Thoughts about sibling preference in lottery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If sibling preference was restricted to elementary school, as OP suggested, the would not be any commuting impacts since MS/HS kids can get around on their own in DC. So it would not impact your total amount of volunteering time.

You are thinking about your own middle class experience and not the experience of families with at-risk students (and those are the families that a public school system needs to be designed to serve).

If you want to encourage parent engagement at school and at home and have parents with few resources (time, money, etc.) you can't make it so hard for them. Two, three, kids at different schools, especially if those schools are across the city from one another, doesn't work for the majority of families.

That said, obviously preferences for at-risk kids would also be helpful as would high quality neighborhood schools across the city.

well yes and no. At-risk students do need to be served and have different considerations than the average student, but a public school system needs to serve everyone.

They do serve everyone. Starting in K. PK3 and PK4 are outgrowths of headstart and similar, so should err on the side of at-risk.

so moving the goalposts now? Where was this discussion centered on ECE vs public ed?

[Anonymous]

You’re not very smart.

Some people have clearly stated that they like sibling preference, but not for ECE at IB schools only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:get rid of feeder rights for preschoolers. that would open up some spaces more fairly. PK is not required so why should siblings get those spaces and then coast through elem if its not their IB. Give by right to IB kids for PK and that might do more to keep kids in their neighborhood schools.

Outside of a handful of dual language schools, no OOB PK students are getting into a neighborhood school ahead of IB students.

And thats unfair too. Bruce monroe reserves 29 seats for spanish dominant and only 19 seats for english dominant. And yes, plenty of OOB kids are getting in over IB english dominant kids. I have no idea why its not 50/50 split like most schools.

I think you know why, but you don't agree with the policy. But in case you don't, the DCPS enrollment handbook explains on page 13. https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/SY17-18%20Enrollment%20and%20Lottery%20Handbook5317.pdf

"Dual language schools/programs place additional emphasis on sibling preference because of the value of in-home exposure to language acquisition. As such, a sibling preference is weighted more heavily than an in-boundary preference at these schools/programs (relevant for PK3/PK4 only)."

Your quote does not actually address the issue the PP does not understand. PP was wondering why PK spots are not allocated 50/50 between Spanish and English dominant and instead are weighted toward Spanish. I believe this is because the IB kids attending by right joining at K cause an influx of English dominant students. To maintain a reasonable number of Spanish dominant kids at K and above, they need to admit a higher percentage in PK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dealing with the school lottery over the years, I am conflicted about the sibling preference option. (I have one kid).

I get it for preschool/elementary school--it's easier for the family.

But for middle and high school? Seriously? The goose keeps laying the golden eggs for these people.

What opinions do you have about it?

The first child in every family has the same odds.

And then there are a bunch of miscellaneous dynamics at play. For example, what about the younger siblings who don’t apply widely because their family wants them to go where their older sibling got in?

The sibling preference exists for good reasons and you are not disadvantaged by it as much as you want to believe.

This. I have foregone spots at both Yu Ying and LAMB because siblings would never get in.

Without sibling preference, I would have had to spend all my time commuting and would not have been able to do anywhere near as much volunteering, and try to divide my volunteering across two schools. That would preclude any significant role.

The real problem, obviously, is not enough good schools.

If sibling preference was restricted to elementary school, as OP suggested, the would not be any commuting impacts since MS/HS kids can get around on their own in DC. So it would not impact your total amount of volunteering time.

What? Sorry but some schools do not have good transit availability. It significantly complicates family life even if I don't have to drive them. And then there are the late evening events, when transit is even worse. And of course, different off days and breaks. It would suck.

Even if the amount of volunteering is the same number of hours, dividing across schools means no major role at either one.

You are acting like you have no other option. If you want a school that is close to home and that all of your kids will have a right to attend, you can enroll at your IB MS or HS. If you choose to enter the lottery instead, I’m not sure that added convenience to you is a sufficient reason to give your kids extra tickets to the lottery just because they have siblings. But reasonable minds can disagree on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I don't think older kids had the same odds. Wait lists in many neighborhoods across the city are much longer now than they were 5 years ago.

Please. Most of those kids took a flyer on an unknown quantity back in the day. They were willing to take the risk and helped to make the successful charters what they are now. You are welcome to do that with new charters as well.

That has long been the dumbest argument about this topic. It's like complaining that housing prices were lower five years ago so some could afford to buy IB WOPT.

No, it's like complaining that someone who bought a house in Columbia Heights 10 years ago was more fortunate. But that person took a risk on a "transitional" neighborhood that has panned out. Go and buy in Michigan Park if you want to try the same thing.

Actually it is nothing like buying a house.

