Thoughts about sibling preference in lottery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I don't think older kids had the same odds. Wait lists in many neighborhoods across the city are much longer now than they were 5 years ago.

Please. Most of those kids took a flyer on an unknown quantity back in the day. They were willing to take the risk and helped to make the successful charters what they are now. You are welcome to do that with new charters as well.

That has long been the dumbest argument about this topic. It's like complaining that housing prices were lower five years ago so some could afford to buy IB WOPT.

No, it's like complaining that someone who bought a house in Columbia Heights 10 years ago was more fortunate. But that person took a risk on a "transitional" neighborhood that has panned out. Go and buy in Michigan Park if you want to try the same thing.

Actually it is nothing like buying a house.

In our IB school, roughly 40 to 50 students had been applying to the ECE program for years. Our year it was 75 and it hasn't dropped below 65 in the 6 years since. These things make massive jumps year to year and DCPS is unable to plan for it in a meaningful way.

That being said, you have to have sib preference in some way. I'm just always amazed how quickly people are to shut the door on the people behind them.

I’m just not sure I agree that at a neighborhood school sibling #4 from across the street should have more right to an ECE spot than child 1 of another family. Assuming of course that neither is at risk. (I would be totally on board for an economic preference). I get that the family commuting across town to a charter is in a different position but in a neighborhood school Baby 4 can wait a year or find another option just as easily as Baby 1.

So you're just talking about JKLM again? Or what? Because the IBs I know have plenty of space. Or, at least, a pretty good amount of space. And, you're guaranteed at K so who cares, private daycare for 2 more years. Big whoop. Cry me a river.

Right, it should be big whoop for Baby 4 as well. Cry me a river.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have three kids, so I have certainly benefited personally from sibling preference, but I do generally agree with the OP. I wish that DC had more routes into specialized schools than a random lottery with unearned preferences. We need more true test-in/audition magnets in the older grades that give all kids more tailored possibilities.

What? All the DCPS specialized schools are application based with no preferences. There are only a small number of high-performing charter high schools.

Yes. That’s my point. There are only a small handful of application only high schools and no application only middle schools. Where is our Bronx Science? Most other major cities in the US have real competitive magnet schools starting in elementary school. In DC, you are at the mercy of luck until high school and even then there aren’t a lot of application schools.

[Anonymous]

what about preference only goes to the younger sibling? I know youger sib who gets into HRCS and is able to "pull" the older sibling (who is at crappy IB) into the HRCS. Everyone is saying the first kid are all equal but thats not true if oldest kid have younger siblings they are essentially getting two chances in each lottery.

[Anonymous]

I actually think sibling preference for PK3/4 where no one is guaranteed school at all is pretty shitty. Why should the family w/ kids basically automatically not have to pay for school/the nanny, but the family with no other kids does?

After that, once everyone is guaranteed at least their IB? No concerns; I can understand why it's better for everyone if sibs can be in the same school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually think sibling preference for PK3/4 where no one is guaranteed school at all is pretty shitty. Why should the family w/ kids basically automatically not have to pay for school/the nanny, but the family with no other kids does?

After that, once everyone is guaranteed at least their IB? No concerns; I can understand why it's better for everyone if sibs can be in the same school.

Yep that is the point I was making above about Baby 4 versus Baby 1 at a neighborhood school. Doesn’t make sense.

[Anonymous]

At-risk preferences would soon lend themselves to abuse in a big way. What you'd see are the children of middle-class city employees and other well-connected types turning up at highly desirable public preschools in the at-risk category. No question. The City would be much better off expanding the number of ECE seats in the city than throwing the door open to manipulation of the system I say his as a transplanted New Yorker who's unhappy with how rent control in my city has long served the middle-class, not the poor. Middle-class people will game any system without extensive, and expensive, built-in checks and the political will to head off, and crack down on, abuse. We don't have that system in the District. Far from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If sibling preference was restricted to elementary school, as OP suggested, the would not be any commuting impacts since MS/HS kids can get around on their own in DC. So it would not impact your total amount of volunteering time.

You are thinking about your own middle class experience and not the experience of families with at-risk students (and those are the families that a public school system needs to be designed to serve).

If you want to encourage parent engagement at school and at home and have parents with few resources (time, money, etc.) you can't make it so hard for them. Two, three, kids at different schools, especially if those schools are across the city from one another, doesn't work for the majority of families.

That said, obviously preferences for at-risk kids would also be helpful as would high quality neighborhood schools across the city.

well yes and no. At-risk students do need to be served and have different considerations than the average student, but a public school system needs to serve everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If sibling preference was restricted to elementary school, as OP suggested, the would not be any commuting impacts since MS/HS kids can get around on their own in DC. So it would not impact your total amount of volunteering time.

You are thinking about your own middle class experience and not the experience of families with at-risk students (and those are the families that a public school system needs to be designed to serve).

If you want to encourage parent engagement at school and at home and have parents with few resources (time, money, etc.) you can't make it so hard for them. Two, three, kids at different schools, especially if those schools are across the city from one another, doesn't work for the majority of families.

