What would an at-risk preference do? New MSDC research paper out

[Anonymous]

MSDC ran hypothetical versions of the lottery with a couple different approaches to implementing an at-risk preference to see what the results would be. http://www.myschooldc.org/sites/default/files/dc/sites/myschooldc/page/MSDC%20At-Risk%20Preference%20in%20a%20Unified%20Lottery%204.26.2018_Final.pdf

Short answer -- unless you prioritize at-risk over sibling and IB, it may not make much of a change.

More analysis from this observer on Twitter https://twitter.com/WillPerkins10/status/991094331544096768

[Anonymous]

One of the points of that Twitter posting that stood out to me is that at risk kids are far less likely to enter the lottery at all (more than 40% of all kids are at risk, but way less than 40% of lottery applicants. That confirms what I've thought about charter schools not taking their "fair share" of the most difficult to educate students, and so any comparison of outcomes isn't fair. It also suggests that providing access to quality schools for at risk kids has to be done outside the lottery system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the points of that Twitter posting that stood out to me is that at risk kids are far less likely to enter the lottery at all (more than 40% of all kids are at risk, but way less than 40% of lottery applicants. That confirms what I've thought about charter schools not taking their "fair share" of the most difficult to educate students, and so any comparison of outcomes isn't fair. It also suggests that providing access to quality schools for at risk kids has to be done outside the lottery system.

I suppose it also suggests that at-risk students are underrepresented at Pk3 and Pk4 -- since they'd need to use the lottery to get there. Which is really frustrating since that is presumably who would benefit from it the most.

In the April 2018 Common Lottery board minutes (posted in another thread) they said 2018 had the highest level of applicants from Ward 8 (yes, I know that isn't where ALL the at-risk kids are). Kang also wanted MSDC to outline what outreach had been done specifically to homeless families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the points of that Twitter posting that stood out to me is that at risk kids are far less likely to enter the lottery at all (more than 40% of all kids are at risk, but way less than 40% of lottery applicants. That confirms what I've thought about charter schools not taking their "fair share" of the most difficult to educate students, and so any comparison of outcomes isn't fair. It also suggests that providing access to quality schools for at risk kids has to be done outside the lottery system.

I suppose it also suggests that at-risk students are underrepresented at Pk3 and Pk4 -- since they'd need to use the lottery to get there. Which is really frustrating since that is presumably who would benefit from it the most.

In the April 2018 Common Lottery board minutes (posted in another thread) they said 2018 had the highest level of applicants from Ward 8 (yes, I know that isn't where ALL the at-risk kids are). Kang also wanted MSDC to outline what outreach had been done specifically to homeless families.

Ward 8 has the highest number of children in the city.

[Anonymous]

So would anyone be supportive of giving at-risk preference over IB students for Pk3 and Pk4 at DCPS, and at every grade for charters and city-wide schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the points of that Twitter posting that stood out to me is that at risk kids are far less likely to enter the lottery at all (more than 40% of all kids are at risk, but way less than 40% of lottery applicants. That confirms what I've thought about charter schools not taking their "fair share" of the most difficult to educate students, and so any comparison of outcomes isn't fair. It also suggests that providing access to quality schools for at risk kids has to be done outside the lottery system.

I suppose it also suggests that at-risk students are underrepresented at Pk3 and Pk4 -- since they'd need to use the lottery to get there. Which is really frustrating since that is presumably who would benefit from it the most.

In the April 2018 Common Lottery board minutes (posted in another thread) they said 2018 had the highest level of applicants from Ward 8 (yes, I know that isn't where ALL the at-risk kids are). Kang also wanted MSDC to outline what outreach had been done specifically to homeless families.

Ward 8 has the highest number of children in the city.

Right - and Ward 8 apps as a percentage of the total applicants was up over prior years as well.

[Anonymous]

I don't think they studied this, but I would support a system that first gave preference to at risk kids whose sibling(s) attend the school and then to other at risk kids.

I wouldn't want the good goal of at-risk preferences to make more at-risk families face situations where siblings would be split up.

Requiring schools with low at-risk percentages to back-fill their classes throughout the year and in every grade would also make a huge difference. There is no reason why Ross, for example, can just choose not to take kids and wind up with a 12-student 5th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think they studied this, but I would support a system that first gave preference to at risk kids whose sibling(s) attend the school and then to other at risk kids.

I wouldn't want the good goal of at-risk preferences to make more at-risk families face situations where siblings would be split up.

Requiring schools with low at-risk percentages to back-fill their classes throughout the year and in every grade would also make a huge difference. There is no reason why Ross, for example, can just choose not to take kids and wind up with a 12-student 5th grade.

Maybe not Ross, but it does make a huge difference at Mann or Murch, because then all of a sudden you are exploding Wilson High School even further.

Change the OOB slots to at risk slots? Fine. Add at risk on top of OOB slots? Disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So would anyone be supportive of giving at-risk preference over IB students for Pk3 and Pk4 at DCPS, and at every grade for charters and city-wide schools?

I'd be ok with at-risk kids getting a preference in PK3 and 4 over other IB kids at their IB schools. Or even a guarantee that they'll be admitted to either their IB school or a school they rank higher in the lottery...kind of like the IB guarantee some Title I schools are offering.

Honestly I doubt that there are many at-risk kids who listed their IB schools somewhere on their lottery lists and didn't match. But even if it's a single kid, I want him or her to have the benefits of PK.