In our IB school, roughly 40 to 50 students had been applying to the ECE program for years. Our year it was 75 and it hasn't dropped below 65 in the 6 years since. These things make massive jumps year to year and DCPS is unable to plan for it in a meaningful way.

Are you telling us that DCPS is unresponsive to the educational wants/needs/demands of the community?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I don't think older kids had the same odds. Wait lists in many neighborhoods across the city are much longer now than they were 5 years ago.

Please. Most of those kids took a flyer on an unknown quantity back in the day. They were willing to take the risk and helped to make the successful charters what they are now. You are welcome to do that with new charters as well.

That has long been the dumbest argument about this topic. It's like complaining that housing prices were lower five years ago so some could afford to buy IB WOPT.

No, it's like complaining that someone who bought a house in Columbia Heights 10 years ago was more fortunate. But that person took a risk on a "transitional" neighborhood that has panned out. Go and buy in Michigan Park if you want to try the same thing.

Actually it is nothing like buying a house.

In our IB school, roughly 40 to 50 students had been applying to the ECE program for years. Our year it was 75 and it hasn't dropped below 65 in the 6 years since. These things make massive jumps year to year and DCPS is unable to plan for it in a meaningful way.

That being said, you have to have sib preference in some way. I'm just always amazed how quickly people are to shut the door on the people behind them.

I’m just not sure I agree that at a neighborhood school sibling #4 from across the street should have more right to an ECE spot than child 1 of another family. Assuming of course that neither is at risk. (I would be totally on board for an economic preference). I get that the family commuting across town to a charter is in a different position but in a neighborhood school Baby 4 can wait a year or find another option just as easily as Baby 1.

So you're just talking about JKLM again? Or what? Because the IBs I know have plenty of space. Or, at least, a pretty good amount of space. And, you're guaranteed at K so who cares, private daycare for 2 more years. Big whoop. Cry me a river.

Right, it should be big whoop for Baby 4 as well. Cry me a river.

Meh. Having kids is expensive. The tax credit is a joke. If you can scrape by in the city with a family then God bless!

Pay up, ye of the barren wombs and stingy hearts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think sibling preference for PK3/4 where no one is guaranteed school at all is pretty shitty. Why should the family w/ kids basically automatically not have to pay for school/the nanny, but the family with no other kids does?

After that, once everyone is guaranteed at least their IB? No concerns; I can understand why it's better for everyone if sibs can be in the same school.

Yep that is the point I was making above about Baby 4 versus Baby 1 at a neighborhood school. Doesn’t make sense.

Waah! I don't want to pay for a nanny! I want free childcare! Waah! It's not fair that people get something I don't get! Waah!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If sibling preference was restricted to elementary school, as OP suggested, the would not be any commuting impacts since MS/HS kids can get around on their own in DC. So it would not impact your total amount of volunteering time.

You are thinking about your own middle class experience and not the experience of families with at-risk students (and those are the families that a public school system needs to be designed to serve).

If you want to encourage parent engagement at school and at home and have parents with few resources (time, money, etc.) you can't make it so hard for them. Two, three, kids at different schools, especially if those schools are across the city from one another, doesn't work for the majority of families.

That said, obviously preferences for at-risk kids would also be helpful as would high quality neighborhood schools across the city.

well yes and no. At-risk students do need to be served and have different considerations than the average student, but a public school system needs to serve everyone.

This. You can't say in one breath that you want integrated schools with the children of the poor allowed to attend alongside the children of the middle class, and then turn around and tell the middle class they can't attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The goose keeps laying the golden eggs for these people.

LMAO

This is DCUM's version of Does Pete Rose Belong In the Hall of Fame?

As has been said, every first entering child has the same chances with, I guess, a distinct advantage for twins/triplets and families with multiple children moving to DC.

I suspect most people against sibling preference aren't families with one child who misguidedly consider it unfair, but IB boosters who recognize it would drive people from even considering charters since they'd mostly likely be headed to their IB once their second child reached school age.

From a fairness perspective there are problems both with sibling preference and OOB-feeder rights.

A kid who wins a seat in the lottery for a Deal feeder this spring has the right to attend Deal and Wilson through 2032. His siblings have a leg up to get in the same position.

The gulf between those who win the prize and those who miss out is enormous.

This is truly the problem for me. Better schools for everyone would solve the problem. That's not the reality we're dealing with though. Some families are winning not just the school lottery but also the ability to increase their household wealth by magnitudes whereas others are having to move and not having that same opportunity. There are other costs to not winning (apart from household wealth and actual education received), but these don't get the airtime that they should as we talk about how DC public schools really operate. We won the prize for elementary and it remains to be seen if we won the prize for MS/HS as we are taking a gamble on newer schools. Because some are winning the lottery, they are less inclined to use whatever 'power/leverage/advocacy skills/etc' they have to demand a system that works for all - as opposed to a lucky few (most of whom are already doing pretty well).

