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

[Anonymous]

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

FARMS =/= at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seriously. There's no way they would make the preference strong enough to make that big a difference. And if a school can't adequately serve those kids, I think it's fair to ask why. They would get a portion of at-risk funding for each kid.

Or maybe this is when people finally acknowledge that the at-risk funding is nowhere near enough.

[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.

The problem with that is then the other kids arrive IB for K and now you need 8 kindergartens at Janney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem with that is then the other kids arrive IB for K and now you need 8 kindergartens at Janney.

?? So don't have such a big preschool program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem with that is then the other kids arrive IB for K and now you need 8 kindergartens at Janney.

No. This would be implemented at schools with <25% at risk now. Percentage of addl at risk seats would be capped at 10-20%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem with that is then the other kids arrive IB for K and now you need 8 kindergartens at Janney.

?? So don't have such a big preschool program.

Wasn't the whole point of the silly exercise to figure out how to get more at risk kids into preK?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't that basically what Boston does?

What does Boston do? Anyone know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem with that is then the other kids arrive IB for K and now you need 8 kindergartens at Janney.

?? So don't have such a big preschool program.

Wasn't the whole point of the silly exercise to figure out how to get more at risk kids into preK?

Yes, but that does not have to mean the total size of the preschool has to go up. It just means to use a preference to replace some of the non-at-risk kids with at-risk kids.

If some people who are not at-risk have to go elsewhere or stay in daycare, that is a worthwhile tradeoff. I just cannot support how everyone's tax money is going to pay for people wealthier than I am to a better school than my child gets, for free. But that is what is happening in upper NW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't that basically what Boston does?

What does Boston do? Anyone know?

Looks like you get a set of choices based on your address for K-8, and you can lottery for city wide choices as well. All high schools are city-wide and you access via a lottery; some high school have other entrance requirements.

https://www.bostonpublicschools.org/assignment
https://www.bostonpublicschools.org/Page/7080

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't that basically what Boston does?

What does Boston do? Anyone know?

Looks like you get a set of choices based on your address for K-8, and you can lottery for city wide choices as well. All high schools are city-wide and you access via a lottery; some high school have other entrance requirements.

https://www.bostonpublicschools.org/assignment
https://www.bostonpublicschools.org/Page/7080

No high schools have boundaries then? Imagine the uproar for Wilson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the points of that Twitter posting that stood out to me is that at risk kids are far less likely to enter the lottery at all (more than 40% of all kids are at risk, but way less than 40% of lottery applicants. That confirms what I've thought about charter schools not taking their "fair share" of the most difficult to educate students, and so any comparison of outcomes isn't fair. It also suggests that providing access to quality schools for at risk kids has to be done outside the lottery system.

None of those conclusions can really be drawn from these data. 40% of total enrollment is at-risk but lottery applicants are only new students. You have to look at enrollment to establish your "fair share" answer.

[Anonymous]

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.

You are thinking of these school as if they were charters with one entry day. You can't really manage a by-right class with a cap because people come and go in every grade all year long, either because they moved, had to switch schools, were placed by DCPS, or other reasons. Two new kids graders moved in and joined my DC's class last week, which makes about 5 mid year moves in one classroom. Had those seats been "filled" to a cap the class would be way too big now, and then the following year more kids come and the class keeps getting bigger. And the schools know how much mid year turn over they normally have, so there is an art to managing this. Believe me, they aren't leaving seats empty to spite you, they also want to get as many kids access as possible, and they do take kids off the wait list throughout the year, but they have to be realistic about class size and facility space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And right now we have a system where the 20%, the 40% and the 80% are concentrated. So Wilson is 24% economically disadvantaged and Walls is 18%. (According to DCPS Profiles). Those two schools have essentially all of the non-economically-disadvantaged high-schoolers in the city (and about 20% of all high schoolers). How many of those families would send their kids to a school that was 80% or more economically disadvantaged? Or would we end up with a system that was 100% economically disadvantaged?

It's a thorny question, but it looks like the options for DCPS are concentrated wealth and poverty, or just concentrated poverty. At least until the system gets more affluent kids, the numbers just don't seem to allow for any other outcomes.

[Anonymous]

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.

They will not cap classes ar22, that is unrealistic. Classes would probably be more like 26-28.

[Anonymous]

I thought that there were enough pre-k spaces in for all children. I'm a little at a loss as to why 3 and 4 year olds would need to travel across town to schools for pre-k.

Pre-k is highly regulated throughout the the system and inspected. The building might look different, but the kids have the same food and the same classroom resources. There are also great pre-k teachers working across all wards.

Also some of these schools have resources for the parents like GED courses.

Kids are not behind in pre-k. Wrap around services need to be strengthened at each school - healthcare, adult education, job counseling. There's already early stages seats for students that can't get special services.