I hate the advantage people with multiple kids have in the school lottery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate the advantage some people have with using the lottery to cherry pick schools versus its intended purpose which was to give the most disadvantaged students the opportunity to attend higher performing schools that were outside of their neighborhood. The lottery needs a complete overhaul or new criteria. The children that need it the most are being waitlisted behind those that want certain programming and languages taught and enrichment activities when most of the time they can afford to get all of these extras for their kids on their own dime.

What are you even talking about? The lottery was not created to give "the most disadvantaged" a leg up in admissions. That preference didn't even exist until a couple years ago (and it goes to a huge number of kids).

The lottery as we now know it replaced the old system where individual schools all had their own lotteries, and you had to enter each one separately. It was created because DC has a small number of good schools and huge number of garbage schools, and far more applicants to the good ones than could ever be accommodated.

If we didnt have the lottery, there would be way more parents leaving the city when their kids got to be school age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the advantage some people have with using the lottery to cherry pick schools versus its intended purpose which was to give the most disadvantaged students the opportunity to attend higher performing schools that were outside of their neighborhood. The lottery needs a complete overhaul or new criteria. The children that need it the most are being waitlisted behind those that want certain programming and languages taught and enrichment activities when most of the time they can afford to get all of these extras for their kids on their own dime.

Every fifth grader who applied equitable access to Latin got in by June, compared to about 13% of students applying through the regular lottery and without siblings. Every fifth grader who applied equitable access to Latin Cooper got in on results day. Nearly every 5th grader who applied equitable access to BASIS got in by June, and the few who didn't likely will by September.

wow that is a massive disparity in who gets in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the advantage some people have with using the lottery to cherry pick schools versus its intended purpose which was to give the most disadvantaged students the opportunity to attend higher performing schools that were outside of their neighborhood. The lottery needs a complete overhaul or new criteria. The children that need it the most are being waitlisted behind those that want certain programming and languages taught and enrichment activities when most of the time they can afford to get all of these extras for their kids on their own dime.

Every fifth grader who applied equitable access to Latin got in by June, compared to about 13% of students applying through the regular lottery and without siblings. Every fifth grader who applied equitable access to Latin Cooper got in on results day. Nearly every 5th grader who applied equitable access to BASIS got in by June, and the few who didn't likely will by September.

wow that is a massive disparity in who gets in

And if you're poor enough to get SNAP or TANF, I'm fine with you getting (at this point) a guaranteed spot at Latin. Many kids in that situation won't have the wherewithal or the family support to apply or to get there each day, but a kid who does deserves a chance. Only a portion of the seats are set aside for equitable access, so the school will remain economically diverse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the advantage some people have with using the lottery to cherry pick schools versus its intended purpose which was to give the most disadvantaged students the opportunity to attend higher performing schools that were outside of their neighborhood. The lottery needs a complete overhaul or new criteria. The children that need it the most are being waitlisted behind those that want certain programming and languages taught and enrichment activities when most of the time they can afford to get all of these extras for their kids on their own dime.

Every fifth grader who applied equitable access to Latin got in by June, compared to about 13% of students applying through the regular lottery and without siblings. Every fifth grader who applied equitable access to Latin Cooper got in on results day. Nearly every 5th grader who applied equitable access to BASIS got in by June, and the few who didn't likely will by September.

wow that is a massive disparity in who gets in

And if you're poor enough to get SNAP or TANF, I'm fine with you getting (at this point) a guaranteed spot at Latin. Many kids in that situation won't have the wherewithal or the family support to apply or to get there each day, but a kid who does deserves a chance. Only a portion of the seats are set aside for equitable access, so the school will remain economically diverse.

You don't have to be that poor in DC to get SNAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The OP is arguing for no sibling preference. But others are more reasonably saying ice it only for 5+ middle schools and high schools. All of the future Euclid ES schools (Seaton Cleveland Garrison) now feed to SWWFS.

OP here and if you actually read my post I'm not arguing for anything -- I just feel frustrated by the fact that we compete against families with sibling preference for spots and that puts my kid at a disadvantage in the lottery. I'm not actually making a policy argument -- just venting as a means of getting through the waitlist limbo we are in this summer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the advantage some people have with using the lottery to cherry pick schools versus its intended purpose which was to give the most disadvantaged students the opportunity to attend higher performing schools that were outside of their neighborhood. The lottery needs a complete overhaul or new criteria. The children that need it the most are being waitlisted behind those that want certain programming and languages taught and enrichment activities when most of the time they can afford to get all of these extras for their kids on their own dime.

