Does anyone feel unfair because of sibling reference?

[Anonymous]

I've passed a heart-broken lottery because my son could not get a PK4 spot at in-boundary school. At first, I still had some little hope when my son was waitlisted at number 7. Then after the lottery result date, the number increased because some other students' siblings applied. After a few frustrated waiting months, when all others were offered to the school, he's at #1 in the waitlist, my hope's back. I held my breath, waiting for some change, after all, he was fell to #2 but hasn't offered yet!!! I feel so heart-broken now and think sibling reference is ridiculous when one family can get 2 or more spots in a school and takes all hope from others.

[Anonymous]

Ugh. I feel for you. I am not in that spot but I do see both sides. Sending well wishes your way that someone moves or gets into another school or something. Good luck!!!!!

[Anonymous]

It's hard to keep perspective, but OP all of the siblings who are getting in 'ahead' of you live IB as well.

Chances are at least some of their older siblings were not able to enroll when they were in PK4.

If you have a younger child, he/she will easily get in once your child is in K or above.

[Anonymous]

It sucks, but having kids permanently in two differeren t schools would make it sooooo hard for families and consume time and money they could otherwise contribute to the schools. As long as schools depend heavily on parent contributions, it's gotra stay.

Also, free preschool for the affluent is just not a priority. That's why there isn't enough to go around. 80% of America does not have free preschool at all, so try to keep things in perspective.

[Anonymous]

I have 2 little kids and I think it's better if attending sibling isn't counted as a reference. I am happy if my kids have to go to 2 different schools. Privilege should not go to some families. Sorry if I am wrong.

[Anonymous]

I think it is unfair because of what you just wrote but being a twin mom I can't agree.
We applied for pk3, one of our twins has very good numbers and the other one terrible ones... imagine having one kid in and the other out not fair either...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have 2 little kids and I think it's better if attending sibling isn't counted as a reference. I am happy if my kids have to go to 2 different schools. Privilege should not go to some families. Sorry if I am wrong.

It's preference, not reference. Oh, and you're also wrong about it being unfair. It would be nonsensical to the point of stupidity to channel families into different schools.

Trying to change diapers on two different children isn't quite the same as scheduling teacher conferences, school pick-up and drop-offs, aftercare, playdates, and fundraisers. You sound like someone who knows nothing about raising more than one child beyond the age of diapers.

[Anonymous]

Your option OP is to move IB for a school with early action admission, which means all IB students get in for Pk3 or Pk4.

Here's the list
https://dcps.dc.gov/page/pre-kindergarten-pk3-and-pk4

[Anonymous]

my siblings never gave me references. so jealous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 2 little kids and I think it's better if attending sibling isn't counted as a reference. I am happy if my kids have to go to 2 different schools. Privilege should not go to some families. Sorry if I am wrong.

It's preference, not reference. Oh, and you're also wrong about it being unfair. It would be nonsensical to the point of stupidity to channel families into different schools.

Trying to change diapers on two different children isn't quite the same as scheduling teacher conferences, school pick-up and drop-offs, aftercare, playdates, and fundraisers. You sound like someone who knows nothing about raising more than one child beyond the age of diapers.

So do you think that putting all burden to one family (they also may have 2 young kids) is better and costs less than dividing the difficulties to 2 families? It sounds like you are just thinking for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 2 little kids and I think it's better if attending sibling isn't counted as a reference. I am happy if my kids have to go to 2 different schools. Privilege should not go to some families. Sorry if I am wrong.

It's preference, not reference. Oh, and you're also wrong about it being unfair. It would be nonsensical to the point of stupidity to channel families into different schools.

Trying to change diapers on two different children isn't quite the same as scheduling teacher conferences, school pick-up and drop-offs, aftercare, playdates, and fundraisers. You sound like someone who knows nothing about raising more than one child beyond the age of diapers.

So do you think that putting all burden to one family (they also may have 2 young kids) is better and costs less than dividing the difficulties to 2 families? It sounds like you are just thinking for yourself.

No. Anyone who knows anything at all about division of resources or civic planning knows that it's always best to keep families together. If you can't understand that, you're not worth talking to - you're really too dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 2 little kids and I think it's better if attending sibling isn't counted as a reference. I am happy if my kids have to go to 2 different schools. Privilege should not go to some families. Sorry if I am wrong.

It's preference, not reference. Oh, and you're also wrong about it being unfair. It would be nonsensical to the point of stupidity to channel families into different schools.

Trying to change diapers on two different children isn't quite the same as scheduling teacher conferences, school pick-up and drop-offs, aftercare, playdates, and fundraisers. You sound like someone who knows nothing about raising more than one child beyond the age of diapers.

So do you think that putting all burden to one family (they also may have 2 young kids) is better and costs less than dividing the difficulties to 2 families? It sounds like you are just thinking for yourself.

So then they get preference to stay together, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 2 little kids and I think it's better if attending sibling isn't counted as a reference. I am happy if my kids have to go to 2 different schools. Privilege should not go to some families. Sorry if I am wrong.

It's preference, not reference. Oh, and you're also wrong about it being unfair. It would be nonsensical to the point of stupidity to channel families into different schools.

Trying to change diapers on two different children isn't quite the same as scheduling teacher conferences, school pick-up and drop-offs, aftercare, playdates, and fundraisers. You sound like someone who knows nothing about raising more than one child beyond the age of diapers.

So do you think that putting all burden to one family (they also may have 2 young kids) is better and costs less than dividing the difficulties to 2 families? It sounds like you are just thinking for yourself.

No. Anyone who knows anything at all about division of resources or civic planning knows that it's always best to keep families together. If you can't understand that, you're not worth talking to - you're really too dumb.

I understand the rationale for sibling preference (and have been on both sides of this). However I agree with OP that being bumped back by new arrivals to the neighborhood post-lottery is very frustrating. In neighborhoods witha large influx over the summer of families with multiple children, it makes the waitlist rather meaningless for those with an oldest or only child on the waitlist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 2 little kids and I think it's better if attending sibling isn't counted as a reference. I am happy if my kids have to go to 2 different schools. Privilege should not go to some families. Sorry if I am wrong.

It's preference, not reference. Oh, and you're also wrong about it being unfair. It would be nonsensical to the point of stupidity to channel families into different schools.

Trying to change diapers on two different children isn't quite the same as scheduling teacher conferences, school pick-up and drop-offs, aftercare, playdates, and fundraisers. You sound like someone who knows nothing about raising more than one child beyond the age of diapers.

So do you think that putting all burden to one family (they also may have 2 young kids) is better and costs less than dividing the difficulties to 2 families? It sounds like you are just thinking for yourself.

No. Anyone who knows anything at all about division of resources or civic planning knows that it's always best to keep families together. If you can't understand that, you're not worth talking to - you're really too dumb.

I understand the rationale for sibling preference (and have been on both sides of this). However I agree with OP that being bumped back by new arrivals to the neighborhood post-lottery is very frustrating. In neighborhoods witha large influx over the summer of families with multiple children, it makes the waitlist rather meaningless for those with an oldest or only child on the waitlist.

This battle has been waged by lottery losers a few thousand times. It has always been lost, and it always will be - forever. The underlying logic of ending it is that families do not matter. The underlying logic of sibling preference is that families do matter. This P.O.V. will always win.

[Anonymous]

I don't think that sibling preference is fair to only children. Should not be a preference.