Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

It's because parents need their kids at the same school if at all possible. It also encourages family involvement, and adds to the likelihood of families staying at the school, which is how neighborhood schools are strengthened.

I have always been curious whether sibling preference increases or decreases at-risk enrollment. I would definitely favor an at-risk preference, even if that meant my kid sat out PK3.

I doubt that it impacts it much! At our lottery-in school, almost all of my peers have an older child who was admitted through lottery and a younger child, admitted via preference, at the school regardless of at-risk/ses status. Possibly at a newly sought-after neighborhood school it could have a different impact.

The MySchoolDC staff ran a number of tests (using 2017 either or 2018 lottery entry data) at the request of the MSDC board, to see if whether and how much an at-risk preference would make a difference in placing at-risk students. The experiment concluded that sibling preference precludes many at-risk students from getting seats at high performing school. Link to the report on this is below.

A quick excerpt from the abstract: The strongest preference contemplated in this analysis, giving at-risk students the top priority out of all applicant groups including siblings, would improve lottery outcomes for 8.2% of the 7,432 applicants identified as at-risk. As the preference weakens, a smaller percentage of at-risk applicants will have improved lottery outcomes.

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

The challenge is that the test was run based on the picks people made under the current system. I think people might make different choices if the preference list were different but there's no way to test this. I also worry that at-risk families (or lower-income families who are not "at risk" but who still struggle) may hear that there's no sibling preference and not apply for their younger kids, or be less likely to apply for the harder-to-get-into schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

It's because parents need their kids at the same school if at all possible. It also encourages family involvement, and adds to the likelihood of families staying at the school, which is how neighborhood schools are strengthened.

I have always been curious whether sibling preference increases or decreases at-risk enrollment. I would definitely favor an at-risk preference, even if that meant my kid sat out PK3.

I doubt that it impacts it much! At our lottery-in school, almost all of my peers have an older child who was admitted through lottery and a younger child, admitted via preference, at the school regardless of at-risk/ses status. Possibly at a newly sought-after neighborhood school it could have a different impact.

The MySchoolDC staff ran a number of tests (using 2017 either or 2018 lottery entry data) at the request of the MSDC board, to see if whether and how much an at-risk preference would make a difference in placing at-risk students. The experiment concluded that sibling preference precludes many at-risk students from getting seats at high performing school. Link to the report on this is below.

A quick excerpt from the abstract: The strongest preference contemplated in this analysis, giving at-risk students the top priority out of all applicant groups including siblings, would improve lottery outcomes for 8.2% of the 7,432 applicants identified as at-risk. As the preference weakens, a smaller percentage of at-risk applicants will have improved lottery outcomes.

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

The challenge is that the test was run based on the picks people made under the current system. I think people might make different choices if the preference list were different but there's no way to test this. I also worry that at-risk families (or lower-income families who are not "at risk" but who still struggle) may hear that there's no sibling preference and not apply for their younger kids, or be less likely to apply for the harder-to-get-into schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

It's because parents need their kids at the same school if at all possible. It also encourages family involvement, and adds to the likelihood of families staying at the school, which is how neighborhood schools are strengthened.

I have always been curious whether sibling preference increases or decreases at-risk enrollment. I would definitely favor an at-risk preference, even if that meant my kid sat out PK3.

I doubt that it impacts it much! At our lottery-in school, almost all of my peers have an older child who was admitted through lottery and a younger child, admitted via preference, at the school regardless of at-risk/ses status. Possibly at a newly sought-after neighborhood school it could have a different impact.

The MySchoolDC staff ran a number of tests (using 2017 either or 2018 lottery entry data) at the request of the MSDC board, to see if whether and how much an at-risk preference would make a difference in placing at-risk students. The experiment concluded that sibling preference precludes many at-risk students from getting seats at high performing school. Link to the report on this is below.

A quick excerpt from the abstract: The strongest preference contemplated in this analysis, giving at-risk students the top priority out of all applicant groups including siblings, would improve lottery outcomes for 8.2% of the 7,432 applicants identified as at-risk. As the preference weakens, a smaller percentage of at-risk applicants will have improved lottery outcomes.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

I have been thinking about this and saying this for years. And I have three children. I believe for charter and citywide schools the sibling preference makes sense of PK (because of commuting) but not for boundary schools. Yes, it’s beneficial for parents to have their kids at the same school, but for a non mandatory year, parents of more than one kid can sit that year out or look elsewhere just like a family with one kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

It's because parents need their kids at the same school if at all possible. It also encourages family involvement, and adds to the likelihood of families staying at the school, which is how neighborhood schools are strengthened.

I have always been curious whether sibling preference increases or decreases at-risk enrollment. I would definitely favor an at-risk preference, even if that meant my kid sat out PK3.

I doubt that it impacts it much! At our lottery-in school, almost all of my peers have an older child who was admitted through lottery and a younger child, admitted via preference, at the school regardless of at-risk/ses status. Possibly at a newly sought-after neighborhood school it could have a different impact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

It's because parents need their kids at the same school if at all possible. It also encourages family involvement, and adds to the likelihood of families staying at the school, which is how neighborhood schools are strengthened.

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

It's because parents need their kids at the same school if at all possible. It also encourages family involvement, and adds to the likelihood of families staying at the school, which is how neighborhood schools are strengthened.

I have always been curious whether sibling preference increases or decreases at-risk enrollment. I would definitely favor an at-risk preference, even if that meant my kid sat out PK3.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

It's because parents need their kids at the same school if at all possible. It also encourages family involvement, and adds to the likelihood of families staying at the school, which is how neighborhood schools are strengthened.

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

Anonymous wrote:I realize this wasn't the point of this thread, but it got me thinking. Why do PK-3 and PK-4 have sibling preference. Since getting in to your in-boundary school isn't guaranteed at that grade it seems like the preference should stop at just in-boundary and all in-boundary kids should have an equal chance at those spots. Just because someone chose to have multiple children, why do they have an advantage of getting in and therefore not having to do another year of paid daycare/pre-school to the tune of $20-$25,000.

Anonymous wrote:Here you go http://enrolldcps.dc.gov/node/61

This is from the day of the initial results. It doesn’t reflect anything that’s happened since then.