One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:not sure why you are focusing on a year old policy that makes total sense...

One year would arguably produce the evidence of the policy changes efficacy, wouldn't you agree?

It was an across the board change imposed on schools with little evidence to support shutting the door to siblings based on facility/age gap. Just asking if there has been anyone affected (positively or negatively) by the policy change.

Sidebar: Rumor has it that it was solely initiated to ensure space for a specific school administrator's late bloomer kid in a school that needed several open spaces based on the numbers by 2022.

What "evidence" could possibly support it? Sorry you are having a hard time but only children already are disadvantaged and sibling alumni preference just makes it worse.

What evidence supports that only children are any more worse off? I'd think more spaces would be taken by employees and administrators preference just off share numbers alone then would age gap siblings?

The numbers for that kind of preference are capped so I don't think it would matter a lot.

Perhaps you could explain how a sibling alumni preference benefits the general public in any significant way.

This. It's a perk without need. Sorry you had your kids too far apart, OP. Time to move on.

Eek, harsh. But true - the policy reason for sibling preference is to ease pick up and drop off, not secure seats for family ties.

This was merely one reason sibling preference was put in place over 20 years ago, but not the only reason.

Seems more unfair to reserve preference for attendance to employees and senior administrators. A school can hand-pick employees... you can't choose the families that lottery in.

I am no supporter of staff preference, but it does have some impact on staff recruitment. But can you explain again how sibling alumni preference helps anyone beyond those receiving it?

Surely. How about the kids impacted by the scenario.

Take for example having to explain to your ten year old sixth grade kid that eventhough they went to the same elementary school as their brother or sister they can't go to the same middle school as their brother or sister because they were born 3-4 years too late. Many of the LEAs that have 6-12 or 5-12 have separate buildings that are close to each other in proximity. That's the gist of some of the unintended consequences.

Relationships that were built with teachers for the older and the learning of the school's unique culture is then thrown out the window for the younger soley because of a 3-4 year age gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:not sure why you are focusing on a year old policy that makes total sense...

One year would arguably produce the evidence of the policy changes efficacy, wouldn't you agree?

It was an across the board change imposed on schools with little evidence to support shutting the door to siblings based on facility/age gap. Just asking if there has been anyone affected (positively or negatively) by the policy change.

Sidebar: Rumor has it that it was solely initiated to ensure space for a specific school administrator's late bloomer kid in a school that needed several open spaces based on the numbers by 2022.

What "evidence" could possibly support it? Sorry you are having a hard time but only children already are disadvantaged and sibling alumni preference just makes it worse.

What evidence supports that only children are any more worse off? I'd think more spaces would be taken by employees and administrators preference just off share numbers alone then would age gap siblings?

The numbers for that kind of preference are capped so I don't think it would matter a lot.

Perhaps you could explain how a sibling alumni preference benefits the general public in any significant way.

This. It's a perk without need. Sorry you had your kids too far apart, OP. Time to move on.

Eek, harsh. But true - the policy reason for sibling preference is to ease pick up and drop off, not secure seats for family ties.

This was merely one reason sibling preference was put in place over 20 years ago, but not the only reason.

Seems more unfair to reserve preference for attendance to employees and senior administrators. A school can hand-pick employees... you can't choose the families that lottery in.

I am no supporter of staff preference, but it does have some impact on staff recruitment. But can you explain again how sibling alumni preference helps anyone beyond those receiving it?

Surely. How about the kids impacted by the scenario.

Take for example having to explain to your ten year old sixth grade kid that eventhough they went to the same elementary school as their brother or sister they can't go to the same middle school as their brother or sister because they were born 3-4 years too late. Many of the LEAs that have 6-12 or 5-12 have separate buildings that are close to each other in proximity. That's the gist of some of the unintended consequences.

Relationships that were built with teachers for the older and the learning of the school's unique culture is then thrown out the window for the younger soley because of a 3-4 year age gap.

PP here. In this case, the rising 6th grader might get taken to school by the rising 9th grader. Most LEAs that are 5-12 or 6-12 have the middle and high school in separate buildings. A sibling preference here based on building location (when the locations are on the same street or within a mile of each other) makes sense.

The argument is being framed regarding an unfair advantage based on family ties or legacy treatment.... but in the case of elementary/middle/high school transition, the window to lose preference is very small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:not sure why you are focusing on a year old policy that makes total sense...

One year would arguably produce the evidence of the policy changes efficacy, wouldn't you agree?

It was an across the board change imposed on schools with little evidence to support shutting the door to siblings based on facility/age gap. Just asking if there has been anyone affected (positively or negatively) by the policy change.

Sidebar: Rumor has it that it was solely initiated to ensure space for a specific school administrator's late bloomer kid in a school that needed several open spaces based on the numbers by 2022.

What "evidence" could possibly support it? Sorry you are having a hard time but only children already are disadvantaged and sibling alumni preference just makes it worse.

What evidence supports that only children are any more worse off? I'd think more spaces would be taken by employees and administrators preference just off share numbers alone then would age gap siblings?

The numbers for that kind of preference are capped so I don't think it would matter a lot.

Perhaps you could explain how a sibling alumni preference benefits the general public in any significant way.

This. It's a perk without need. Sorry you had your kids too far apart, OP. Time to move on.

Eek, harsh. But true - the policy reason for sibling preference is to ease pick up and drop off, not secure seats for family ties.

