Forum Index
»
DC Public and Public Charter Schools
pre-K lottery
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
18:18 here. Many apologies for appearing cynical. Honestly not my intent. Just trying to head off some disappointment and potential frustration based on based on working with DCPS, charters and non-profits during the past year. Unfortunately lots of things are stalled due to perceptions (rich white kid schools don't need help) versus realities of problems (all DCPSs need help) and the Byzantine politics of DC. (Thank you Marion Barry.)
I should have made the point of the post about how parents and neighbors/potential parents working together to provide data (like how many would opt out of Murch) helps Rhee implement changes. (Finally someone who actually gets stuff done!) As to pre-K specifically, the good news is DC has new legislation on pre-k investments. But the timeframe for change may be much further out than readers of DCUM expect. Like 5 or 6 years. Too late for my kids, but it's definitely the right direction for overall reform including charters. (Talk about waitlist nightmares.) Sorry again for being a downer. It was one of those days. Here's a link to a pre-k advocacy group. http://www.preknow.org/yesterday.cfm D.C. Passes Pre-K Enhancement and Expansion Act Historic legislation granting pre-k access for all three and four year olds in Washington was approved in May by the District of Columbia Council. Budgeted at $9.8 million dollars, the Pre-K Enhancement and Expansion Act of 2008 will increase the number of D.C. children served while improving the quality of education that each child receives. A variety of pre-k programs including public school, public charter school, and community-based organizations are eligible for financial support through the act. While low-income children will receive priority to attend pre-k in the fall, the legislation sets a five-year timetable for making pre-k available to all families who want to enroll their children. The act paves for the way for greater academic achievement and graduation rates throughout the District and is an important first step in K-12 school reform. |
Anonymous
| The preK out of boundry sibling policy was new to Murch this year. It was decided upon by a small group of parents and teachers called the MDT (Murch Development Team), who advise the principal on policy matters. the final decision was the Principal's. The MDT made this decision with no input from the greater community. I am a parent who would not be affected (in boundry) BUT I do not agree with the policy. That said, you should contact the MDT representatives and bring your concerns to them. The only member who has her email listed is on the murchschool.org page, click the tab on top right which says "MDT". Her email is there. I would cc the principal and assistant principal (Brenda.Lewis@dc.gov). |
Anonymous
| PP, thank you for the information. I think it is useful to hit on all fronts, particularly for those of us who would be affected this coming year. |
Anonymous
|
OP here yet again. I replied to Rhee and the person on her team and noted the issue of competition with private schools and the general frustration lack of access to the neighborhood ES's pre-K causes among parents already not terribly excited about DCPS. Rhee replied again and said she understood each point I made and would "work to address these."
Thanks to the PP with the MDT info; frankly, though, I really hope this gets addressed on a system level. According to Rhee's staff member, most elementary schools with more students than slots use the out-of-boundary-sibling-preference policy. I think a central policy would avoid a lot of infighting at individual schools. |
Anonymous
| I agree it should be a system wide policy. Individual schools are influenced by the parents that are there, not the parents that are going to be there (if only they can get in). Those that will benefit from the out-of-boundary sibling preference are already in the school and exert influence there. |
Anonymous
It is not just competition with private schools. We have families that are sending kids out-of-boundary to other DCPS schools and not moving back to the neighborhood school because they end up liking where they are and don't want to shift their kids. Personally we can't afford private, so if we can't get a spot at our neighborhood school then we will have to go charter or out-of-boundary -- if we can get in. That will be further from our home and the odds of getting a spot are probably worse. Our other option is to sit out the year. If we didn't get a spot because there were too many kids in the neighborhood that would be one thing, but I think every child should have an equal chance to go to the neighborhood school (which is why I am against the sibling policy for in-boundary families as well). It is an imperfect system, but we all pay taxes and should all have an equal right to access. |
Anonymous
|
Well, we are one more family who will not being going to Murch (in boundary) for elementary because we got bounced at the preK year, had to go private for that particular year, really liked the private school and decided to stay there.
Truly, we wanted to go to Murch and were not a 'private or move-to-MoCo or bust' family. But one thing led to another, and our eldest was thriving. The year we didn't get in, there were more than a few out-of-boundary sibs who did get spots. I know two families personally, who then pointed out the other out-of-boundary kids. |
Anonymous
| 21:57, would you consider writing to Chancellor Rhee and Mayor Fenty? Just a quick note similar to what you posted above would be great.... |
Anonymous
|
Yes, I will send a brief letter to the addresses/email addresses cited above. The PP who said this policy is having the unintended effect of driving 'open-minded' neighborhood parents to private (or MoCo) could've been describing our family. I just realized in writing this that I know one other family in a nearly identical situation (their kids went parochial after not winning the Murch preK lottery).
