Thoughts about sibling preference in lottery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I said it was a bought experiment for a reason. Yes, extremely hard to enforce but in some ways more equitable than sibling preference.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

Sarcasm wouldn't have to mug you. It could walk up to you, introduce itself, shake hands and reach into your pocket for your wallet. You wouldn't know the difference.

[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.

Because only children need even more reasons for their parents to treat them like snowflakes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I said it was a bought experiment for a reason. Yes, extremely hard to enforce but in some ways more equitable than sibling preference.

The point isn't it being equitable. It's better for families, schools and, ultimately, the entire system and city for dozens of reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I said it was a bought experiment for a reason. Yes, extremely hard to enforce but in some ways more equitable than sibling preference.

The point isn't it being equitable. It's better for families, schools and, ultimately, the entire system and city for dozens of reasons.

This. Once a particular family (of whatever background) is in, it is in the entire community's (the school, the family, the city, the neighborhood, the commuters, etc. etc. etc.) for the students to be in the same school. Yes, it's slightly harder for the only children of the world, but considering that they have two parents to dote on one child, they'll make up for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I said it was a bought experiment for a reason. Yes, extremely hard to enforce but in some ways more equitable than sibling preference.

The point isn't it being equitable. It's better for families, schools and, ultimately, the entire system and city for dozens of reasons.

This. Once a particular family (of whatever background) is in, it is in the entire community's (the school, the family, the city, the neighborhood, the commuters, etc. etc. etc.) for the students to be in the same school. Yes, it's slightly harder for the only children of the world, but considering that they have two parents to dote on one child, they'll make up for it.

This doesn’t really apply to an IB school where most children walk.

[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?

My opinion.. find another pet issue to get upset about...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Ultimately this would benefit the well-connected who can work around it. It would be a barrier to entry for the poor who need it most (aren't "the poor" the reason we began taxpayer funding for ECE?).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Ultimately this would benefit the well-connected who can work around it. It would be a barrier to entry for the poor who need it most (aren't "the poor" the reason we began taxpayer funding for ECE?).

Can’t find any fault with that statement. You are onto the real issue that needs to be tackled.

[Anonymous]

Yet another reason to love the 'burbs

[Anonymous]

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?

My opinion.. find another pet issue to get upset about...

+1. OP, stop being selfish because you are unwilling to try to understand how, without this preference, DC would be a lot less desirable for families with more than one child.

[Anonymous]

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?

My opinion.. find another pet issue to get upset about...

+1. OP, stop being selfish because you are unwilling to try to understand how, without this preference, DC would be a lot less desirable for families with more than one child.

+1 sibling preference is a rational, good policy that helps the family and in turn helps the school community and the District. When you and your one child are finished at your elementary school, for instance, and no longer offer your support through volunteering, families with multiple children are. Their investment is longer and therefore more valuable. DC will never touch sibling preference. It’s a solid policy. Pick some other “chip on your shoulder” issue to waste your time on

[Anonymous]

So glad there's sib pref. Eventhough my oldest will be well into high school when my LO goes to prek, I will never have to do the lottery to get her into my now highly sought after charter.... so be life!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yet another reason to love the 'burbs

Bye, Felicia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yet another reason to love the 'burbs

You might want to question your priorities if you live in the suburbs and are lurking on a DCPS/PCS discussion board.... It's pretty pathetic.