This was merely one reason sibling preference was put in place over 20 years ago, but not the only reason.

Seems more unfair to reserve preference for attendance to employees and senior administrators. A school can hand-pick employees... you can't choose the families that lottery in.

I am no supporter of staff preference, but it does have some impact on staff recruitment. But can you explain again how sibling alumni preference helps anyone beyond those receiving it?

Surely. How about the kids impacted by the scenario.

Take for example having to explain to your ten year old sixth grade kid that eventhough they went to the same elementary school as their brother or sister they can't go to the same middle school as their brother or sister because they were born 3-4 years too late. Many of the LEAs that have 6-12 or 5-12 have separate buildings that are close to each other in proximity. That's the gist of some of the unintended consequences.

Relationships that were built with teachers for the older and the learning of the school's unique culture is then thrown out the window for the younger soley because of a 3-4 year age gap.

If these are your concerns go to your neighborhood schools!!!

[Anonymous]

My kids are three years apart academically and sure, it would be nice if my younger DC were guaranteed a spot somewhere even if my elder DC left the school. But I just don't buy that the relationships and oh so special unique school culture really matters. Charters love to tell you they're so special and unique but meh. I don't think an entire family full of kids should be permanently blessed just because of a good lottery number for one kid, one time 10 years ago. Creating a system where newcomers to the city and people with bad lottery numbers have no hope of a good school is a real down side to this kind of policy. And if my younger DC wanted to go somewhere other than where her older sibling went, a sibling alumni preference could make that more difficult for her to get in. I see the importance of sibling preference for family logistics, but I just don't see the same value in sibling alumni preference. With older children the commute pressure is not as bad anyway.

[Anonymous]

I believe charters are allowed to do this within their LEA. So if they don't, it's because they don't want to and your complaint is with them. As for DCPS, it seems like it would mean that a lot more kids get to go to Deal and that seems like a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids are three years apart academically and sure, it would be nice if my younger DC were guaranteed a spot somewhere even if my elder DC left the school. But I just don't buy that the relationships and oh so special unique school culture really matters. Charters love to tell you they're so special and unique but meh. I don't think an entire family full of kids should be permanently blessed just because of a good lottery number for one kid, one time 10 years ago. Creating a system where newcomers to the city and people with bad lottery numbers have no hope of a good school is a real down side to this kind of policy. And if my younger DC wanted to go somewhere other than where her older sibling went, a sibling alumni preference could make that more difficult for her to get in. I see the importance of sibling preference for family logistics, but I just don't see the same value in sibling alumni preference. With older children the commute pressure is not as bad anyway.

Where are your kids going that is only a 3 year program with no feeder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are three years apart academically and sure, it would be nice if my younger DC were guaranteed a spot somewhere even if my elder DC left the school. But I just don't buy that the relationships and oh so special unique school culture really matters. Charters love to tell you they're so special and unique but meh. I don't think an entire family full of kids should be permanently blessed just because of a good lottery number for one kid, one time 10 years ago. Creating a system where newcomers to the city and people with bad lottery numbers have no hope of a good school is a real down side to this kind of policy. And if my younger DC wanted to go somewhere other than where her older sibling went, a sibling alumni preference could make that more difficult for her to get in. I see the importance of sibling preference for family logistics, but I just don't see the same value in sibling alumni preference. With older children the commute pressure is not as bad anyway.

Where are your kids going that is only a 3 year program with no feeder?

There are some standalone middle schools. Digital Pioneers, Sojourner Truth, SJS. And there are schools that serve very few grades because they are new starts, so that could affect a family. And Appletree. Or, if a family adopted or a parent married and created stepsiblings, a sibling relationship could arise that didn't exist before. But I still think it's fine for kids to have their own lottery luck and not count on some long-ago sibling. Like if DC1 attended Wilson and graduated in 2020, does that mean that if the dad remarries and has kids with a new wife, another child could be entitled to attend Wilson in 2035? Sorry, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are three years apart academically and sure, it would be nice if my younger DC were guaranteed a spot somewhere even if my elder DC left the school. But I just don't buy that the relationships and oh so special unique school culture really matters. Charters love to tell you they're so special and unique but meh. I don't think an entire family full of kids should be permanently blessed just because of a good lottery number for one kid, one time 10 years ago. Creating a system where newcomers to the city and people with bad lottery numbers have no hope of a good school is a real down side to this kind of policy. And if my younger DC wanted to go somewhere other than where her older sibling went, a sibling alumni preference could make that more difficult for her to get in. I see the importance of sibling preference for family logistics, but I just don't see the same value in sibling alumni preference. With older children the commute pressure is not as bad anyway.

Where are your kids going that is only a 3 year program with no feeder?

There are some standalone middle schools. Digital Pioneers, Sojourner Truth, SJS. And there are schools that serve very few grades because they are new starts, so that could affect a family. And Appletree. Or, if a family adopted or a parent married and created stepsiblings, a sibling relationship could arise that didn't exist before. But I still think it's fine for kids to have their own lottery luck and not count on some long-ago sibling. Like if DC1 attended Wilson and graduated in 2020, does that mean that if the dad remarries and has kids with a new wife, another child could be entitled to attend Wilson in 2035? Sorry, no.

None of those even have waitlists. And the PK family who want free child care at apple tree for their kid when the oldest is now in elementary? Please. Many people don't get free PK for their first, second or 3rd kid.

[Anonymous]

Plus there are several Appletrees with no WL this year.