Every fifth grader who applied equitable access to Latin got in by June, compared to about 13% of students applying through the regular lottery and without siblings. Every fifth grader who applied equitable access to Latin Cooper got in on results day. Nearly every 5th grader who applied equitable access to BASIS got in by June, and the few who didn't likely will by September.

wow that is a massive disparity in who gets in

And if you're poor enough to get SNAP or TANF, I'm fine with you getting (at this point) a guaranteed spot at Latin. Many kids in that situation won't have the wherewithal or the family support to apply or to get there each day, but a kid who does deserves a chance. Only a portion of the seats are set aside for equitable access, so the school will remain economically diverse.

You don't have to be that poor in DC to get SNAP.

For a family of four you have to earn 60K or less as a family. I'm betting that very few of us who post on this board have a family income that low.

[Anonymous]

I hear you OP. We have an only so only one chance every year. The sibling preference is a real advantage especially as certain schools have gotten increasingly harder to get into. I understand why it exists but when you can't use it, it kind of sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The OP is arguing for no sibling preference. But others are more reasonably saying ice it only for 5+ middle schools and high schools. All of the future Euclid ES schools (Seaton Cleveland Garrison) now feed to SWWFS.

OP here and if you actually read my post I'm not arguing for anything -- I just feel frustrated by the fact that we compete against families with sibling preference for spots and that puts my kid at a disadvantage in the lottery. I'm not actually making a policy argument -- just venting as a means of getting through the waitlist limbo we are in this summer.

You'll eventually be fine, OP! I have older kids and live EOTP and have seen many people play the lottery year after year -- everyone eventually ends up in a good spot (even if it sometime means a long commute). And it's truly random, I've seen siblings both get nothing, and only children get a golden ticket (Latin 1, if that's what they wanted.) my older son got a path on the strength of his own lottery luck, eventually. enjoy the early years when the stakes are low, and have faith that you'll get on a good path eventually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "equitable access preference" is MASSIVE and seems a lot less fair than the one for siblings.

Really? Is that not what the lottery was created for? To give children access to schools that are beyond their reach? Just go on and say it, you don't like that poor kids are given an advantage in a system that was designed to cater to a specific type. Neighborhood schools reflect the income of those living in them. The low income kids should just stay where they are huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "equitable access preference" is MASSIVE and seems a lot less fair than the one for siblings.

Really? Is that not what the lottery was created for? To give children access to schools that are beyond their reach? Just go on and say it, you don't like that poor kids are given an advantage in a system that was designed to cater to a specific type. Neighborhood schools reflect the income of those living in them. The low income kids should just stay where they are huh?

Equitable access is awesome. In an ideal world, all schools would be equally great, but until that is true, it's a very good thing. Families with resources have other ways to solve the problem (move, tutors, etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand why sibling preference exists and I don't resent any individual family who benefits from it because I get that being able to send your kids to the same schools is really vital for families daily functioning. But it's hard having an only in a school you are not happy with and having to rely on lottery number to hopefully get you into a better situation and then watching your numbers go up because of sibling preference.

Again -- no anger at the individual families who are jumping up the line in front of us as I get it but it's just hard. We are pretty much definitely going to biting our nails on this one well into August and likely even into September and I so wish we could just tell our kid "you're going to X school" and start getting her and us ready for that and instead I feel like we have to just sit at the back of the line and hope and pray.

Good luck to you!!! one thing to note is that this is very much tied to DC not offering school buses. In Arlington, there is no sibling preference (with an exception for twins) for lottery schools (including bilingual schools and HB Woodlawn) because it is not seen as that logistically challenging to have kids at different schools because there are both regular school buses and late buses that leave after sports and activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the parent of 3 kids, it helps more than I realized because of the tendency for the list to move in clumps. All 3 of my kids got into 2 of the hardest to get into schools on the Hill including, ironically, my upper elementary kid with an awful number, because as soon as one of her siblings got in, she jumped to 1 on the WL and they then gave her an offer that same day (in one case, it was the only offer they made by June per the data). I actually am sort of cyclical and wonder if they saw younger kid’s address and previous elementary school and decided that was a good time to move the older list rather than to admit whoever the prior #1 was. No idea how much info they have.

Some schools just have a policy of taking all siblings. My older son also got an offer from a sought after DCPS and my younger son had an offer within 15 minutes. There wasn't necessarily a spot, they just wanted to keep the kids together.

By contrast, my younger son got an offer at a Hardy feeder and my older son jumped to #1, but then never got off the waitlist. (I accepted the top situation and took them both off all lists, so I'll never know if he would have eventually gotten off.)

Seems to be at the schools discretion.

