I hate the advantage people with multiple kids have in the school lottery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand why sibling preference exists and I don't resent any individual family who benefits from it because I get that being able to send your kids to the same schools is really vital for families daily functioning. But it's hard having an only in a school you are not happy with and having to rely on lottery number to hopefully get you into a better situation and then watching your numbers go up because of sibling preference.

Again -- no anger at the individual families who are jumping up the line in front of us as I get it but it's just hard. We are pretty much definitely going to biting our nails on this one well into August and likely even into September and I so wish we could just tell our kid "you're going to X school" and start getting her and us ready for that and instead I feel like we have to just sit at the back of the line and hope and pray.

Sir, if you’re that upset about it, go get yourself a woman and have another baby. You can also try adopting another one too.

[Anonymous]

seems like the bigger issue is that our elected leaders would *much* rather debate the names of schools than the quality of schools.

[Anonymous]

The "equitable access preference" is MASSIVE and seems a lot less fair than the one for siblings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "equitable access preference" is MASSIVE and seems a lot less fair than the one for siblings.

more than one third of all households in dc qualify for it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "equitable access preference" is MASSIVE and seems a lot less fair than the one for siblings.

Why isn’t it fair for economically disadvantaged black and brown children to have a fair shot to attend schools with good programming? If you don’t want black and brown children at certain schools, just be direct and say that. Say it with your whole chest, my guy. Stand on business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "equitable access preference" is MASSIVE and seems a lot less fair than the one for siblings.

It's only unfair if you don't believe in equity. Whereas the sibling preference is really one of practicality and doesn't really have a values-based purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recognize the advantage families with multiple parents and only one kid have in handling every aspect of their child's school and extracurricular life, including logisitical and financial aspects, but I don't hate it because I'm not a little whiny troll.

You are actually the definition of a "whiny little troll." It's also always possible to choose to have fewer kids because you don't feel you have the resources but it's not always possible to choose to have more. But I'm sure you don't care about that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet, every family goes through this. How do you think the first kid of multi-sibling family gets in??

They go through it in PK for their first but most families with multiple kids can exercise the advantage by the time their oldest is in 1st or 2nd since most families have kids within 3-4 years of each other. But if you have one kid and strike out in PK then each year after that you will be trying to get into a better school in the lottery and you might lose out to kids with siblings each year. Also families with siblings can pull kids in going both directions so it still benefits the older kids even if not in PK.

So no -- not everyone has the same experience. Having multiple kids in the system is a definite advantage and only becomes more so the older your kids get (and given the challenges with middle school in most of the city that might be the biggest advantage of all -- look at how many spots at the Latins and BASIS go to siblings in that 5th grade lottery).

Yes, but the point that the PP above this is making is that all those siblings that get in to Latin or BASIS or wherever else, are getting in because at some point a kid in that family got in without sibling preference. And they got into the school even though some of the available spots in that year went to people who had sibling preference at that time.

And yes, of course not everyone has the same experience. In fact people have wildly different experiences. Some of these experiences are made better or easier by having more than one kid, and some of these experiences are made worse or harder by having more than one kid. But the bolded sentence makes it seem like you don't understand the lottery.

I totally agree that in many respects, the older sibling has equal chances to an only.

There is one exception that I've seen play out many times -- families who want a spot at a Deal or Hardy feeder (who live out of bounds) are often able to eventually get one, and the sibling (either older or younger) pulls the other one in. this actually happened to us (though we didn't accept), and I know many other families this happened to. An only probably also would have gotten in at some point, but the siblings have double the chances to get in every year.

It's not an exception -- it's one of the main ways sibling preference works. Older kids lotterying into upper elementary grades where there tend to be more spots frequently pull in younger kids who otherwise would need a very good lottery number to get a spot in PK-1st. This is a common occurrence at not only Deal and Hardy feeders but also the more desirable Hill elementaries (all that attrition in 3rd through 5th due to middle school angst helps lots of OOB families with multiple kids score K and 1st and even sometimes PK spots at places where it is otherwise impossible to lottery in without a tippy top lottery number). Also common at DCI feeders for anyone willing to move a kid into an immersion program after 2nd or 3rd. And so on.

Families with multiple kids are really only in the same boat as parents of onlies for those initial PK lotteries. And yes if they "win" in those lotteries it benefits their younger kids. But also if they "lose" in those lotteries they will have future lotteries where they will have 2 or more kids rolling the dice and if just one of those kids scores a good number at a desirable school then all their other kids benefit regardless of age. Sure the oldest might have spent early grades at a school the family doesn't love but even that kid stands a better chance at spending their upper elementary years at a school the family is happy with and definitely has much better chances at any middle school that requires a specific feeder school.

