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

[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 100%.

I'm sorry but how does this really help anything? So a few slots go to at-risk over IB. The number of schools which waitlist IB at PK3 and 4 is incredibly small. Clearly you all attend them so it seems like more than a drop in the bucket. And no, I don't think everyone wants to commute to upper NW (nor can they). The real problem seems to be those at-risk families aren't even entering the lottery to begin with. Which is odd to me, just because, free childcare - isn't that useful to them? Clearly there's something I'm missing.

[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 100%.

I'm sorry but how does this really help anything? So a few slots go to at-risk over IB. The number of schools which waitlist IB at PK3 and 4 is incredibly small. Clearly you all attend them so it seems like more than a drop in the bucket. And no, I don't think everyone wants to commute to upper NW (nor can they). The real problem seems to be those at-risk families aren't even entering the lottery to begin with. Which is odd to me, just because, free childcare - isn't that useful to them? Clearly there's something I'm missing.

It could change the dynamic if at-risk families knew they would get priority entrance to the 'best' schools. I assume more would enter at all grades.

It would absolutely take a lot of education and outreach, and have to come with transportation support.

[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 100%.

I'm sorry but how does this really help anything? So a few slots go to at-risk over IB. The number of schools which waitlist IB at PK3 and 4 is incredibly small. Clearly you all attend them so it seems like more than a drop in the bucket. And no, I don't think everyone wants to commute to upper NW (nor can they). The real problem seems to be those at-risk families aren't even entering the lottery to begin with. Which is odd to me, just because, free childcare - isn't that useful to them? Clearly there's something I'm missing.

At schools that can't take all their IB preschool applicants, it would mean that at-risk IB students have a higher chance of getting in. This is the case at some schools on the Hill, which is a much easier commute from Wards 5, 6, 7 and 8.

They are working on getting more at-risk families to apply. If the chance of a match were better, families might find it more appealing to apply. And have a greater likelihood of a carpool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cognitive gaps show up before children are 3, thanks to health, nutrition, trauma and just differences in the amount and way babies and toddlers are spoken to and with.

This is a good summary https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2013/09/24/early-childhood-achievement-gaps-and-social-mobility-part-1/amp/

Yes. There is also research that trauma can also be inherited genetically. How does this inform at-risk spots for lottery? This shows some of the reasons that achievement gaps grow overtime, right?

It means that at risk lottery seats is not the panacea but it may help. As will home visiting programs, parent support and education https://www.npr.org/2013/12/29/257922222/closing-the-word-gap-between-rich-and-poor

Exactly. There is no one way out of this public education crisis. Good teaching, starting early and sustained over time in necessary to help close the gap that starts with word gaps in infancy and leads to standardized test gaps. Teachers can't do it all - they need support from every level. Funding more adults in their schools to help is one way (even when the enrollment is low and there is no PTA pot to speak of). Taking a few of the highest need students out to reduce the concentration of poverty is another way (by lottery if necessary). Putting higher performing kids in is another way, but has been sadly rejected by people with means over and over again in busing and boundary conversations nationwide.

[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 100%.

I'm sorry but how does this really help anything? So a few slots go to at-risk over IB. The number of schools which waitlist IB at PK3 and 4 is incredibly small. Clearly you all attend them so it seems like more than a drop in the bucket. And no, I don't think everyone wants to commute to upper NW (nor can they). The real problem seems to be those at-risk families aren't even entering the lottery to begin with. Which is odd to me, just because, free childcare - isn't that useful to them? Clearly there's something I'm missing.

Yes, there's a lot that you are missing. It helps the 600 kids that wouldn't otherwise have access to a high performing school. They are actual people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 100%.

I'm sorry but how does this really help anything? So a few slots go to at-risk over IB. The number of schools which waitlist IB at PK3 and 4 is incredibly small. Clearly you all attend them so it seems like more than a drop in the bucket. And no, I don't think everyone wants to commute to upper NW (nor can they). The real problem seems to be those at-risk families aren't even entering the lottery to begin with. Which is odd to me, just because, free childcare - isn't that useful to them? Clearly there's something I'm missing.

Yes, there's a lot that you are missing. It helps the 600 kids that wouldn't otherwise have access to a high performing school. They are actual people.

Drop in the bucket. It's not a solution.

[Anonymous]

You're right. It is not a solution. But will help and its benefits have been studied and demonstrated to be effective (at best) and not harmful (at worst), so it's already a lot better than much of what DC has tried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is all really wonky stuff. I would say after working at one of the worst performing elementary schools in the District that the children with motivated parents and capable children were participating in the lottery. There are buses that idled in the morning in front of my school taking children to J.O Wilson across the river.

The ones that aren't participating in the lottery process are truly at-risk families that would not be able to access a school in a different community anyways. Thinking back to my Pre-K classroom - there was a father of 6 that was interviewing for shift-work. How is he going to have the time to travel across town picking up his kids and pay for himself to commute back and forth. I had a student that was taken into the foster system away from their parents. The foster family brought her daily from MD because the child was having such severe behavior problems being taken out of her community and away from cousins and friends. Children in kinder and first grade were regularily getting their siblings in pre-k to school because the parents weren't at home.

How is taking at-risk funding away from these schools and communities going to address the conditions as to why these families and students are at-risk.

