3/29 Lottery Results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I think the sibling preference makes a lot of sense for K-5 spots and generally makes sense for charters, citywides, and DCPS OOB. But there are a lot of DCPS schools where IB people who all necessarily have rights as of K are largely or fully shutout of access to the IB PreK without a sibling and I am not sure that one specifically is all that fair.

You could solve this by making IB preference rank higher than sibling preference for PK. So all IB families would be in the same boat for PK in terms of he lottery, regardless of whether they have an older child at the school. But I agree getting rid of sibling preference generally makes no sense, especially for charters where families are commuting (as well as charter or all city schools with special programs like immersion or Montessori where there are also good reasons to have siblings in the same program).

But I actually do think the PP going on about sibling preference might have a limited point about PK lottery for IB schools. There's no particular reason that a family with older children should get preference over a family with younger children or an only when it comes to accessing the PK program at their IB. Yes double drop off is annoying but if you have younger kids in daycare, you're doing it anyway. And not getting into your IB PK doesn't exclude you from the PK program altogether, pretty much everyone in the city has access to programs reasonably nearby even if they can't get into their IB for PK.

IB preference already is prioritized over sibling preference. The only thing that comes higher is IB with a sibling...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I think the sibling preference makes a lot of sense for K-5 spots and generally makes sense for charters, citywides, and DCPS OOB. But there are a lot of DCPS schools where IB people who all necessarily have rights as of K are largely or fully shutout of access to the IB PreK without a sibling and I am not sure that one specifically is all that fair.

You could solve this by making IB preference rank higher than sibling preference for PK. So all IB families would be in the same boat for PK in terms of he lottery, regardless of whether they have an older child at the school. But I agree getting rid of sibling preference generally makes no sense, especially for charters where families are commuting (as well as charter or all city schools with special programs like immersion or Montessori where there are also good reasons to have siblings in the same program).

But I actually do think the PP going on about sibling preference might have a limited point about PK lottery for IB schools. There's no particular reason that a family with older children should get preference over a family with younger children or an only when it comes to accessing the PK program at their IB. Yes double drop off is annoying but if you have younger kids in daycare, you're doing it anyway. And not getting into your IB PK doesn't exclude you from the PK program altogether, pretty much everyone in the city has access to programs reasonably nearby even if they can't get into their IB for PK.

IB preference already is prioritized over sibling preference. The only thing that comes higher is IB with a sibling...

Right -- the idea is that for PK, sibling preference would only matter if you were OOB. So everyone who was IB would be ranked first according to lottery draw, then OOB with sibling, then OOB. You basically get rid of sibling preference for IB kids.

There are schools where it is virtually impossible to get into the PK program even if you are IB, unless you have an older sibling at the school. It's the one place where the sibling preference genuinely feels "unfair" because there's no compelling reason why IB families with older kids should be preferences for those spots over IB families without older kids.These are neighborhood schools which by definition are close by so the arguments about efficiency and reducing commutes make less sense -- no matter what, IB families who miss out on PK spots will wind up having to commute elsewhere for PK, why is it important that this be limited to families without older kids at the school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, long story short, everyone assumes that more choice is going to be better for kids with special needs, but that's not necessarily the case. There's no reason for your friends to assume that if they'd stayed in DC, their child's needs would have been better met, even with the lottery as an option.

100%! They were just bummed they left the house and neighborhood they liked for better schools and then had to go private -- I private they could have attended while living in DC -- in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I think the sibling preference makes a lot of sense for K-5 spots and generally makes sense for charters, citywides, and DCPS OOB. But there are a lot of DCPS schools where IB people who all necessarily have rights as of K are largely or fully shutout of access to the IB PreK without a sibling and I am not sure that one specifically is all that fair.

You could solve this by making IB preference rank higher than sibling preference for PK. So all IB families would be in the same boat for PK in terms of he lottery, regardless of whether they have an older child at the school. But I agree getting rid of sibling preference generally makes no sense, especially for charters where families are commuting (as well as charter or all city schools with special programs like immersion or Montessori where there are also good reasons to have siblings in the same program).

But I actually do think the PP going on about sibling preference might have a limited point about PK lottery for IB schools. There's no particular reason that a family with older children should get preference over a family with younger children or an only when it comes to accessing the PK program at their IB. Yes double drop off is annoying but if you have younger kids in daycare, you're doing it anyway. And not getting into your IB PK doesn't exclude you from the PK program altogether, pretty much everyone in the city has access to programs reasonably nearby even if they can't get into their IB for PK.

