Does anyone feel unfair because of sibling reference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?!

Good answer John Maynard Keynes

[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.

good way to solve overcrowding - make the school less attractive to young families and provide more incentives to exit or never enter the system. Easy to solve overcrowding by killing demand.

Some posters take quality for granted. Only a few years ago many parents wouldn't touch some now in demand schools with a ten foot pole.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I think it's a bit ridiculous if a family moves into the neighborhood over the summer with an older, by-right-attendance child and then their youngest gets to skip the entire queue for pre-K. That family didn't wait their turn. And, frankly, they can shlep the youngest pre-K child to another school for a year.

I'm fine with the sibling preference if the pre-K child was in the waitlist from the very beginning. But it's ridiculous that they get to jump line at the end of the summer. That seems to be an equitable way to deal with the pre-K sibling preference issue.

[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.

good way to solve overcrowding - make the school less attractive to young families and provide more incentives to exit or never enter the system. Easy to solve overcrowding by killing demand.

Some posters take quality for granted. Only a few years ago many parents wouldn't touch some now in demand schools with a ten foot pole.

It would help quality at other schools by spreading the at-risk kids over more schools.

[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.

good way to solve overcrowding - make the school less attractive to young families and provide more incentives to exit or never enter the system. Easy to solve overcrowding by killing demand.

Some posters take quality for granted. Only a few years ago many parents wouldn't touch some now in demand schools with a ten foot pole.

If a few dozen low-income kids will kill demand for the entire school, you really have bigger problems.

[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.

Last I checked, my kids need to be educated too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:my siblings never gave me references. so jealous.

I received a very poor reference from my siblings. That's the way the cookie crumbled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think it's a bit ridiculous if a family moves into the neighborhood over the summer with an older, by-right-attendance child and then their youngest gets to skip the entire queue for pre-K. That family didn't wait their turn. And, frankly, they can shlep the youngest pre-K child to another school for a year.

I'm fine with the sibling preference if the pre-K child was in the waitlist from the very beginning. But it's ridiculous that they get to jump line at the end of the summer. That seems to be an equitable way to deal with the pre-K sibling preference issue.

I fully support sibling preference in order to keep families together for the benefit of both the school and family quality of life. But your suggestion has merit from a fairness standpoint. I recognize the frustration that sibling preference brings for families who are shut out of school because of it and your approach seems to fairly address some of that frustration.

[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.

Last I checked, my kids need to be educated too.

Please feel free to pay for preschool like most other families in America. Las

[Anonymous]

Last I checked, at-risk kids need free preschool a lot more than yours do. And guess what? There's plenty of room at my DC's school. If it's soooo important to you, come on over.

[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.

good way to solve overcrowding - make the school less attractive to young families and provide more incentives to exit or never enter the system. Easy to solve overcrowding by killing demand.

Some posters take quality for granted. Only a few years ago many parents wouldn't touch some now in demand schools with a ten foot pole.

If a few dozen low-income kids will kill demand for the entire school, you really have bigger problems.

That has nothing to do with it. If there are no PS/PK prospects in DC plenty of families will look elsewhere and never enter the system. When you look at private PS options in DC it's limited to fed/corporate/parochial options and there are far fewer spaces in DC than in suburbs.

Or it would exacerbate the classism between Wilson feeders and everyone else (notice that none offer PK3 and many families can easily afford to deal with shut getting shut out of PK4). It would cost the system any kind of reasonable balance or middle class base. It would only extend the currently flawed and highly segregated approach to a systemic one. Set asides are one thing (all talk but good in principal) but reserving PS/PK for income based qualification makes no sense. A 'few dozen' low-income student set-aside at any one school is basically the bulk of PS/PK

[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.

good way to solve overcrowding - make the school less attractive to young families and provide more incentives to exit or never enter the system. Easy to solve overcrowding by killing demand.

Some posters take quality for granted. Only a few years ago many parents wouldn't touch some now in demand schools with a ten foot pole.

If a few dozen low-income kids will kill demand for the entire school, you really have bigger problems.

That has nothing to do with it. If there are no PS/PK prospects in DC plenty of families will look elsewhere and never enter the system. When you look at private PS options in DC it's limited to fed/corporate/parochial options and there are far fewer spaces in DC than in suburbs.

Or it would exacerbate the classism between Wilson feeders and everyone else (notice that none offer PK3 and many families can easily afford to deal with shut getting shut out of PK4). It would cost the system any kind of reasonable balance or middle class base. It would only extend the currently flawed and highly segregated approach to a systemic one. Set asides are one thing (all talk but good in principal) but reserving PS/PK for income based qualification makes no sense. A 'few dozen' low-income student set-aside at any one school is basically the bulk of PS/PK

Huh? In most of this country, elementary schools have no preschool whatsoever, and people still enter the school system. Paying for 12 years of private school because of no free preschool is insane.

[Anonymous]

People keep making the point here that the system has lots of PK3/PK4 slots, just not where folks want them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think it's a bit ridiculous if a family moves into the neighborhood over the summer with an older, by-right-attendance child and then their youngest gets to skip the entire queue for pre-K. That family didn't wait their turn. And, frankly, they can shlep the youngest pre-K child to another school for a year.

I'm fine with the sibling preference if the pre-K child was in the waitlist from the very beginning. But it's ridiculous that they get to jump line at the end of the summer. That seems to be an equitable way to deal with the pre-K sibling preference issue.

I totally agree with you. It will be okay if they also attend the entire process like others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think it's a bit ridiculous if a family moves into the neighborhood over the summer with an older, by-right-attendance child and then their youngest gets to skip the entire queue for pre-K. That family didn't wait their turn. And, frankly, they can shlep the youngest pre-K child to another school for a year.

I'm fine with the sibling preference if the pre-K child was in the waitlist from the very beginning. But it's ridiculous that they get to jump line at the end of the summer. That seems to be an equitable way to deal with the pre-K sibling preference issue.

I totally agree with you. It will be okay if they also attend the entire process like others.

Are there any good "excuses" for moving late in the year in your book? Job transfer? Military orders?