Does anyone feel unfair because of sibling reference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just isn't feasible, even if it were unfair, which I don't think it is. So many more cars would be a logistical nightmare. Families would be miserable and have that much less time and money to contribute to the school. I could see taking it away from preschool because nobody is entitled to it anyway, but that's small ball.


If PK4 were so important to you, you should have changed your lottery strategy. There are plenty of seats at my kid's Title I.

Really? My family should move out of bounds of the home we've had for years now with a great elementary school? Seems entitled of you to think that we are not allowed to attend our neighborhood school.

You are allowed. But nobody is entitled to free preschool at their first choice school. If you wanted it that badly you would enroll elsewhere.

Unless you live IB for one of the early action schools, where the kids really need the preschool. If you're at a school with a PK4 wait list, your kid will be ok without it. Really.

Even then, it isn't really an entitlement, just a choice downtown has made and can cancel at any time. They couldn't do that for K-5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Say you THINK you will have only one child, but then maybe are surprised you find yourself pregnant again years later. Should you have had to sign something for DC1 in order to create a single child preference? What about step siblings or half siblings? We all can't win.

So long as schools all start and end at the same damn time, sibling preference makes logistical sense. Stagger start and end times and I could accept the end of sibling preference.

That's actually an interesting thought. Option to waive any future sibling preference in DCPS for even footing with sibling preference.

I know it's totally untenable. Any economists care to weigh in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say you THINK you will have only one child, but then maybe are surprised you find yourself pregnant again years later. Should you have had to sign something for DC1 in order to create a single child preference? What about step siblings or half siblings? We all can't win.

So long as schools all start and end at the same damn time, sibling preference makes logistical sense. Stagger start and end times and I could accept the end of sibling preference.

That's actually an interesting thought. Option to waive any future sibling preference in DCPS for even footing with sibling preference.

I know it's totally untenable. Any economists care to weigh in?

Because creating more reasons for people to drive more places in DC is a good idea for 100 parents mad about sibling preference?!

[Anonymous]

Sorry it sucks - you win some, you lose some. It's a lottery. I once benefited from having a sibling advantage, and lost out other times not being able to get two places at once.

hopefully the odds will move in your favor before the start of school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry it sucks - you win some, you lose some. It's a lottery. I once benefited from having a sibling advantage, and lost out other times not being able to get two places at once.

hopefully the odds will move in your favor before the start of school.

+1. The sibling thing has pros and cons. Some schools are off our list because DD1 would be too old or would not get in even with sibling preference if DD2 got in.

[Anonymous]

Let's just eliminate free PK for any school that isn't Title 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's just eliminate free PK for any school that isn't Title 1.

+1. Since they are always complaining about being overcrowded.

Even better idea: these schools can offer PK but ONLY for at-risk kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just eliminate free PK for any school that isn't Title 1.

+1. Since they are always complaining about being overcrowded.

Even better idea: these schools can offer PK but ONLY for at-risk kids.

An at-risk preference would make more sense than a sibling preference. That way the seats would go to those who need it most, whether sibling or only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just eliminate free PK for any school that isn't Title 1.

+1. Since they are always complaining about being overcrowded.

Even better idea: these schools can offer PK but ONLY for at-risk kids.

An at-risk preference would make more sense than a sibling preference. That way the seats would go to those who need it most, whether sibling or only.

And it could boost the proportion of at-risk kids in wealthy schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just eliminate free PK for any school that isn't Title 1.

+1. Since they are always complaining about being overcrowded.

Even better idea: these schools can offer PK but ONLY for at-risk kids.

An at-risk preference would make more sense than a sibling preference. That way the seats would go to those who need it most, whether sibling or only.

And it could boost the proportion of at-risk kids in wealthy schools.

Thus overcrowding them even more. Good plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just eliminate free PK for any school that isn't Title 1.

+1. Since they are always complaining about being overcrowded.

Even better idea: these schools can offer PK but ONLY for at-risk kids.

An at-risk preference would make more sense than a sibling preference. That way the seats would go to those who need it most, whether sibling or only.

And it could boost the proportion of at-risk kids in wealthy schools.

Thus overcrowding them even more. Good plan.

Cry me a river. Get rid of preschook and free up those rooms if it's so crowded. Or there's plenty of space at my child's Title I.

[Anonymous]

We didn't get into preK at our in-bounds school - -Bancroft -- because out-of-bound families with siblings get preference over in-bound families at the preK level. Not a huge deal. I see preK as a bonus and we could go by right in K. But we got into a charter in preK and started there and stayed. I think Bancroft loses a lot of in-bound families who might otherwise stay in the neighborhood because of this policy (which I think is just for bi-lingual schools)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We didn't get into preK at our in-bounds school - -Bancroft -- because out-of-bound families with siblings get preference over in-bound families at the preK level. Not a huge deal. I see preK as a bonus and we could go by right in K. But we got into a charter in preK and started there and stayed. I think Bancroft loses a lot of in-bound families who might otherwise stay in the neighborhood because of this policy (which I think is just for bi-lingual schools)

I don't think this is true. IB with sibling, followed by IB, followed by OOB with sibling. Proximity preference might also be above OOB with sibling. My oldest goes to a school with a higher OOB percentage in the upper grades and we know several families who have an older sibling enrolled OOB who did not get in for PK4. We were merely IB with no sibling enrolled at the time and my kid got a PK spot. Those families we know got a spot in K last year since OOB with sibling enrolled gets preference over pure OOB, but did not come off the list for PK the year before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We didn't get into preK at our in-bounds school - -Bancroft -- because out-of-bound families with siblings get preference over in-bound families at the preK level. Not a huge deal. I see preK as a bonus and we could go by right in K. But we got into a charter in preK and started there and stayed. I think Bancroft loses a lot of in-bound families who might otherwise stay in the neighborhood because of this policy (which I think is just for bi-lingual schools)

I understand your feeling. Siblings preference has pros but it's unfair when they even did not need to start the whole process at the beginning!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We didn't get into preK at our in-bounds school - -Bancroft -- because out-of-bound families with siblings get preference over in-bound families at the preK level. Not a huge deal. I see preK as a bonus and we could go by right in K. But we got into a charter in preK and started there and stayed. I think Bancroft loses a lot of in-bound families who might otherwise stay in the neighborhood because of this policy (which I think is just for bi-lingual schools)

I don't think this is true. IB with sibling, followed by IB, followed by OOB with sibling. Proximity preference might also be above OOB with sibling. My oldest goes to a school with a higher OOB percentage in the upper grades and we know several families who have an older sibling enrolled OOB who did not get in for PK4. We were merely IB with no sibling enrolled at the time and my kid got a PK spot. Those families we know got a spot in K last year since OOB with sibling enrolled gets preference over pure OOB, but did not come off the list for PK the year before.

But there are two lotteries happening at Bancroft -- Spanish dominant and English dominant. If not enough IB Spanish dominant someone could get in OOB for that lottery while IB English is wait listed.