See this Atlantic article - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/

And here's what I find to be a telling quote - It’s one of the delusions of our meritocratic class, however, to assume that if our actions are individually blameless, then the sum of our actions will be good for society.

Having read The Atantic's article and been persuaded by it, you should be pleased to participate in sharing YOUR resources at a less-resourced school. Right? Or did you think it was just an instructional manual for everyone else to accommodate your snowflake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dealing with the school lottery over the years, I am conflicted about the sibling preference option. (I have one kid).

I get it for preschool/elementary school--it's easier for the family.

But for middle and high school? Seriously? The goose keeps laying the golden eggs for these people.

What opinions do you have about it?

Truly this is one of the gift threads that just keeps on giving. It's evergreen!

If I were Jeff, getting paid for ads, I'd plant this little seed every few weeks because it's such a reliable hot-button - especially for the less fertile among us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I don't think older kids had the same odds. Wait lists in many neighborhoods across the city are much longer now than they were 5 years ago.

Please. Most of those kids took a flyer on an unknown quantity back in the day. They were willing to take the risk and helped to make the successful charters what they are now. You are welcome to do that with new charters as well.

That has long been the dumbest argument about this topic. It's like complaining that housing prices were lower five years ago so some could afford to buy IB WOPT.

No, it's like complaining that someone who bought a house in Columbia Heights 10 years ago was more fortunate. But that person took a risk on a "transitional" neighborhood that has panned out. Go and buy in Michigan Park if you want to try the same thing.

Actually it is nothing like buying a house.

In our IB school, roughly 40 to 50 students had been applying to the ECE program for years. Our year it was 75 and it hasn't dropped below 65 in the 6 years since. These things make massive jumps year to year and DCPS is unable to plan for it in a meaningful way.

Are you telling us that DCPS is unresponsive to the educational wants/needs/demands of the community?!

Most of the community has more than one kid and likes the sibling preference.

Next?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think sibling preference for PK3/4 where no one is guaranteed school at all is pretty shitty. Why should the family w/ kids basically automatically not have to pay for school/the nanny, but the family with no other kids does?

After that, once everyone is guaranteed at least their IB? No concerns; I can understand why it's better for everyone if sibs can be in the same school.

Yep that is the point I was making above about Baby 4 versus Baby 1 at a neighborhood school. Doesn’t make sense.

Waah! I don't want to pay for a nanny! I want free childcare! Waah! It's not fair that people get something I don't get! Waah!

I’m the poster who said above that I disagree with sibling preference for ECE at neighborhood schools. In case it’s relevant, I have three kids. I’m not complaining about what some people get that I don’t get (my family has benefitted and not benefitted from sibling preference, depending on the kid). But I still believe that each 3 or 4 year old IB for a school should have an equal shot at ECE, without sibling preference. I also said I agree with an economic preference, which would not benefit us. But I do think each of my three kids should have had the same shot (setting aside the changing size of the cohort each year). Maybe that would mean none of them would get in for PK3 (as it was 1 out of 3 did) or maybe all. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this and I really don’t believe in sibling preference for ECE st neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think sibling preference for PK3/4 where no one is guaranteed school at all is pretty shitty. Why should the family w/ kids basically automatically not have to pay for school/the nanny, but the family with no other kids does?

After that, once everyone is guaranteed at least their IB? No concerns; I can understand why it's better for everyone if sibs can be in the same school.

Yep that is the point I was making above about Baby 4 versus Baby 1 at a neighborhood school. Doesn’t make sense.

Waah! I don't want to pay for a nanny! I want free childcare! Waah! It's not fair that people get something I don't get! Waah!

I am the top poster quoted above and I am not crying for myself. I have 2 kids and will soon have 3. Sibling preference will benefit me way more than it hurts me. (My eldest got into a PK3 via the lottery, not our first choice... but completely fine.) I just actually haven't heard a rationale for it that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Here’s a thought experiment: what if there were an IB preference at neighborhood schools for firstborn children only? That would be more equitable in the sense that every parent has one child, but not every parent has more than one child. It would encourage neighborhood adoption of the neighborhood school by getting new families to try it out every year. And as for the second children? They’d all be in the general pot with the same shot each.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a thought experiment: what if there were an IB preference at neighborhood schools for firstborn children only? That would be more equitable in the sense that every parent has one child, but not every parent has more than one child. It would encourage neighborhood adoption of the neighborhood school by getting new families to try it out every year. And as for the second children? They’d all be in the general pot with the same shot each.

How would you enforce it?

The more rules and hurdles you create, the more people will figure out a way to cheat (e.g. Mom enrolls first kid; Dad enrolls second).