Feeling sad about your lottery results . . .

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind that the situation will get significantly worse next year when DCPS sets aside one-quarter of lottery seats for at-risk children.

[Anonymous]

Unless, of course, you are a vulnerable kid or family who can't pay to move or send your kid to private school. In other words, the ones who truly *need* access to quality education opportunities, because of challenges they face at home.

[Anonymous]

How will they classify at-risk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless, of course, you are a vulnerable kid or family who can't pay to move or send your kid to private school. In other words, the ones who truly *need* access to quality education opportunities, because of challenges they face at home.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless, of course, you are a vulnerable kid or family who can't pay to move or send your kid to private school. In other words, the ones who truly *need* access to quality education opportunities, because of challenges they face at home.

You're probably at a good DCPS or HRCS so you feel entitled to talk shit and play phony advocate. If you got shut out you'd be singing a whole different tune. Too many NIMBY posters on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind that the situation will get significantly worse next year when DCPS sets aside one-quarter of lottery seats for at-risk children.

So, how will that work? If a school only has 30 ps3 spots, only 22 spots will be available to the general public? I can't believe this, but I am already stressing out about next year. Our first got into a great school (hurrah hurrah!) this year, and now I'm thinking ahead to the odds of little sister getting into ps3 with sibling preference. Someone bring me a margarita already!

[Anonymous]

Definitely not happy, but I do think that setting aside 25% of spots for at-risk kids is the right thing to do. Universal PK wasn't meant for the affluent who can afford to pay for it.

That being said, I'm selfish and I'd love to see charters schools set aside 25% for at-risk, 25% for paid applicants, and 50% straight lottery. I'd absolutely pay for the school I got shut out of because it meets a very specific need for us.

[Anonymous]

I thought the at risk preference was I my for a school that doesn't meet the set asides.

[Anonymous]

How does that work in schools already over capacity. How can Janney take 25% students and still make room for all the IB students in K? FWIW I am an EoTP parent and really have no idea how the 25% will work if if IB students are gauranteed spots in K.

[Anonymous]

I thought this thread would direct me to the lottery losers happy hour. Boo!

[Anonymous]

I thought most schools other than a few in NW already met that criteria. Is it really going to impacting things that much next year?

[Anonymous]

They should do 75% paid 25% at risk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How will they classify at-risk?

At-risk students means students who are at risk of academic failure. Children who are homeless or in foster care (per the official classifications of those things), receiving certain kids of public assistance (TANF and SNAP, I believe, though I vaguely remember it just being TANF) and high school students who are more than a year older than their grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does that work in schools already over capacity. How can Janney take 25% students and still make room for all the IB students in K? FWIW I am an EoTP parent and really have no idea how the 25% will work if if IB students are gauranteed spots in K.

My understanding (and I have not gone back to check the rules before writing this), is that schools should have a total of 10% OOB, not a particular grade. That is not new OOB, that is OOB total. Of the amount that is available for OOB, there is a set aside for at-risk. I think that the at risk set aside is after IB and sibling priority.

Also, Janney is a bad example because it has an exemption for over crowding. Most schools already have at least 10 % OOB. Janney does not but I think it has 6 %.

[Anonymous]

If you look at the initial budget allocations for DCPS for SY 2015-16 each school's draft budget shows the percentage of at-risk students they anticipate will be enrolled next year. For example, Mann and Janney show 1% at-risk. Murch, Key and Lafayette show 3%. Compare that to a school like Savoy with 82% at-risk or Drew with 83% and it's easy to see how some schools have the odds stacked against them. Personally, I think ensuring that those schools have the resources they need to meet their population would be much more effective then saying some of them can escape their local school and go to a Janney or a Mann. Simple logistics present a challenge...only those at-risk kids with parents who are able to get them there will be able to take advantage of this "opportunity." And what about aftercare? At most of the upper NW schools the aftercare is costly and NOT run through DCPS. But what do I know?