As for Latin and BASIS -- while it's true that any family has to "get lucky" with their oldest kid in order to get that sibling preference as a practical matter the *system* of sibling preference essentially eliminates half the spots at those schools. Which makes it harder for everyone including people with multiple kids. I think there are genuine questions to be raised especially for middle schools and high schools (the vast majority of kids at Latin and BASIS get there on their own so it is not a question of making it easier for families for "drop off" which is the most common explanation for the sibling preference). I know people would melt down if they got rid of it for those levels but there's a decent policy argument in favor of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not buy or rent an apartment near a school you would be happy in. I have live IB for three awesome schools during the last 17 years. Didn't even take advantage of all of them.
You must be choosing a house and not so good of a school over rental/condo vs good school. That's a choice. Or are you saying you can't afford a small rental while you can afford a house somewhere else in the city?

I think it's hilarious that in your mind the person who is most likely to complain about this is apparently someone wealthy enough to buy or rent near one of the better schools in the District but is choosing not to do so because of... reasons and instead focusing their ire on siblings.

When the much more obvious answer is that the people who feel aggrieved by sibling preference already have limited options in terms of where they live and rely on the lottery to get a spot at a charter or a DCPS OOB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "equitable access preference" is MASSIVE and seems a lot less fair than the one for siblings.

It's only unfair if you don't believe in equity. Whereas the sibling preference is really one of practicality and doesn't really have a values-based purpose.

eh, only if you believe "equity" is some magic word that makes arbitrary policy choices unassailable.

the reality in dc is that middle income people get jack when it comes to schools.

rich people, let's define them as people making more than $350,000, can afford to buy into neighborhoods where schools are good or they can send their kids to private.

anybody in dc who gets snap benefits gets the equitable access preference, and you can get snap benefits if you make $75,000 and have three kids.

but there's really nothing for people who make between $75,000 or so and $350,000 (aside from the sibling preference, or if they happen to work for the school). those people can move somewhere else, i guess.

[Anonymous]

Assuming the standard 2-3 year age gap, the older sibling gets effectively a second lottery draw as soon as the younger sibling enters the lottery for pre-k. For elementary, this is a massive advantage for both siblings. For middle school, older siblings are in a similar situation as only children.

If it helps, OP, our only lotteried into a JR feeder in third. It was hard to leave a school we had been in for years, but not as hard as our friends who ended up realizing their “winning” charter seat was lacking by upper elementary or not working for the younger sib, then having to pull both kids and move when both are in 2nd-5th. Happened to many families we know, even those at the high demand charters with a desirable feeder pattern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assuming the standard 2-3 year age gap, the older sibling gets effectively a second lottery draw as soon as the younger sibling enters the lottery for pre-k. For elementary, this is a massive advantage for both siblings. For middle school, older siblings are in a similar situation as only children.

If it helps, OP, our only lotteried into a JR feeder in third. It was hard to leave a school we had been in for years, but not as hard as our friends who ended up realizing their “winning” charter seat was lacking by upper elementary or not working for the younger sib, then having to pull both kids and move when both are in 2nd-5th. Happened to many families we know, even those at the high demand charters with a desirable feeder pattern.

The bolded but assume older sibling is lotterying every year until younger sib enters PK3 so you're maximizing both kids chances -- if older sib gets lucky in any of PK3-K years then they can pull in younger sib but if they don't get lucky than younger sib gives them twice the chances in each subsequent lottery.

It's not a reason to have more kids but yes only children are disadvantaged in the lottery for elementary. I guess parents of onlies are probably better positioned to help a kid in a subpar school make the most of their educational opportunities assuming the same or similar overall resources. But this is kind of like the argument over whether parents of more kids should get more financial aid at colleges. On the one hand obviously having more kids is a larger financial burden on families and they may struggle to pay for college more than people with fewer children. On the other hand having more children is a totally optional choice.

[Anonymous]

Yes, there is a lottery advantage to having multiple kids.

There are also logistical advantages to having one -- no multiple commute issues, you can live in a much smaller home so greater options (if someone really wants to, they can rent an apartment up Connecticut Ave and be set on schools), only one college to pay for, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there is a lottery advantage to having multiple kids.

There are also logistical advantages to having one -- no multiple commute issues, you can live in a much smaller home so greater options (if someone really wants to, they can rent an apartment up Connecticut Ave and be set on schools), only one college to pay for, etc.

I don't think it's fair to compare the logistical advantages of an only with the lottery advantage of multiple kids. They are just totally different things.

It's okay to be frustrated that having an only puts your kid at a disadvantage in the lottery.

[Anonymous]

I can't find it but am sure there was a thread with the same exact conversation a couple months ago.