Educationally at-risk students might be behind 3 or 4 years in reading and math levels. No matter how great or rich your school is - they are not going to snap their fingers and get results. Children need to be met where they are emotionally and educationally and stop all this non-sense high-stake testing of students that can barely read themselves. I was in on meeting where administrators said not to focus on the lowest achievers because they would not ever be able to contribute to showing growth in the averages.

I think stregthening neighborhood schools would stregthen the communities. Schools can be a powerful community instutitions.

Thank you for your actually well informed response which no one seems to have read. This idea is not going to work for the families who need it most. And, would take away some of the extra funding for at-risk students. That said, I'm all for making it easier for those you mention who already do the lottery to have some type of priority. It's just that putting them above IB PK preference isn't super useful. And wouldn't affect charter access at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 100%.

I'm sorry but how does this really help anything? So a few slots go to at-risk over IB. The number of schools which waitlist IB at PK3 and 4 is incredibly small. Clearly you all attend them so it seems like more than a drop in the bucket. And no, I don't think everyone wants to commute to upper NW (nor can they). The real problem seems to be those at-risk families aren't even entering the lottery to begin with. Which is odd to me, just because, free childcare - isn't that useful to them? Clearly there's something I'm missing.

Yes, there's a lot that you are missing. It helps the 600 kids that wouldn't otherwise have access to a high performing school. They are actual people.

Drop in the bucket. It's not a solution.

Right now, without informing anyone that of the possibility of an at-risk preference, 600 students would be helped. They ran this preference with applications as they were submitted for SY 18-19.

However, if this were codified and at-risk families KNEW they had priority for a better school, more would likely submit applications that included schools that are now hard to access if you don't have a sibling or IB preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all really wonky stuff. I would say after working at one of the worst performing elementary schools in the District that the children with motivated parents and capable children were participating in the lottery. There are buses that idled in the morning in front of my school taking children to J.O Wilson across the river.

The ones that aren't participating in the lottery process are truly at-risk families that would not be able to access a school in a different community anyways. Thinking back to my Pre-K classroom - there was a father of 6 that was interviewing for shift-work. How is he going to have the time to travel across town picking up his kids and pay for himself to commute back and forth. I had a student that was taken into the foster system away from their parents. The foster family brought her daily from MD because the child was having such severe behavior problems being taken out of her community and away from cousins and friends. Children in kinder and first grade were regularily getting their siblings in pre-k to school because the parents weren't at home.

How is taking at-risk funding away from these schools and communities going to address the conditions as to why these families and students are at-risk.

Educationally at-risk students might be behind 3 or 4 years in reading and math levels. No matter how great or rich your school is - they are not going to snap their fingers and get results. Children need to be met where they are emotionally and educationally and stop all this non-sense high-stake testing of students that can barely read themselves. I was in on meeting where administrators said not to focus on the lowest achievers because they would not ever be able to contribute to showing growth in the averages.

I think stregthening neighborhood schools would stregthen the communities. Schools can be a powerful community instutitions.

Thank you for your actually well informed response which no one seems to have read. This idea is not going to work for the families who need it most. And, would take away some of the extra funding for at-risk students. That said, I'm all for making it easier for those you mention who already do the lottery to have some type of priority. It's just that putting them above IB PK preference isn't super useful. And wouldn't affect charter access at all.

This whole thread is ridiculous. Posters who have strongly held views on social-engineering theories but not much thinking about implementation or reality. It's just a lot of hot air.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 100%.

I'm sorry but how does this really help anything? So a few slots go to at-risk over IB. The number of schools which waitlist IB at PK3 and 4 is incredibly small. Clearly you all attend them so it seems like more than a drop in the bucket. And no, I don't think everyone wants to commute to upper NW (nor can they). The real problem seems to be those at-risk families aren't even entering the lottery to begin with. Which is odd to me, just because, free childcare - isn't that useful to them? Clearly there's something I'm missing.

It could change the dynamic if at-risk families knew they would get priority entrance to the 'best' schools. I assume more would enter at all grades.

It would absolutely take a lot of education and outreach, and have to come with transportation support.

If you fill the best schools with "at risk" children, they will no longer be the best schools.

[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.

PK3 and PK4 are the major entry years for all the top charters. So you would be boxing out all other families from a chance to get into a charter school.

[Anonymous]

NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THE BEST SCHOOLS BE FILLED WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS. Argh.

DC es exploring (at most) an at-risk preference for 10% of seats at school with small numbers of at-risk students.

[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.

PK3 and PK4 are the major entry years for all the top charters. So you would be boxing out all other families from a chance to get into a charter school.

There would likely be a cap on number of at-risk students who would gain admission this way (10% minimum and 25% maximum is discussed a lot). The point is to have these students distributed more equitably throughout all schools, not create new clusters of majority at-risk schools.

[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.

There would still have to be some sanity involved for it to work. They can’t just add 11 at risk students to those 12 and expect to continue the dynamic of the cohort. Maybe the number added to a class any given year should be capped at 10-20 percent to balance preserving the class and benefiting at risk.

Maybe the "dynamic of the cohort" is less important than the benefit to at-risk kids.

NP. I thought the "dynamic of the cohort" is exactly what is supposed to benefit at-risk children. It's not like the teachers at a Upper NW schools are better, let alone better prepared to meet their needs than the teachers at their IB schools.