IB preference already is prioritized over sibling preference. The only thing that comes higher is IB with a sibling...

Right -- the idea is that for PK, sibling preference would only matter if you were OOB. So everyone who was IB would be ranked first according to lottery draw, then OOB with sibling, then OOB. You basically get rid of sibling preference for IB kids.

There are schools where it is virtually impossible to get into the PK program even if you are IB, unless you have an older sibling at the school. It's the one place where the sibling preference genuinely feels "unfair" because there's no compelling reason why IB families with older kids should be preferences for those spots over IB families without older kids.These are neighborhood schools which by definition are close by so the arguments about efficiency and reducing commutes make less sense -- no matter what, IB families who miss out on PK spots will wind up having to commute elsewhere for PK, why is it important that this be limited to families without older kids at the school?

Next year I'll have a kid at our IB DCPS and a kid in subsidized daycare. Even in our two-parent household it's going to be tough to manage the two commutes and differences in school hours. My spouse occasionally travels for work and during those times there's basically no way I'm going to be able to work 8-hour days with the staggered pick up/drop offs. Luckily my job is flexible-ish. But we'll make do for this one year because, thanks to sibling preference, my younger child is essentially guaranteed a PK3 spot in FY25-26.

And our situation is still pretty good! There are many, many parents with less family support, less flexible jobs, and less money than I have.

I could maybe see this argument only after every elementary school has an equitable access set aside.

[Anonymous]

so are we expecting results at 10 tonight?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so are we expecting results at 10 tonight?!

Yes, but there was a year a while back (like 4-6 years ago) that results didn't post until about 7:30 AM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I think the sibling preference makes a lot of sense for K-5 spots and generally makes sense for charters, citywides, and DCPS OOB. But there are a lot of DCPS schools where IB people who all necessarily have rights as of K are largely or fully shutout of access to the IB PreK without a sibling and I am not sure that one specifically is all that fair.

You could solve this by making IB preference rank higher than sibling preference for PK. So all IB families would be in the same boat for PK in terms of he lottery, regardless of whether they have an older child at the school. But I agree getting rid of sibling preference generally makes no sense, especially for charters where families are commuting (as well as charter or all city schools with special programs like immersion or Montessori where there are also good reasons to have siblings in the same program).

But I actually do think the PP going on about sibling preference might have a limited point about PK lottery for IB schools. There's no particular reason that a family with older children should get preference over a family with younger children or an only when it comes to accessing the PK program at their IB. Yes double drop off is annoying but if you have younger kids in daycare, you're doing it anyway. And not getting into your IB PK doesn't exclude you from the PK program altogether, pretty much everyone in the city has access to programs reasonably nearby even if they can't get into their IB for PK.

IB preference already is prioritized over sibling preference. The only thing that comes higher is IB with a sibling...

Right -- the idea is that for PK, sibling preference would only matter if you were OOB. So everyone who was IB would be ranked first according to lottery draw, then OOB with sibling, then OOB. You basically get rid of sibling preference for IB kids.

There are schools where it is virtually impossible to get into the PK program even if you are IB, unless you have an older sibling at the school. It's the one place where the sibling preference genuinely feels "unfair" because there's no compelling reason why IB families with older kids should be preferences for those spots over IB families without older kids.These are neighborhood schools which by definition are close by so the arguments about efficiency and reducing commutes make less sense -- no matter what, IB families who miss out on PK spots will wind up having to commute elsewhere for PK, why is it important that this be limited to families without older kids at the school?

Yes— we are IB at a school where it is impossible to get into preschool without an older sibling. Our oldest was not able to go to the school across the street from us until K because of it! The commute and community arguments make less sense in that situation, but they still have some value. Families with siblings only have one drop off, etc. It was a bit annoying but not something to be mad about- we felt lucky enough to have great universal pre-K in DC, and we were able to find a program close by that we were happy with. So it all worked out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I think the sibling preference makes a lot of sense for K-5 spots and generally makes sense for charters, citywides, and DCPS OOB. But there are a lot of DCPS schools where IB people who all necessarily have rights as of K are largely or fully shutout of access to the IB PreK without a sibling and I am not sure that one specifically is all that fair.

