IB/Sibling Preference Data?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

It's because parents need their kids at the same school if at all possible. It also encourages family involvement, and adds to the likelihood of families staying at the school, which is how neighborhood schools are strengthened.

I get that, but if one kid is already at the school b/c they are older, the parents are already likely having 2 kids in 2 different places, with the younger one being at daycare or something. Their convenience shouldn't mean that because I am choosing to only have one kid (or, for people that plan to have more this is true if their first kid is a rising pre-k student) that we don't get into our in-boundary school because spots are filled up with siblings (even if they are in-boundary) and then have to pay more than $20,000 for an extra year of private daycare. My point is that for in-boundary at pre-k 3 there shouldn't be any sibling preference and all in-boundary should have an equal chance.

This is an interesting point in theory. But in reality it would mean that many people would need to split up their kids in multiple schools- which has a significant impact on family engagement and, frankly, attendance.

If Larla (oldest) is at school 1 but Larlo (youngest) doesn't get in and thus winds up at school 2, that poses major headaches for families. If Larla doesn't get into school 1 but instead winds up at school 2, with Larlo following shortly thereafter, this is a much better scenario for both family engagement and for the family.

Remember, PK isn't a perk - it a program designed to help educational outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

It's because parents need their kids at the same school if at all possible. It also encourages family involvement, and adds to the likelihood of families staying at the school, which is how neighborhood schools are strengthened.

I get that, but if one kid is already at the school b/c they are older, the parents are already likely having 2 kids in 2 different places, with the younger one being at daycare or something. Their convenience shouldn't mean that because I am choosing to only have one kid (or, for people that plan to have more this is true if their first kid is a rising pre-k student) that we don't get into our in-boundary school because spots are filled up with siblings (even if they are in-boundary) and then have to pay more than $20,000 for an extra year of private daycare. My point is that for in-boundary at pre-k 3 there shouldn't be any sibling preference and all in-boundary should have an equal chance.

This is an interesting point in theory. But in reality it would mean that many people would need to split up their kids in multiple schools- which has a significant impact on family engagement and, frankly, attendance.

If Larla (oldest) is at school 1 but Larlo (youngest) doesn't get in and thus winds up at school 2, that poses major headaches for families. If Larla doesn't get into school 1 but instead winds up at school 2, with Larlo following shortly thereafter, this is a much better scenario for both family engagement and for the family.

Remember, PK isn't a perk - it a program designed to help educational outcomes.

What about a family with three kids who moves to DC? Are they doomed to their IB or low-performing schools just because they want their kids in one place? Would people choose a charter or OOB school at all, if there was no guarantee their younger children would EVER get in?

If I had to commute to two schools I would not have time to volunteer at either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

It's because parents need their kids at the same school if at all possible. It also encourages family involvement, and adds to the likelihood of families staying at the school, which is how neighborhood schools are strengthened.

I get that, but if one kid is already at the school b/c they are older, the parents are already likely having 2 kids in 2 different places, with the younger one being at daycare or something. Their convenience shouldn't mean that because I am choosing to only have one kid (or, for people that plan to have more this is true if their first kid is a rising pre-k student) that we don't get into our in-boundary school because spots are filled up with siblings (even if they are in-boundary) and then have to pay more than $20,000 for an extra year of private daycare. My point is that for in-boundary at pre-k 3 there shouldn't be any sibling preference and all in-boundary should have an equal chance.

This is an interesting point in theory. But in reality it would mean that many people would need to split up their kids in multiple schools- which has a significant impact on family engagement and, frankly, attendance.

If Larla (oldest) is at school 1 but Larlo (youngest) doesn't get in and thus winds up at school 2, that poses major headaches for families. If Larla doesn't get into school 1 but instead winds up at school 2, with Larlo following shortly thereafter, this is a much better scenario for both family engagement and for the family.

Remember, PK isn't a perk - it a program designed to help educational outcomes.

Don't forget the facilities challenge. If Larlo doesn't get in for PK as a sibling, and an at-risk student does, then both have a right to be there starting in Kindergarten via re-enrollment or boundary rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

It's because parents need their kids at the same school if at all possible. It also encourages family involvement, and adds to the likelihood of families staying at the school, which is how neighborhood schools are strengthened.