Also, this statement quoted sounds right, and yet, the circumstances I am describing happened before this school year. I assumed that the pre-07/08 sibling 'policy' was ad hoc, with the same effect as the current, formal policy described below.
|
Anonymous
| 2157= my child was on the waitlist for preK (and she was an inboundry sibling) but she got off the waitlist over the summer. i think what has happened in years before is that the inboundry waitlist gets calls over the summer at people drop (a friend that year got a call literally the week before school started).Most people have moved onto their planB by then and do not take the spot. I think the way that out of boundry kids got places then, was once the waitlist of in boundry was done. The MDT policy for this year is a definite and specific change that will give out of boundry kids definite priority from the get-go than inboundry kids. What you describe the outcome for your family (staying where you went after not getting the preK spot) is a problem for Murch that I personally do not think the current leadership has the foresight to be concerned about. The principal who made this policy with the MDT was new last year. Definitely let the new MDT know how it has affected you- also, I checked out the webpage listed in the post above and the community representative to the MDT spot is blank..... |
Anonymous
| pp here- i meant to say that was 5 years ago |
Anonymous
|
I am going to post something that I know will get me flamed, that I know will be distasteful to many, and yet is absolutely accurate so it's worth saying -- DCPS elementary schools in Ward 3 that have the highest percentages of OOB kids also post the lowest test scores year after year. In no particular order ... Eaton, Hearst, and Murch, as opposed to Key, Mann, Janney and Layfayette.
In the former group, I have observed anecdotally that parents are well aware of this statistic, and in many cases they do not even consider sending their children to Eaton, Hearst and Murch, although these schools are 2 blocks away. In the conversations I have had with inboundary-for-Murch parents, the stated reason is academics / look at the stats / diversity is great but my kids can't be guinea pigs when we can afford private. I am not saying that there is empirical data proving correlation = causation here, because there isn't any -- but the trend has been going on for so many years it seems PollyAnna to not at least consider the OOB percentages as one factor in whether Ward 3 inboundary parents choose their local DCPS school -- or not. There are many educational thinkers out there who believe this is a good societal outcome. There are local politicians who also have gone on record as saying it's great thing for all our city's kids to have options in various Wards. Let's stipulate this as true. I personally believe, after living near Murch for 15 years, that these circumstances have had the effect of morphing Murch from a neighborhood school into a de facto magnet option for kids from other Wards, because there are so many OOB slots available there. And my point -- I do have one, I swear -- is that the new, official MDT policy will certainly further this trend, IMO. |
Anonymous
OP here, and I just want to say that I agree with the "educational thinkers" cited above -- I really don't care about test scores and like that Murch has so many OOB kids. I think it's great, truly. IF Murch is a de facto magnet, that's also great. My single concern here is the pre-K lottery and having it align with the K-12 admission policy. I live in the Murch neighborhood, and my kids will go to Murch from K onward; I just don't want to have to find another place for my older child for pre-K -- or, at least, I don't think it's fair that he could lose a slot to a child who isn't districted for the school. There are, of course, many people who will never send their kids to DCPS or to a school they perceive as "risky." But for the people who truly are on the fence between DCPS and private, I think pre-K admission to the neighborhood school is a HUGE factor. And those are the people -- along with people like me who are fully committed to sending their kids the neighborhood school -- I'm concerned with. Finally, what I'm aiming for is a central policy that makes the MDT policy moot. I think it's actually pretty simple to say that DCPS pre-K will follow the same admisstions/preference approach as K. I agree that if left up to the neighborhood schools, they'll err toward a more OOB-friendly policy since (as a previous poster mentioned) OOB parents with kids at Murch have a say while those of us in the neighborhood whose kids aren't yet school-aged do not. |
Anonymous
Couldn't have said it better myself. |
Anonymous
|
Here is a question, in light of the last few posts.
If the preK central policy were to align with the K-12 policy, I think this would mean that at schools like Murch, the preK classes would have more in-boundary kids than they have had, and that there would be several OOB preK siblings who do not get a spot. So what happens the following year, at K? If all the inboundary preK'ers move up, the K classes will be full, and there won't likely be spots for OOB kindergartners. So where do the sibling OOB kindergartners go? Inboundary to their assigned school (while their siblings still go to Murch, etc.? |