You could solve this by making IB preference rank higher than sibling preference for PK. So all IB families would be in the same boat for PK in terms of he lottery, regardless of whether they have an older child at the school. But I agree getting rid of sibling preference generally makes no sense, especially for charters where families are commuting (as well as charter or all city schools with special programs like immersion or Montessori where there are also good reasons to have siblings in the same program).

But I actually do think the PP going on about sibling preference might have a limited point about PK lottery for IB schools. There's no particular reason that a family with older children should get preference over a family with younger children or an only when it comes to accessing the PK program at their IB. Yes double drop off is annoying but if you have younger kids in daycare, you're doing it anyway. And not getting into your IB PK doesn't exclude you from the PK program altogether, pretty much everyone in the city has access to programs reasonably nearby even if they can't get into their IB for PK.

IB preference already is prioritized over sibling preference. The only thing that comes higher is IB with a sibling...

Right -- the idea is that for PK, sibling preference would only matter if you were OOB. So everyone who was IB would be ranked first according to lottery draw, then OOB with sibling, then OOB. You basically get rid of sibling preference for IB kids.

There are schools where it is virtually impossible to get into the PK program even if you are IB, unless you have an older sibling at the school. It's the one place where the sibling preference genuinely feels "unfair" because there's no compelling reason why IB families with older kids should be preferences for those spots over IB families without older kids.These are neighborhood schools which by definition are close by so the arguments about efficiency and reducing commutes make less sense -- no matter what, IB families who miss out on PK spots will wind up having to commute elsewhere for PK, why is it important that this be limited to families without older kids at the school?

Yes— we are IB at a school where it is impossible to get into preschool without an older sibling. Our oldest was not able to go to the school across the street from us until K because of it! The commute and community arguments make less sense in that situation, but they still have some value. Families with siblings only have one drop off, etc. It was a bit annoying but not something to be mad about- we felt lucky enough to have great universal pre-K in DC, and we were able to find a program close by that we were happy with. So it all worked out.

Yes in PK it's not a big deal. I'm glad you had a good attitude about it. One thing I have appreciated about the general lack of lottery talk this year is less moaning from parents with great IB schools about how they might have to go elsewhere for PK. There are tons of good PK programs in DC and the fact that you are pretty much guaranteed access to a FREE high quality preschool of your kids (even if not at your IB school) is amazing. And if on top of that you also have a fantastic IB you are guaranteed access to at K? You won, basically. You are in the best possible situation for a public school family in DC because you don't have to rely on the lottery to get your kid into an even halfway decent school, like a significant portion of families in the city with poor IB schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so are we expecting results at 10 tonight?!

Yes, but there was a year a while back (like 4-6 years ago) that results didn't post until about 7:30 AM.

Who is going to send out the bat signal when they post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so are we expecting results at 10 tonight?!

Yes, but there was a year a while back (like 4-6 years ago) that results didn't post until about 7:30 AM.

Who is going to send out the bat signal when they post?

My assumption was that they would send out an email at the same time to the email address associated with one's MySchoolDC account, but this is my first time with the lottery... is that an incorrect assumption?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so are we expecting results at 10 tonight?!

Yes, but there was a year a while back (like 4-6 years ago) that results didn't post until about 7:30 AM.

Who is going to send out the bat signal when they post?

My assumption was that they would send out an email at the same time to the email address associated with one's MySchoolDC account, but this is my first time with the lottery... is that an incorrect assumption?

IIRC, results are visible on the website before the email goes out. Someone always seems to post here the second they're available.

[Anonymous]

every elementary school will likely next year have an IB equitable access preference which is great/fair but will further stack the deck for the remaining spaces in favor of IB siblings over IB non-siblings without an EA preference. no easy answers so long as schools cannot accommodate all IB students for preK

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so are we expecting results at 10 tonight?!

Yes, but there was a year a while back (like 4-6 years ago) that results didn't post until about 7:30 AM.

Who is going to send out the bat signal when they post?

My assumption was that they would send out an email at the same time to the email address associated with one's MySchoolDC account, but this is my first time with the lottery... is that an incorrect assumption?

IIRC, results are visible on the website before the email goes out. Someone always seems to post here the second they're available.

Yes! I feel like the email was pretty delayed a few years ago too— like maybe you got the email at 8am the morning they said they’d be released but actually you could’ve logged in and seen the results at least 10 hours before, if you’re an average anxious parent/DCUM user.

[Anonymous]

A couple years ago they came out in the 6pm hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so are we expecting results at 10 tonight?!

That's what happened last year!