I get that, but if one kid is already at the school b/c they are older, the parents are already likely having 2 kids in 2 different places, with the younger one being at daycare or something. Their convenience shouldn't mean that because I am choosing to only have one kid (or, for people that plan to have more this is true if their first kid is a rising pre-k student) that we don't get into our in-boundary school because spots are filled up with siblings (even if they are in-boundary) and then have to pay more than $20,000 for an extra year of private daycare. My point is that for in-boundary at pre-k 3 there shouldn't be any sibling preference and all in-boundary should have an equal chance.

This is an interesting point in theory. But in reality it would mean that many people would need to split up their kids in multiple schools- which has a significant impact on family engagement and, frankly, attendance.

If Larla (oldest) is at school 1 but Larlo (youngest) doesn't get in and thus winds up at school 2, that poses major headaches for families. If Larla doesn't get into school 1 but instead winds up at school 2, with Larlo following shortly thereafter, this is a much better scenario for both family engagement and for the family.

Remember, PK isn't a perk - it a program designed to help educational outcomes.

Don't forget the facilities challenge. If Larlo doesn't get in for PK as a sibling, and an at-risk student does, then both have a right to be there starting in Kindergarten via re-enrollment or boundary rights.

Exactly- and if Larla is in 1st grade and Larlo is 3 years old, they would have already been going to 2 different places- school and daycare, they just have to do that for one (maybe 2) more years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

I have been thinking about this and saying this for years. And I have three children. I believe for charter and citywide schools the sibling preference makes sense of PK (because of commuting) but not for boundary schools. Yes, it’s beneficial for parents to have their kids at the same school, but for a non mandatory year, parents of more than one kid can sit that year out or look elsewhere just like a family with one kid.

Sitting our or adding a second commute probably wouldn't have a significant impact on a child who is not at-risk. But for the nearly half of DC students who are at risk, there is an incentive to get everyone into a high-quality PK3. Most schools are doing PK well. I don't think we should do anything that might make it more likely that a kid whose parents who couldn't afford a private preschool or a high-quality day care are shut out.

I’m the PP who said I’ve been thinking about this for years. I should add that I agree with the above and am in favor of an at-risk preference above all others, with at-risk IB sibling being the top preference. I agree with other posters — the sibling preference for boundary schools, in addition to being inequitable for only children and first children, further disadvantages at risk kids by filling spots at highly in demand schools with just siblings in PL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

I have been thinking about this and saying this for years. And I have three children. I believe for charter and citywide schools the sibling preference makes sense of PK (because of commuting) but not for boundary schools. Yes, it’s beneficial for parents to have their kids at the same school, but for a non mandatory year, parents of more than one kid can sit that year out or look elsewhere just like a family with one kid.

Sitting our or adding a second commute probably wouldn't have a significant impact on a child who is not at-risk. But for the nearly half of DC students who are at risk, there is an incentive to get everyone into a high-quality PK3. Most schools are doing PK well. I don't think we should do anything that might make it more likely that a kid whose parents who couldn't afford a private preschool or a high-quality day care are shut out.

I’m the PP who said I’ve been thinking about this for years. I should add that I agree with the above and am in favor of an at-risk preference above all others, with at-risk IB sibling being the top preference. I agree with other posters — the sibling preference for boundary schools, in addition to being inequitable for only children and first children, further disadvantages at risk kids by filling spots at highly in demand schools with just siblings in PL.

OK, great, and would those siblings still have a boundary right to attend starting in K?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

I have been thinking about this and saying this for years. And I have three children. I believe for charter and citywide schools the sibling preference makes sense of PK (because of commuting) but not for boundary schools. Yes, it’s beneficial for parents to have their kids at the same school, but for a non mandatory year, parents of more than one kid can sit that year out or look elsewhere just like a family with one kid.

Sitting our or adding a second commute probably wouldn't have a significant impact on a child who is not at-risk. But for the nearly half of DC students who are at risk, there is an incentive to get everyone into a high-quality PK3. Most schools are doing PK well. I don't think we should do anything that might make it more likely that a kid whose parents who couldn't afford a private preschool or a high-quality day care are shut out.

