Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked the idea of an at-risk minimum, whatever happened to that proposal?

It was a recommendation from the last boundary review under the last mayor, and was also promoted by David Catania when he was on the Council. It's never been implemented and presumably has been dropped by everyone.

Sad. I think it would really produce a healthier system overall. I am hoping for better lottery luck in the future for my own kids, but could definitely accept this proposal as morally right and producing a more equal system.

Anonymous wrote:I liked the idea of an at-risk minimum, whatever happened to that proposal?

The problem is there are too few good schools, and way too many at-risk students.

Total DCPS and charter enrollment (minus adult learners) is 86-87,000 students. Fully 39,000 are at risk.

The preference, as tested by the lottery folks, would help 600 of the 39,000.

Ten percent of seats at high performing schools would only help another couple thousand.

Anonymous wrote:I liked the idea of an at-risk minimum, whatever happened to that proposal?

It was a recommendation from the last boundary review under the last mayor, and was also promoted by David Catania when he was on the Council. It's never been implemented and presumably has been dropped by everyone.

I liked the idea of an at-risk minimum, whatever happened to that proposal?

Anonymous wrote:I think you are both saying the same thing- OP's link is to the study PP is talking about.

It says outcomes only improve 8.2% for at risk kids. Would be nice if they could elaborate on why?

Seems well worth it to me. I think if the at-risk kids were spread around and the so-called high-performing schools had to do their share, it would be better for everyone. At 8.2%, no one school would be overwhelmed, and the neighborhood schools that struggle would have a lighter load.

Anonymous wrote:This was sort of a false test -- they simply re-ran a prior year's lottery inserting a preference where one didn't exist.

Only some 6000 at-risk students entered the lottery that year, and of course they made their choices without an at-risk preference in play.

If there were a real at-risk preference more students who qualify for it may have entered the lottery and perhaps made different choices on their application; students without that preference may have also behaved differently.

This. If you know your chances of getting into a good school are infinitesimal, you might not bother. But if you have reason to believe you'll get one of your better choices, there's an incentive to participate.

I am all for it. The effect would grow over time. And if at-risk kids used their preference to go to a school that is not necessarily better but is more convenient for them, that seems like a good thing.

Anonymous wrote:I fully support the at-risk preference.

Me too.

This was sort of a false test -- they simply re-ran a prior year's lottery inserting a preference where one didn't exist.

Only some 6000 at-risk students entered the lottery that year, and of course they made their choices without an at-risk preference in play.

If there were a real at-risk preference more students who qualify for it may have entered the lottery and perhaps made different choices on their application; students without that preference may have also behaved differently.

I fully support the at-risk preference.

Anonymous wrote:I think you are both saying the same thing- OP's link is to the study PP is talking about.

It says outcomes only improve 8.2% for at risk kids. Would be nice if they could elaborate on why?

Because there aren't enough high performing schools.

The strongest preference they tested was to give at-risk a preference stronger than siblings at charters, and ahead of OOB siblings at DCPS. They did not give a at-risk a preference ahead of IB students at neighborhood schools.

I think you are both saying the same thing- OP's link is to the study PP is talking about.

It says outcomes only improve 8.2% for at risk kids. Would be nice if they could elaborate on why?

603 of 7300 at-risk students would have had better outcomes under the most strong at-risk preference (putting at-risk preference above sibling).

Conversely, 603 students who were not at-risk would have worse outcomes.

This is old - April 2018. You need to also read the MSDC board notes from last year and the minutes from the Cross Sector task force.

This was research that MSDC was asked to do for the cross-sector task force.

This study found that an at-risk preference would not have had much effect for most at-risk students.

www.myschooldc.org/sites/default/files/dc/sites/myschooldc/page/MSDC%20At-Risk%20Preference%20in%20a%20Unified%20Lottery%204.26.2018_Final.pdf


Wow, this is surprising. What does everyone think about this?