Neither school took all siblings at once, so I don’t think that can be the explanation. 3rd kid got into B and neither of the other 2 did. Then 3rd kid got into A and immediately 1st kid got in, but 2nd didn’t. 2nd kid got into B and then 1st kid did immediately. 2ns kid then got into A. 2nd & 3rd kids had independently excellent numbers. 1st kid’s was awful at a year it should be much easier to get in anywhere, but was able to piggyback off each sibling once for admission to two different CH schools. 2nd & 3rd kids are now both very close to the top of the WL for the hardest school to get into on the Hill; 1st way way down. Will be curious to see if any make it eventually. 2nd & 3rd kids numbers were initially identical to those for the second hardest to get into school, so that list just moved more faster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the parent of 3 kids, it helps more than I realized because of the tendency for the list to move in clumps. All 3 of my kids got into 2 of the hardest to get into schools on the Hill including, ironically, my upper elementary kid with an awful number, because as soon as one of her siblings got in, she jumped to 1 on the WL and they then gave her an offer that same day (in one case, it was the only offer they made by June per the data). I actually am sort of cyclical and wonder if they saw younger kid’s address and previous elementary school and decided that was a good time to move the older list rather than to admit whoever the prior #1 was. No idea how much info they have.

Some schools just have a policy of taking all siblings. My older son also got an offer from a sought after DCPS and my younger son had an offer within 15 minutes. There wasn't necessarily a spot, they just wanted to keep the kids together.

By contrast, my younger son got an offer at a Hardy feeder and my older son jumped to #1, but then never got off the waitlist. (I accepted the top situation and took them both off all lists, so I'll never know if he would have eventually gotten off.)

Seems to be at the schools discretion.

Neither school took all siblings at once, so I don’t think that can be the explanation. 3rd kid got into B and neither of the other 2 did. Then 3rd kid got into A and immediately 1st kid got in, but 2nd didn’t. 2nd kid got into B and then 1st kid did immediately. 2ns kid then got into A. 2nd & 3rd kids had independently excellent numbers. 1st kid’s was awful at a year it should be much easier to get in anywhere, but was able to piggyback off each sibling once for admission to two different CH schools. 2nd & 3rd kids are now both very close to the top of the WL for the hardest school to get into on the Hill; 1st way way down. Will be curious to see if any make it eventually. 2nd & 3rd kids numbers were initially identical to those for the second hardest to get into school, so that list just moved more faster.

Reading this has convinced me that it's way more logistically complicated to manage waitlists with 3 kids than it is with 2.

Are they all enrolled at A right now? How did #1 get off the WL for B if he/she was already enrolled at A? If you rank A higher than B, aren't you removed from the WL for B once you enroll in A?

[Anonymous]

Life is not fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the parent of 3 kids, it helps more than I realized because of the tendency for the list to move in clumps. All 3 of my kids got into 2 of the hardest to get into schools on the Hill including, ironically, my upper elementary kid with an awful number, because as soon as one of her siblings got in, she jumped to 1 on the WL and they then gave her an offer that same day (in one case, it was the only offer they made by June per the data). I actually am sort of cyclical and wonder if they saw younger kid’s address and previous elementary school and decided that was a good time to move the older list rather than to admit whoever the prior #1 was. No idea how much info they have.

Some schools just have a policy of taking all siblings. My older son also got an offer from a sought after DCPS and my younger son had an offer within 15 minutes. There wasn't necessarily a spot, they just wanted to keep the kids together.

By contrast, my younger son got an offer at a Hardy feeder and my older son jumped to #1, but then never got off the waitlist. (I accepted the top situation and took them both off all lists, so I'll never know if he would have eventually gotten off.)

Seems to be at the schools discretion.

Neither school took all siblings at once, so I don’t think that can be the explanation. 3rd kid got into B and neither of the other 2 did. Then 3rd kid got into A and immediately 1st kid got in, but 2nd didn’t. 2nd kid got into B and then 1st kid did immediately. 2ns kid then got into A. 2nd & 3rd kids had independently excellent numbers. 1st kid’s was awful at a year it should be much easier to get in anywhere, but was able to piggyback off each sibling once for admission to two different CH schools. 2nd & 3rd kids are now both very close to the top of the WL for the hardest school to get into on the Hill; 1st way way down. Will be curious to see if any make it eventually. 2nd & 3rd kids numbers were initially identical to those for the second hardest to get into school, so that list just moved more faster.

Reading this has convinced me that it's way more logistically complicated to manage waitlists with 3 kids than it is with 2.

Are they all enrolled at A right now? How did #1 get off the WL for B if he/she was already enrolled at A? If you rank A higher than B, aren't you removed from the WL for B once you enroll in A?

We didn’t take any of the spots. We’re staying at our IB (probably the 4th “best” school on the Hill) where the kids are very happy. In the abstract, I’d actually only prefer A to our own, but the preference isn’t strong enough to uproot everyone from a school where they have great friends & we’re all very involved in the community. I only play the lottery every year as a backup in case something crazy happens and out of curiosity.