At-risk lottery preference

[Anonymous]

In an effort to try to move another thread back to its original intent, here's a new one on adding an at-risk preference to the lottery. Knowing this has been discussed and dismissed at the city level, should we continue to push for it? Why should or shouldn't it happen? Discuss.

[Anonymous]

Yes. It has not been dismissed! Stop with your defeatist attitude. It was found to have modest impact under the model that was studied (only schools with less than 25% at risk). A different model could get better results. I think it is still the right thing to do.

[Anonymous]

OP here, didn't mean to be defeatist. goodness. I added that as context for people who didn't know about the analysis this year.

[Anonymous]

I fully support this, although I would not benefit from it. Anything that can help kids in bad situations with motivated parents get onto a new track -- by moving to a school with more support or a more competitive cohort or even just away from violence -- should be supported.

That said, I think it's pretty clearly a bandaid for the bullet wound that is unequal access to educational opportunities in the District.

[Anonymous]

I think that the study of the preference came to a really short-sighted conclusion. If I remember correctly, it showed that in the first year of such a preference, something like 700 kids who received the preference would be impacted and get a better placement. 700 kids! That's actually a pretty strong impact, especially if you consider that the preference would place 700 kids per year in a school that they preferred with a relatively low at-risk population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that the study of the preference came to a really short-sighted conclusion. If I remember correctly, it showed that in the first year of such a preference, something like 700 kids who received the preference would be impacted and get a better placement. 700 kids! That's actually a pretty strong impact, especially if you consider that the preference would place 700 kids per year in a school that they preferred with a relatively low at-risk population.

This. 700 kids! More the next year, more every year, it adds up. Even if you didn't do sibling preference so it was only, say, 350 kids, it still adds up. And the benefits to the better functioning of the system as a whole, and the ethical imperative to at least try. Well worth it and I say that as the parent of a 2yo who will be a sibling applicant at a HRCS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here, didn't mean to be defeatist. goodness. I added that as context for people who didn't know about the analysis this year.

Well, it isn't true, so that's really unhelpful to new people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/a-top-dc-charter-school-educates-few-at-risk-students-should-it-be-opening-a-second-campus/2019/08/04/24593e12-b3a2-11e9-951e-de024209545d_story.html

Scott Pearson, director of the charter school board, said he wants the city to adopt a lottery preference that enables schools to give priority to at-risk students. In 2014, Pearson said he opposed such a preference because he did not believe it had been rigorously analyzed.

“If we are really serious about equity and if we are serious about making sure that our least advantaged families have the ability to go to our high-performing schools, we need to do more,” Pearson said in a recent interview. “And my own view is that doing more includes adding a preference for those kids in the lottery.”

[Anonymous]

Strongly in favor. The modest impact is what makes it politically feasible.

Charters will not do this on their own because, despite their professions of wokeness, it is really hard work and their high-SES parents won't like it. They aren't going to take the hit to their budget, operations, culture, or test scores unless peer schools take it too.

[Anonymous]

I'm in favor of it. And I want it in place, and then to have PCSB adopt it as well after a good discussion. I would then like to see it prioritized. I think there is room to consider whether it belongs ahead of sibling preference.

It appears, at least to me, that the knowledge advantage about the lottery process, expanding class years, and other small edges that exist in an otherwise fair entry process help shut out at-risk families in favor of those who already have access to some of the HRCS and more popular EOTP DCPS elementaries. Think Latin or Mundo Verde. I think that is nice for my family (we have a kid enrolled due to being a younger sibling, almost certainly, at our DCPS) but it is better for the city overall if at-risk kids get those seats first.

[Anonymous]

It would have directly hurt our outcome in the lottery but I support it because it’s the right thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm in favor of it. And I want it in place, and then to have PCSB adopt it as well after a good discussion. I would then like to see it prioritized. I think there is room to consider whether it belongs ahead of sibling preference.

It appears, at least to me, that the knowledge advantage about the lottery process, expanding class years, and other small edges that exist in an otherwise fair entry process help shut out at-risk families in favor of those who already have access to some of the HRCS and more popular EOTP DCPS elementaries. Think Latin or Mundo Verde. I think that is nice for my family (we have a kid enrolled due to being a younger sibling, almost certainly, at our DCPS) but it is better for the city overall if at-risk kids get those seats first.

There is a middle ground, for example siblings could be capped at a certain percentage of the Pk3 class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm in favor of it. And I want it in place, and then to have PCSB adopt it as well after a good discussion. I would then like to see it prioritized. I think there is room to consider whether it belongs ahead of sibling preference.

It appears, at least to me, that the knowledge advantage about the lottery process, expanding class years, and other small edges that exist in an otherwise fair entry process help shut out at-risk families in favor of those who already have access to some of the HRCS and more popular EOTP DCPS elementaries. Think Latin or Mundo Verde. I think that is nice for my family (we have a kid enrolled due to being a younger sibling, almost certainly, at our DCPS) but it is better for the city overall if at-risk kids get those seats first.

+1 I'm in favor of it, but only if PCSB's adopt too. Excluding the city-wide DCPS schools, the DCPS neighborhood schools will always have a fairly limited number of seats for OOB enrollees, whether they are high risk or not. It seems like there's more potential for positive change if charter schools have to do it too.

Our own family wouldn't benefit from this change, we are UMC and our oldest is enrolled at a high-performing, highly desired charter school. The sibling preference for our youngest would be nice, but it is not fair to other families.

Honestly, the only thing that seems fair is to invest in the high performing schools, make them larger, add more seats (more classes, more teachers, more funds) and bus kids to them. Why should kids in Ward 5/7/8 be stuck in underperforming schools in a concentrated, high-poverty environment? Studies show low-income kids perform better in an economically integrated environment. Didn't Mayor Bowser campaign on "Alice Deal for all"? How has that turned out? Shouldn't there be a "JKLM" and Alice Deal for all?

I feel like the at risk preference is nibbling at the margins of the problem, but it is better than nothing, so I support it. But I also support more dramatic actions, like busing (so unpopular, I know) or creating more city-wide public schools that have a mix of UMC/high SES and low income students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would have directly hurt our outcome in the lottery but I support it because it’s the right thing to do.

+100

[Anonymous]

Have to do this, and I think support is growing.

The time to do this IMO is in conjunction with the next boundary review (deal with all the screaming at once).

And yes for city-wide DCPS and charters it should be a stronger preference than BOTH children of staff and siblings.

[Anonymous]

so, what are the steps forward to make sure this doesn't languish under the DME's vague promise to keep analyzing the idea?