That said, obviously preferences for at-risk kids would also be helpful as would high quality neighborhood schools across the city.

well yes and no. At-risk students do need to be served and have different considerations than the average student, but a public school system needs to serve everyone.

They do serve everyone. Starting in K. PK3 and PK4 are outgrowths of headstart and similar, so should err on the side of at-risk.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the sibling preference policy and it keeping families consolidated in schools is a value the District's school system has espoused for as long as I can remember.

[Anonymous]

get rid of feeder rights for preschoolers. that would open up some spaces more fairly. PK is not required so why should siblings get those spaces and then coast through elem if its not their IB. Give by right to IB kids for PK and that might do more to keep kids in their neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:get rid of feeder rights for preschoolers. that would open up some spaces more fairly. PK is not required so why should siblings get those spaces and then coast through elem if its not their IB. Give by right to IB kids for PK and that might do more to keep kids in their neighborhood schools.

Outside of a handful of dual language schools, no OOB PK students are getting into a neighborhood school ahead of IB students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:get rid of feeder rights for preschoolers. that would open up some spaces more fairly. PK is not required so why should siblings get those spaces and then coast through elem if its not their IB. Give by right to IB kids for PK and that might do more to keep kids in their neighborhood schools.

Outside of a handful of dual language schools, no OOB PK students are getting into a neighborhood school ahead of IB students.

And thats unfair too. Bruce monroe reserves 29 seats for spanish dominant and only 19 seats for english dominant. And yes, plenty of OOB kids are getting in over IB english dominant kids. I have no idea why its not 50/50 split like most schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:get rid of feeder rights for preschoolers. that would open up some spaces more fairly. PK is not required so why should siblings get those spaces and then coast through elem if its not their IB. Give by right to IB kids for PK and that might do more to keep kids in their neighborhood schools.

Outside of a handful of dual language schools, no OOB PK students are getting into a neighborhood school ahead of IB students.

And thats unfair too. Bruce monroe reserves 29 seats for spanish dominant and only 19 seats for english dominant. And yes, plenty of OOB kids are getting in over IB english dominant kids. I have no idea why its not 50/50 split like most schools.

I think you know why, but you don't agree with the policy. But in case you don't, the DCPS enrollment handbook explains on page 13. https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/SY17-18%20Enrollment%20and%20Lottery%20Handbook5317.pdf

"Dual language schools/programs place additional emphasis on sibling preference because of the value of in-home exposure to language acquisition. As such, a sibling preference is weighted more heavily than an in-boundary preference at these schools/programs (relevant for PK3/PK4 only)."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The goose keeps laying the golden eggs for these people.

LMAO

This is DCUM's version of Does Pete Rose Belong In the Hall of Fame?

As has been said, every first entering child has the same chances with, I guess, a distinct advantage for twins/triplets and families with multiple children moving to DC.

I suspect most people against sibling preference aren't families with one child who misguidedly consider it unfair, but IB boosters who recognize it would drive people from even considering charters since they'd mostly likely be headed to their IB once their second child reached school age.

From a fairness perspective there are problems both with sibling preference and OOB-feeder rights.

A kid who wins a seat in the lottery for a Deal feeder this spring has the right to attend Deal and Wilson through 2032. His siblings have a leg up to get in the same position.

The gulf between those who win the prize and those who miss out is enormous.

This is truly the problem for me. Better schools for everyone would solve the problem. That's not the reality we're dealing with though. Some families are winning not just the school lottery but also the ability to increase their household wealth by magnitudes whereas others are having to move and not having that same opportunity. There are other costs to not winning (apart from household wealth and actual education received), but these don't get the airtime that they should as we talk about how DC public schools really operate. We won the prize for elementary and it remains to be seen if we won the prize for MS/HS as we are taking a gamble on newer schools. Because some are winning the lottery, they are less inclined to use whatever 'power/leverage/advocacy skills/etc' they have to demand a system that works for all - as opposed to a lucky few (most of whom are already doing pretty well).

See this Atlantic article - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/

And here's what I find to be a telling quote - It’s one of the delusions of our meritocratic class, however, to assume that if our actions are individually blameless, then the sum of our actions will be good for society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The goose keeps laying the golden eggs for these people.

LMAO

This is DCUM's version of Does Pete Rose Belong In the Hall of Fame?

As has been said, every first entering child has the same chances with, I guess, a distinct advantage for twins/triplets and families with multiple children moving to DC.

I suspect most people against sibling preference aren't families with one child who misguidedly consider it unfair, but IB boosters who recognize it would drive people from even considering charters since they'd mostly likely be headed to their IB once their second child reached school age.

From a fairness perspective there are problems both with sibling preference and OOB-feeder rights.

A kid who wins a seat in the lottery for a Deal feeder this spring has the right to attend Deal and Wilson through 2032. His siblings have a leg up to get in the same position.

The gulf between those who win the prize and those who miss out is enormous.

But because it’s a random lottery, everyone has an equal shot the first time. Low income families probably benefit from sibling preference because they tend to have more children.