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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And then after the at risk students are assigned, IB would be assigned. Then OOB etc.

Everyone is foxated i’m the PK but most at risk students are older anyway.

[Anonymous]

^^ fixated on

[Anonymous]

Isn't that basically what Boston does?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And then after the at risk students are assigned, IB would be assigned. Then OOB etc.

Everyone is foxated i’m the PK but most at risk students are older anyway.

People fixate on PK because there's no right to PK even for IB students.

Even if it's just a few spots different at every school, it would make a difference in the aggregate and I strongly support it.

[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.

Me too.

Free preschool for the affluent draws high SES families to DCPS schools they might not otherwise try. Many stay, raise a lot for of dough for PTAs and get involved in a hundred constructive ways. I'd spent more money on the project.

[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.

Me too.

Free preschool for the affluent draws high SES families to DCPS schools they might not otherwise try. Many stay, raise a lot for of dough for PTAs and get involved in a hundred constructive ways. I'd spent more money on the project.

I would cap the high-income preschoolers at 40% of the class, including siblings, for Title I schools only. Non-Title-I schools, affluent non-siblings can come in only after all IB at-risk kids have been accomodated.

[Anonymous]

Define affluent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Define affluent.

I'm not sure what they would use. But you could do a household income cutoff. Or just say everyone who's not at-risk, which is really quite far from affluent for most people, but whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think they studied this, but I would support a system that first gave preference to at risk kids whose sibling(s) attend the school and then to other at risk kids.

I wouldn't want the good goal of at-risk preferences to make more at-risk families face situations where siblings would be split up.

Requiring schools with low at-risk percentages to back-fill their classes throughout the year and in every grade would also make a huge difference. There is no reason why Ross, for example, can just choose not to take kids and wind up with a 12-student 5th grade.

There would still have to be some sanity involved for it to work. They can’t just add 11 at risk students to those 12 and expect to continue the dynamic of the cohort. Maybe the number added to a class any given year should be capped at 10-20 percent to balance preserving the class and benefiting at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think they studied this, but I would support a system that first gave preference to at risk kids whose sibling(s) attend the school and then to other at risk kids.

I wouldn't want the good goal of at-risk preferences to make more at-risk families face situations where siblings would be split up.

Requiring schools with low at-risk percentages to back-fill their classes throughout the year and in every grade would also make a huge difference. There is no reason why Ross, for example, can just choose not to take kids and wind up with a 12-student 5th grade.

There would still have to be some sanity involved for it to work. They can’t just add 11 at risk students to those 12 and expect to continue the dynamic of the cohort. Maybe the number added to a class any given year should be capped at 10-20 percent to balance preserving the class and benefiting at risk.

Maybe the "dynamic of the cohort" is less important than the benefit to at-risk kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Define affluent.

I'm not sure what they would use. But you could do a household income cutoff. Or just say everyone who's not at-risk, which is really quite far from affluent for most people, but whatever.

40% of DC students are at risk of academic failure (defined as receiving TANF, SNAP, in the foster care system, homeless or in high school and a year or more older than the expected grade).

80% are economically disadvantaged (qualify for FARMS); obviously there is overlap with the at-risk category.

Tbe 20% that does not meet either of the above definitions are, relatively speaking, affluent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think they studied this, but I would support a system that first gave preference to at risk kids whose sibling(s) attend the school and then to other at risk kids.

I wouldn't want the good goal of at-risk preferences to make more at-risk families face situations where siblings would be split up.

Requiring schools with low at-risk percentages to back-fill their classes throughout the year and in every grade would also make a huge difference. There is no reason why Ross, for example, can just choose not to take kids and wind up with a 12-student 5th grade.

Maybe not Ross, but it does make a huge difference at Mann or Murch, because then all of a sudden you are exploding Wilson High School even further.

Change the OOB slots to at risk slots? Fine. Add at risk on top of OOB slots? Disaster.

I'm not saying at-risk on top of OOB. I'm saying that schools should have full classes (DCPS can set a number that is "full"--let's say 22 kids in grades 3-5). If it's the first week of school and Janney's 4th grade classes are 22, 22, 22, and 18 students, take 4 kids off the waitlist and give at-risk kids a preference for those seats.

I get your point about overcrowding at Wilson. My solution to that would be that OOB kids (at risk or not) lose the right to attend the destination schools. So if 4 kids got into 4th grade at Janney OOB, they don't get to go to Deal unless they win the lottery for Deal. Deal is only 70% in-bounds now. They can offer the extra 30% of seats in the lottery, again with an at-risk preference (maybe for half the seats). There could even be a feeder school preference so that some kid would get to stay with their friends. And Wilson is 56% IB. So again there is room for all the IB kids and a group of OOB ones without overcrowding the school at all, as long as OOB kids' right to attend destination schools is curtailed.

Sounds good to be, but good luck ever killing off the feeder system. It's the beast that can't be killed.

If the goal is to benefit the at risk kids they need to be allowed to continue with the friends they make and hopefully make it further through that peer influence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If the goal is to benefit the at risk kids they need to be allowed to continue with the friends they make and hopefully make it further through that peer influence

The at-risk kids would be allowed to continue in the feeder pattern all the way through. Basically just swap the current OOB students who are not at risk with at-risk students. To make this work space wise it would probably be implemented at the early grades first.

But it would also apply to charters -- so an at-risk applicant to a charter would have priority over a sibling of a current student, or any other applicant to that charter.

[Anonymous]

I think that would kill a lot of charters that don’t already have a high FARMS population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that would kill a lot of charters that don’t already have a high FARMS population.

If having a modest increase in the number of at-risk kids is all it takes to "kill" a charter, good riddance. My kid's school is expected to deal with a majority at-risk population and we find a way.