I don't like the idea of at-risk beating out IB for grades K-12. But I'd be ok with an at-risk preference for those grades. Perhaps half the open seats could be reserved for at-risk kids, and then those that didn't get a spot would go into the pool with the non-at-risk kids for the other half of the open seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So would anyone be supportive of giving at-risk preference over IB students for Pk3 and Pk4 at DCPS, and at every grade for charters and city-wide schools?

I would. Any loss of opportunity to my kids would be small compared to the benefits to the at-risk kids and the system being more equitable overall. Free preschool for the affluent should not be a thing we spend money on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would anyone be supportive of giving at-risk preference over IB students for Pk3 and Pk4 at DCPS, and at every grade for charters and city-wide schools?

I would. Any loss of opportunity to my kids would be small compared to the benefits to the at-risk kids and the system being more equitable overall. Free preschool for the affluent should not be a thing we spend money on.

I would too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would anyone be supportive of giving at-risk preference over IB students for Pk3 and Pk4 at DCPS, and at every grade for charters and city-wide schools?

I would. Any loss of opportunity to my kids would be small compared to the benefits to the at-risk kids and the system being more equitable overall. Free preschool for the affluent should not be a thing we spend money on.

I would too.

I would too, and I am IB for a highly desired WOTP school. But, assuming that most at risk kids live on the other side of the river, a lottery preference is meaningless. I want the city to invest in transportation so that young kids can get to the school without their parents and in a timely way and I'd want them to be able to stay at the school, not be kicked out after PK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think they studied this, but I would support a system that first gave preference to at risk kids whose sibling(s) attend the school and then to other at risk kids.

I wouldn't want the good goal of at-risk preferences to make more at-risk families face situations where siblings would be split up.

Requiring schools with low at-risk percentages to back-fill their classes throughout the year and in every grade would also make a huge difference. There is no reason why Ross, for example, can just choose not to take kids and wind up with a 12-student 5th grade.

Maybe not Ross, but it does make a huge difference at Mann or Murch, because then all of a sudden you are exploding Wilson High School even further.

Change the OOB slots to at risk slots? Fine. Add at risk on top of OOB slots? Disaster.

I'm not saying at-risk on top of OOB. I'm saying that schools should have full classes (DCPS can set a number that is "full"--let's say 22 kids in grades 3-5). If it's the first week of school and Janney's 4th grade classes are 22, 22, 22, and 18 students, take 4 kids off the waitlist and give at-risk kids a preference for those seats.

I get your point about overcrowding at Wilson. My solution to that would be that OOB kids (at risk or not) lose the right to attend the destination schools. So if 4 kids got into 4th grade at Janney OOB, they don't get to go to Deal unless they win the lottery for Deal. Deal is only 70% in-bounds now. They can offer the extra 30% of seats in the lottery, again with an at-risk preference (maybe for half the seats). There could even be a feeder school preference so that some kid would get to stay with their friends. And Wilson is 56% IB. So again there is room for all the IB kids and a group of OOB ones without overcrowding the school at all, as long as OOB kids' right to attend destination schools is curtailed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think they studied this, but I would support a system that first gave preference to at risk kids whose sibling(s) attend the school and then to other at risk kids.

I wouldn't want the good goal of at-risk preferences to make more at-risk families face situations where siblings would be split up.

Requiring schools with low at-risk percentages to back-fill their classes throughout the year and in every grade would also make a huge difference. There is no reason why Ross, for example, can just choose not to take kids and wind up with a 12-student 5th grade.

Maybe not Ross, but it does make a huge difference at Mann or Murch, because then all of a sudden you are exploding Wilson High School even further.

Change the OOB slots to at risk slots? Fine. Add at risk on top of OOB slots? Disaster.

I'm not saying at-risk on top of OOB. I'm saying that schools should have full classes (DCPS can set a number that is "full"--let's say 22 kids in grades 3-5). If it's the first week of school and Janney's 4th grade classes are 22, 22, 22, and 18 students, take 4 kids off the waitlist and give at-risk kids a preference for those seats.

I get your point about overcrowding at Wilson. My solution to that would be that OOB kids (at risk or not) lose the right to attend the destination schools. So if 4 kids got into 4th grade at Janney OOB, they don't get to go to Deal unless they win the lottery for Deal. Deal is only 70% in-bounds now. They can offer the extra 30% of seats in the lottery, again with an at-risk preference (maybe for half the seats). There could even be a feeder school preference so that some kid would get to stay with their friends. And Wilson is 56% IB. So again there is room for all the IB kids and a group of OOB ones without overcrowding the school at all, as long as OOB kids' right to attend destination schools is curtailed.

Sounds good to be, but good luck ever killing off the feeder system. It's the beast that can't be killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the points of that Twitter posting that stood out to me is that at risk kids are far less likely to enter the lottery at all (more than 40% of all kids are at risk, but way less than 40% of lottery applicants. That confirms what I've thought about charter schools not taking their "fair share" of the most difficult to educate students, and so any comparison of outcomes isn't fair. It also suggests that providing access to quality schools for at risk kids has to be done outside the lottery system.

I suppose it also suggests that at-risk students are underrepresented at Pk3 and Pk4 -- since they'd need to use the lottery to get there. Which is really frustrating since that is presumably who would benefit from it the most.

In the April 2018 Common Lottery board minutes (posted in another thread) they said 2018 had the highest level of applicants from Ward 8 (yes, I know that isn't where ALL the at-risk kids are). Kang also wanted MSDC to outline what outreach had been done specifically to homeless families.

Yes. At our Hill DCPS, the PreK classes are almost 100% white, whereas at K it's much more diverse. Every year there are a bunch of non-sibling spots, so it's not the sibs taking up all the spots. So to the extent race correlates with risk, for whatever reason these families are not applying for PK spots in the lottery.