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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.