What would an at-risk preference do? New MSDC research paper out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would anyone be supportive of giving at-risk preference over IB students for Pk3 and Pk4 at DCPS, and at every grade for charters and city-wide schools?

I would. Any loss of opportunity to my kids would be small compared to the benefits to the at-risk kids and the system being more equitable overall. Free preschool for the affluent should not be a thing we spend money on.

I would too.

Me too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would anyone be supportive of giving at-risk preference over IB students for Pk3 and Pk4 at DCPS, and at every grade for charters and city-wide schools?

I would. Any loss of opportunity to my kids would be small compared to the benefits to the at-risk kids and the system being more equitable overall. Free preschool for the affluent should not be a thing we spend money on.

I would too.

I would too. Most of the spots at the preferred PK3 and PK4 programs go to IB siblings. So currently those programs are a free perk not just for the affluent, but really for the affluent with multiple kids. Makes no sense. But then the key question is what to do at K when the at-risk kids added at PK and the other IB kids make the numbers untenable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would anyone be supportive of giving at-risk preference over IB students for Pk3 and Pk4 at DCPS, and at every grade for charters and city-wide schools?

I would. Any loss of opportunity to my kids would be small compared to the benefits to the at-risk kids and the system being more equitable overall. Free preschool for the affluent should not be a thing we spend money on.

I would too.

I would too. Most of the spots at the preferred PK3 and PK4 programs go to IB siblings. So currently those programs are a free perk not just for the affluent, but really for the affluent with multiple kids. Makes no sense. But then the key question is what to do at K when the at-risk kids added at PK and the other IB kids make the numbers untenable.

Redraw the boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would anyone be supportive of giving at-risk preference over IB students for Pk3 and Pk4 at DCPS, and at every grade for charters and city-wide schools?

I would. Any loss of opportunity to my kids would be small compared to the benefits to the at-risk kids and the system being more equitable overall. Free preschool for the affluent should not be a thing we spend money on.

I would too.

I would too. Most of the spots at the preferred PK3 and PK4 programs go to IB siblings. So currently those programs are a free perk not just for the affluent, but really for the affluent with multiple kids. Makes no sense. But then the key question is what to do at K when the at-risk kids added at PK and the other IB kids make the numbers untenable.

Redraw the boundaries.

Funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would anyone be supportive of giving at-risk preference over IB students for Pk3 and Pk4 at DCPS, and at every grade for charters and city-wide schools?

I would. Any loss of opportunity to my kids would be small compared to the benefits to the at-risk kids and the system being more equitable overall. Free preschool for the affluent should not be a thing we spend money on.

I would too.

I would too. Most of the spots at the preferred PK3 and PK4 programs go to IB siblings. So currently those programs are a free perk not just for the affluent, but really for the affluent with multiple kids. Makes no sense. But then the key question is what to do at K when the at-risk kids added at PK and the other IB kids make the numbers untenable.

It could be IB at-risk for preschool, then IB, and no OOB. They all have the right to attend in K anyway so it would work out the same.

I bet these schools would plead overcrowding and get rid of preschool. Because it's only overcrowding if it's poor people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So would anyone be supportive of giving at-risk preference over IB students for Pk3 and Pk4 at DCPS, and at every grade for charters and city-wide schools?

For social and restorative justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would anyone be supportive of giving at-risk preference over IB students for Pk3 and Pk4 at DCPS, and at every grade for charters and city-wide schools?

I would. Any loss of opportunity to my kids would be small compared to the benefits to the at-risk kids and the system being more equitable overall. Free preschool for the affluent should not be a thing we spend money on.

I would too.

I would too. Most of the spots at the preferred PK3 and PK4 programs go to IB siblings. So currently those programs are a free perk not just for the affluent, but really for the affluent with multiple kids. Makes no sense. But then the key question is what to do at K when the at-risk kids added at PK and the other IB kids make the numbers untenable.

Redraw the boundaries.

Go to a city-wide lottery for all. However, the folks who bought $1M tiny, unrenovated center-hall Colonials to be in the Janney district won't take kindly if their kids are assigned to the Mayor Marion Barry Learning Center in Ward 8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would anyone be supportive of giving at-risk preference over IB students for Pk3 and Pk4 at DCPS, and at every grade for charters and city-wide schools?

I would. Any loss of opportunity to my kids would be small compared to the benefits to the at-risk kids and the system being more equitable overall. Free preschool for the affluent should not be a thing we spend money on.

I would too.

I would too. Most of the spots at the preferred PK3 and PK4 programs go to IB siblings. So currently those programs are a free perk not just for the affluent, but really for the affluent with multiple kids. Makes no sense. But then the key question is what to do at K when the at-risk kids added at PK and the other IB kids make the numbers untenable.

Redraw the boundaries.

Go to a city-wide lottery for all. However, the folks who bought $1M tiny, unrenovated center-hall Colonials to be in the Janney district won't take kindly if their kids are assigned to the Mayor Marion Barry Learning Center in Ward 8.

Once more with feeling:

See Oakland and SF on how city-wide lotteries turn out. See 2014 when a majority of parents in ALL WARDS said they didn't want it. Can we please put this idea to bed already?

[Anonymous]

It’s the most efficient way to solve the problem of inequitable school quality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most efficient way to solve the problem of inequitable school quality.

In theory. In reality it's wildly unpopular by all demographics, would be costly and increase traffic and has proven ineffective and has actually exacerbated inequality in many places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So would anyone be supportive of giving at-risk preference over IB students for Pk3 and Pk4 at DCPS, and at every grade for charters and city-wide schools?

I would 100%.

[Anonymous]

http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2015-02/as-parents-get-more-choice-sf-schools-resegregate


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/27/these-charts-show-how-white-kids-win-san-franciscos-school-lottery/?utm_term=.4befb311c925

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would anyone be supportive of giving at-risk preference over IB students for Pk3 and Pk4 at DCPS, and at every grade for charters and city-wide schools?

I would. Any loss of opportunity to my kids would be small compared to the benefits to the at-risk kids and the system being more equitable overall. Free preschool for the affluent should not be a thing we spend money on.

I would too.

I would too. Most of the spots at the preferred PK3 and PK4 programs go to IB siblings. So currently those programs are a free perk not just for the affluent, but really for the affluent with multiple kids. Makes no sense. But then the key question is what to do at K when the at-risk kids added at PK and the other IB kids make the numbers untenable.

Redraw the boundaries.

Go to a city-wide lottery for all. However, the folks who bought $1M tiny, unrenovated center-hall Colonials to be in the Janney district won't take kindly if their kids are assigned to the Mayor Marion Barry Learning Center in Ward 8.

Once more with feeling:

See Oakland and SF on how city-wide lotteries turn out. See 2014 when a majority of parents in ALL WARDS said they didn't want it. Can we please put this idea to bed already?

It’s thoroughly to bed and soundly asleep. Just a few cranks online bring it up. No one taken seriously does.

[Anonymous]

How can you not give preference to in-bound? That seems insane: every single student would be trekking across the city to a school far from their neighborhood that's randomly assigned. It's colossal waste of time and resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can you not give preference to in-bound? That seems insane: every single student would be trekking across the city to a school far from their neighborhood that's randomly assigned. It's colossal waste of time and resources.

The lottery study ran different scenarios with the at-risk preference at different places in the preference hierarchy. It was interesting to see the maximal case of at-risk preference first.

However, you seem to not understand the lottery. It does not assign students randomly. It assigns students to schools that they choose to list. So it increases the chances that an at-risk student would be matched with one of THEIR top choices.