I’m the PP who said I’ve been thinking about this for years. I should add that I agree with the above and am in favor of an at-risk preference above all others, with at-risk IB sibling being the top preference. I agree with other posters — the sibling preference for boundary schools, in addition to being inequitable for only children and first children, further disadvantages at risk kids by filling spots at highly in demand schools with just siblings in PL.

OK, great, and would those siblings still have a boundary right to attend starting in K?

Yes of course. All IB kids can attend at K by right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

It's because parents need their kids at the same school if at all possible. It also encourages family involvement, and adds to the likelihood of families staying at the school, which is how neighborhood schools are strengthened.

I get that, but if one kid is already at the school b/c they are older, the parents are already likely having 2 kids in 2 different places, with the younger one being at daycare or something. Their convenience shouldn't mean that because I am choosing to only have one kid (or, for people that plan to have more this is true if their first kid is a rising pre-k student) that we don't get into our in-boundary school because spots are filled up with siblings (even if they are in-boundary) and then have to pay more than $20,000 for an extra year of private daycare. My point is that for in-boundary at pre-k 3 there shouldn't be any sibling preference and all in-boundary should have an equal chance.

+1

This also doesn't factor in the numerous families of only children who elect (or whom circumstances elect) to not have more children. They should have equal opportunity to apply and enroll in PS3 and PK4 slots. Also agree that there should be a preference for at risk kids first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

It's because parents need their kids at the same school if at all possible. It also encourages family involvement, and adds to the likelihood of families staying at the school, which is how neighborhood schools are strengthened.

I get that, but if one kid is already at the school b/c they are older, the parents are already likely having 2 kids in 2 different places, with the younger one being at daycare or something. Their convenience shouldn't mean that because I am choosing to only have one kid (or, for people that plan to have more this is true if their first kid is a rising pre-k student) that we don't get into our in-boundary school because spots are filled up with siblings (even if they are in-boundary) and then have to pay more than $20,000 for an extra year of private daycare. My point is that for in-boundary at pre-k 3 there shouldn't be any sibling preference and all in-boundary should have an equal chance.

+1

This also doesn't factor in the numerous families of only children who elect (or whom circumstances elect) to not have more children. They should have equal opportunity to apply and enroll in PS3 and PK4 slots. Also agree that there should be a preference for at risk kids first.

They can enroll at many of the open spots across the city.

Stop thinking of it as a perk. It's not a perk, except to the UMC residents who live in the few areas where PK seats don't meet demand. And convenience for those families do not get precedent over keeping the multitude of DCPS families in tact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

It's because parents need their kids at the same school if at all possible. It also encourages family involvement, and adds to the likelihood of families staying at the school, which is how neighborhood schools are strengthened.

I get that, but if one kid is already at the school b/c they are older, the parents are already likely having 2 kids in 2 different places, with the younger one being at daycare or something. Their convenience shouldn't mean that because I am choosing to only have one kid (or, for people that plan to have more this is true if their first kid is a rising pre-k student) that we don't get into our in-boundary school because spots are filled up with siblings (even if they are in-boundary) and then have to pay more than $20,000 for an extra year of private daycare. My point is that for in-boundary at pre-k 3 there shouldn't be any sibling preference and all in-boundary should have an equal chance.

+1

This also doesn't factor in the numerous families of only children who elect (or whom circumstances elect) to not have more children. They should have equal opportunity to apply and enroll in PS3 and PK4 slots. Also agree that there should be a preference for at risk kids first.

They can enroll at many of the open spots across the city.

Stop thinking of it as a perk. It's not a perk, except to the UMC residents who live in the few areas where PK seats don't meet demand. And convenience for those families do not get precedent over keeping the multitude of DCPS families in tact.

You have inadvertently made the counter argument to your own point. The IB sibling preference really only matters in “the few areas where PK seats don’t meet demand.” Are there other boundary PK programs where being a sibling really means the difference between getting in and getting waitlisted? I think in other areas all IB kids who want to attend get in (whether sibling or not) so this point is moot. But at those “in demand” PK programs the sibling preference does operate as a perk for families with kids already in the school, and I don’t think it should. I think your larger point — that no policy change should negatively impact at risk kids in the city — is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

It's because parents need their kids at the same school if at all possible. It also encourages family involvement, and adds to the likelihood of families staying at the school, which is how neighborhood schools are strengthened.

