It's not capped at 25% of kids being at-risk. Plenty of at-risk kids will still get in to non-reserved-for-at-risk spots through the lottery.

It's not exactly clear how it will work though. Will they do the lottery for 12 spaces, realize they got 4 at-risk kids, and be ok? Or will they do a lottery for 9 spaces and then a separate lottery of all the at-risk kids who didn't get in otherwise for the remaining three spaces?

according to footnote 5 in the DME plan, "“At Risk” is a designation in D.C. code for students who fall into at least one of the following categories: in foster care, homeless, in families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), in families receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP), or are high school students who are more than one year over-age for their grade."

Interestingly, this creates a big incentive for parents to red-shirt their kids: the opportunity for priority in attending better-regarded high schools. If I were undecided about whether to send a kid to kindergarten at age 5 or 6, my chances of getting him into Wilson in 9th grade as "at-risk" would be one of the things I'd factor in. I raised this during the comment process but it doesn't seem to have been addressed.

Also, it probably would have made sense to consider kids "at risk" if they're not in foster care but if they had a substantiated allegation of abuse or neglect in the past year or something like that. CFSA is removing fewer and fewer kids from their homes and providing more in-home services. In many cases this is a great practice, but those kids are at risk too (in all honesty, relatively few of those kids have a high enough income not to be at risk in some other way, but it would be a better policy).

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't see the metrics, but I would suppose that economic status and first language are the determinants of at-risk. I don't know if they would factor in special needs, but that would be an interesting thing if they did. I agree with PP that the implication is 25% of the total seats which would put siblings out of spots in some schools. I hope this gets vigorously challenged.

Metrics in footnote 5 of the report.

Pushing out siblings all depends on the preference order. Previous proposal had siblings before at-risk, and then proximity. This one is a big "we'll see" for at-risk. I will note that the at-risk preference doesn't come into effect until *2016-17*, one year after everything else. So we'll have one year where particularly desirable schools will have a 10 percent set-aside but without any preference for at-risk. For example, you could be IB at Janney and not get in at Pre-K4 next year, but someone who is OOB but only a block outside the boundary could get in via proximity because the school will have to take 10 percent OOB. Kind of a wierd dynamic.

I didn't see the metrics, but I would suppose that economic status and first language are the determinants of at-risk. I don't know if they would factor in special needs, but that would be an interesting thing if they did. I agree with PP that the implication is 25% of the total seats which would put siblings out of spots in some schools. I hope this gets vigorously challenged.

1) where did pp get these numbers ? And 2) what definition for at-risk is used here?

Thanks

25 percent of available places in the lottery to me implies 25 percent of the total lottery places, not after siblings or, in the case of DCPS, in-bounds. They need to clarify what exactly they mean and how it would work. And for DCPS they need to specify how it would interact with the 10 percent set-aside. The Post article said 25 percent of the set-aside seats would go to at-risk, but my read is that 100 percent of the set-aside seats would (perhaps after siblings) as only 10 percent of total seats would be set aside.

It should be at least 50%. These schools have entering classes of 30, 18 are siblings, and of those 12 remainjng seats you tell me 3 should go to at risk students?

If these are great schools and charters are supposed to exist to offer better educational options to those without them in DC, that number should be higher. Charters should not exist to create demographic enclaves. Many do a very good job with high at risk percentages. All should shoulder that work.

