote equity should not eliminate professional judgment, disregard demonstrated commitment or undermine the vocational workforce pipeline,” she said, asking for transparent exceptions — sibling preference, children of staff who live in‑district, and superintendent discretion in appeals.
Amanda Crosby, Whittier’s vocational coordinator, introduced her 13‑year‑old daughter, Laya, and said Laya is on the school’s wait list. Crosby criticized the lottery as causing “harm” to students and staff families and urged the committee to seek regulatory exceptions that preserve student supports and the career‑technical pipeline.
Superintendent Lynch responded that the decision to implement the blind lottery came from the state board and that district legal counsel had advised there is no local discretion to grant staff preference under current Department of Elementary and Secondary Education guidance. Lynch said she empathizes with disappointed families but described her review authority as limited to whether the lottery was conducted correctly.
Committee members split on the policy’s merits. One member defended the blind lottery as the most equitable approach for a public school with limited seats, saying “people don't earn their way into public schools” and that the previous selective system had produced inequitable outcomes. Others said the change undermined the message that effort and preparation matter for students who had worked toward admission under the prior interview/criteria process.
Committee members and the superintendent said the lottery is a one‑year trial that the committee will review. Lynch suggested collaborative work with the legislative delegation to explore whether the regulatory framework can be adjusted to allow narrow, transparent exceptions that preserve fairness while recognizing student effort and family circumstances.
No formal change to the admissions policy or motions to request an exception were taken at the meeting; the committee heard public comment, discussed legal constraints, and moved on to routine business.