I get that, but if one kid is already at the school b/c they are older, the parents are already likely having 2 kids in 2 different places, with the younger one being at daycare or something. Their convenience shouldn't mean that because I am choosing to only have one kid (or, for people that plan to have more this is true if their first kid is a rising pre-k student) that we don't get into our in-boundary school because spots are filled up with siblings (even if they are in-boundary) and then have to pay more than $20,000 for an extra year of private daycare. My point is that for in-boundary at pre-k 3 there shouldn't be any sibling preference and all in-boundary should have an equal chance.

This is an interesting point in theory. But in reality it would mean that many people would need to split up their kids in multiple schools- which has a significant impact on family engagement and, frankly, attendance.

If Larla (oldest) is at school 1 but Larlo (youngest) doesn't get in and thus winds up at school 2, that poses major headaches for families. If Larla doesn't get into school 1 but instead winds up at school 2, with Larlo following shortly thereafter, this is a much better scenario for both family engagement and for the family.

Remember, PK isn't a perk - it a program designed to help educational outcomes.

Don't forget the facilities challenge. If Larlo doesn't get in for PK as a sibling, and an at-risk student does, then both have a right to be there starting in Kindergarten via re-enrollment or boundary rights.

Exactly- and if Larla is in 1st grade and Larlo is 3 years old, they would have already been going to 2 different places- school and daycare, they just have to do that for one (maybe 2) more years.

You missed the point about the facilities. If a preK is filled with OOB students, and IB kids have to wait for K, then all you are doing is increasing the size of the school population by however many OOB preK sport you award. At under enrolled schools, this is not a problem. But if, for example, all five of the Lafayette preK classes are filled with OOB at risk students (and there are enough at risk students that this hypothetical is possible) who stay for K, and all seven classes worth of IB K student arrive for K that year too, then Lafayette now has 12 classes per grade and there isn't a school building in DC that can hold that many kids.

[Anonymous]

There are two separate points being discussed in this thread. (1) Should IB sibling preference be eliminated at boundary schools so that all IB kids have an equal shot at PK? And (2) should there be an at risk preference, and if so should it be (a) an IB at risk preference or (b) an overall at risk preference (letting OOB at risk kids as a preference above IB)? Only the latter policy change causes a facility problem. I’m one of the PPs above and was arguing for (1) and (2)(a).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are two separate points being discussed in this thread. (1) Should IB sibling preference be eliminated at boundary schools so that all IB kids have an equal shot at PK? And (2) should there be an at risk preference, and if so should it be (a) an IB at risk preference or (b) an overall at risk preference (letting OOB at risk kids as a preference above IB)? Only the latter policy change causes a facility problem. I’m one of the PPs above and was arguing for (1) and (2)(a).

A couple things to keep in mind.

1) Nearly half of DC students are in charters. So an at-risk preference would not affect their facility situation at all.

2) Right now virtually every in-demand DCPS school has a least some OOB students. Over time what would happen is that pretty much the only OOB students who could access these school would be at-risk kids. The UMC or MC families who now lottery to get into a Wilson feeder would be shut up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two separate points being discussed in this thread. (1) Should IB sibling preference be eliminated at boundary schools so that all IB kids have an equal shot at PK? And (2) should there be an at risk preference, and if so should it be (a) an IB at risk preference or (b) an overall at risk preference (letting OOB at risk kids as a preference above IB)? Only the latter policy change causes a facility problem. I’m one of the PPs above and was arguing for (1) and (2)(a).

A couple things to keep in mind.

1) Nearly half of DC students are in charters. So an at-risk preference would not affect their facility situation at all.

2) Right now virtually every in-demand DCPS school has a least some OOB students. Over time what would happen is that pretty much the only OOB students who could access these school would be at-risk kids. The UMC or MC families who now lottery to get into a Wilson feeder would be shut up.

Isn't #2 desireable?

[Anonymous]

The hypothetical nature of this conversation is getting irritating.

Driving kids to two different schools forever is not desirable nor is it reasonable to ask of families. That's why we don't do it.

In DC, families that choose to have only one child (or choose to space their children far apart) are indeed having a harder time getting into schools. Them's the breaks. Perhaps you should have two kids instead? If it's that big a deal, perhaps you should factor that in.