Just to add to the conversation here are all DC schools with less than 50% at risk and their at risk percentages.
Community Academy Amos II 49.7%
Perry Street Prep PCS 49.4%
KIPP DC Promise PCS 49.4%
D C Preparatory Benning Middle Campus 49.4%
Washington Math Science Tech PCS 48.9%
J O Wilson ES 48.5%
School for Educational Evolution and Development (SEED) PCS 47.1%
Phelps Architecture Construction and Engineering HS 47.0%
Ideal Academy PCS North Capitol Street Campus ES 46.8%
Thurgood Marshall Academy PCS 46.6%
Takoma EC 46.6%
Achievement Preparatory PCS-Middle School 46.6%
Cesar Chavez PCS Chavez Prep 46.6%
Burroughs EC 46.4%
Cesar Chavez Capitol Hill PCS 46.0%
Brightwood EC 45.9%
Friendship PCS Woodridge Campus 45.8%
Brookland EC at Bunker Hill 45.8%
Raymond EC 45.5%
D C Preparatory Benning Campus PCS 45.5%
St. Coletta Special Education PCS 44.8%
Powell ES 44.6%
Barnard ES 44.3%
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS Oklahoma 43.6%
Center City Capitol Hill Campus PCS 43.5%
William E. Doar Jr PCS 43.4%
Meridian PCS 43.4%
Eagle Academy PCS New Jersey Avenue Campus 43.4%
Achievement Preparatory PCS-Elementary 43.3%
KIPP DC WILL Academy PCS 42.5%
KIPP DC College Prep PCS 42.5%
Columbia Heights EC (CHEC) 42.2%
Hope Community PCS Tolson Campus 41.9%
KIPP DC KEY Academy PCS 41.6%
Community Academy Amos I 41.6%
D C Preparatory Edgewood Elementary Campus PCS 41.5%
Thomson ES 41.5%
Paul Public Charter School - Middle School 41.3%
KIPP DC GROW Academy PCS 41.1%
Tyler ES 40.2%
Center City Brightwood Campus PCS 39.4%
D C Bilingual PCS 38.2%
E L Haynes PCS Georgia Avenue 37.7%
KIPP DC LEAD Academy 37.7%
Ludlow Taylor ES 37.1%
Bridges PCS 36.5%
Roots PCS 36.4%
Marie Reed ES 35.5%
D C Preparatory Edgewood Middle Campus PCS 35.4%
E.L. Haynes Kansas Avenue - High School 35.3%
Paul Public Charter School - International High School 35.2%
West EC 34.1%
Community Academy Butler Global 33.0%
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS Southwest 32.9%
McKinley Technology HS 32.3%
Hope Community PCS Lamond Campus 32.1%
Bancroft ES 32.0%
Community Academy CAPCS Online 32.0%
Center City Petworth Campus PCS 31.6%
E.L. Haynes PCS Kansas Avenue (Elementary School) 31.6%
Capital City High School PCS 31.2%
Stuart Hobson MS (Capitol Hill Cluster) 30.5%
Capital City Middle School 30.4%
Howard University Middle School of Math and Science PCS 29.9%
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS Columbia Heights 29.8%
School Without Walls at Francis Stevens 29.2%
Sela PCS 27.4%
Hardy MS 27.0%
Capital City Lower PCS 23.4%
Benjamin Banneker HS 22.6%
Two Rivers PCS 22.5%
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom PCS 22.4%
Watkins ES Capitol Hill Cluster 21.5%
Ellington School of the Arts 21.4%
Wilson HS 20.1%
Maury ES 19.8%
Shepherd ES 15.1%
Hearst ES 14.6%
Washington Latin PCS HS 13.9%
Mundo Verde Bilingual PCS 13.1%
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS Lincoln Park 12.7%
Shining Stars Montessori PCS 12.6%
Creative Minds International PCS 12.4%
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 11.9%
Basis DC PCS 11.8%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual (LAMB) PCS 11.6%
Capitol Hill Montessori School at Logan 10.1%
School Without Walls HS 8.5%
Deal MS 8.5%
School Within School at Goding 7.8%
Ross ES 7.5%
Peabody ES (Capitol Hill Cluster) 7.0%
Oyster Adams Bilingual School (Oyster) 6.7%
Hyde Addison ES 6.6%
Eaton ES 6.0%
Washington Latin PCS MS 5.7%
Brent ES 5.6%
Washington Yu Ying PCS 5.1%
Stoddert ES 3.7%
Murch ES 3.7%
Lafayette ES 3.5%
Briya Public Charter School 3.3%
Key ES 2.9%
Janney ES 1.1%
Mann ES 0.7%

"Placement Priorities for Students Designated “At Risk”
Recommendation 23: Starting in SY2016–2017, any DCPS zoned, DCPS citywide (non- selective) and public charter school that has a student body consisting of 25 percent or less at-risk students shall give priority to “at-risk” students for 25 percent of available seats in the lottery for a given year.
Implementing this recommendation for public charter schools will require a change in law and engagement with additional stakeholders.

They are recommending a charter law change to admit a special population. Any thoughts on whether it could be broad enough to accommodate other selection criteria?