Anonymous
10/28/2020 07:25
Subject: One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:not sure why you are focusing on a year old policy that makes total sense...
One year would arguably produce the evidence of the policy changes efficacy, wouldn't you agree?
It was an across the board change imposed on schools with little evidence to support shutting the door to siblings based on facility/age gap. Just asking if there has been anyone affected (positively or negatively) by the policy change.
Sidebar: Rumor has it that it was solely initiated to ensure space for a specific school administrator's late bloomer kid in a school that needed several open spaces based on the numbers by 2022.
What "evidence" could possibly support it? Sorry you are having a hard time but only children already are disadvantaged and sibling alumni preference just makes it worse.
What evidence supports that only children are any more worse off? I'd think more spaces would be taken by employees and administrators preference just off share numbers alone then would age gap siblings?
The numbers for that kind of preference are capped so I don't think it would matter a lot.
Perhaps you could explain how a sibling alumni preference benefits the general public in any significant way.
This. It's a perk without need. Sorry you had your kids too far apart, OP. Time to move on.
Eek, harsh. But true - the policy reason for sibling preference is to ease pick up and drop off, not secure seats for family ties.
This was merely one reason sibling preference was put in place over 20 years ago, but not the only reason.
Seems more unfair to reserve preference for attendance to employees and senior administrators. A school can hand-pick employees... you can't choose the families that lottery in.
I am no supporter of staff preference, but it does have some impact on staff recruitment. But can you explain again how sibling alumni preference helps anyone beyond those receiving it?
Anonymous
10/28/2020 07:13
Subject: One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:not sure why you are focusing on a year old policy that makes total sense...
One year would arguably produce the evidence of the policy changes efficacy, wouldn't you agree?
It was an across the board change imposed on schools with little evidence to support shutting the door to siblings based on facility/age gap. Just asking if there has been anyone affected (positively or negatively) by the policy change.
Sidebar: Rumor has it that it was solely initiated to ensure space for a specific school administrator's late bloomer kid in a school that needed several open spaces based on the numbers by 2022.
What "evidence" could possibly support it? Sorry you are having a hard time but only children already are disadvantaged and sibling alumni preference just makes it worse.
What evidence supports that only children are any more worse off? I'd think more spaces would be taken by employees and administrators preference just off share numbers alone then would age gap siblings?
The numbers for that kind of preference are capped so I don't think it would matter a lot.
Perhaps you could explain how a sibling alumni preference benefits the general public in any significant way.
This. It's a perk without need. Sorry you had your kids too far apart, OP. Time to move on.
Eek, harsh. But true - the policy reason for sibling preference is to ease pick up and drop off, not secure seats for family ties.
This was merely one reason sibling preference was put in place over 20 years ago, but not the only reason.
Seems more unfair to reserve preference for attendance to employees and senior administrators. A school can hand-pick employees... you can't choose the families that lottery in.
Anonymous
10/27/2020 16:36
Subject: One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:not sure why you are focusing on a year old policy that makes total sense...
One year would arguably produce the evidence of the policy changes efficacy, wouldn't you agree?
It was an across the board change imposed on schools with little evidence to support shutting the door to siblings based on facility/age gap. Just asking if there has been anyone affected (positively or negatively) by the policy change.
Sidebar: Rumor has it that it was solely initiated to ensure space for a specific school administrator's late bloomer kid in a school that needed several open spaces based on the numbers by 2022.
What "evidence" could possibly support it? Sorry you are having a hard time but only children already are disadvantaged and sibling alumni preference just makes it worse.
What evidence supports that only children are any more worse off? I'd think more spaces would be taken by employees and administrators preference just off share numbers alone then would age gap siblings?
The numbers for that kind of preference are capped so I don't think it would matter a lot.
Perhaps you could explain how a sibling alumni preference benefits the general public in any significant way.
This. It's a perk without need. Sorry you had your kids too far apart, OP. Time to move on.
Eek, harsh. But true - the policy reason for sibling preference is to ease pick up and drop off, not secure seats for family ties.
Anonymous
10/27/2020 14:54
Subject: One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:not sure why you are focusing on a year old policy that makes total sense...
One year would arguably produce the evidence of the policy changes efficacy, wouldn't you agree?
It was an across the board change imposed on schools with little evidence to support shutting the door to siblings based on facility/age gap. Just asking if there has been anyone affected (positively or negatively) by the policy change.
Sidebar: Rumor has it that it was solely initiated to ensure space for a specific school administrator's late bloomer kid in a school that needed several open spaces based on the numbers by 2022.
What "evidence" could possibly support it? Sorry you are having a hard time but only children already are disadvantaged and sibling alumni preference just makes it worse.
What evidence supports that only children are any more worse off? I'd think more spaces would be taken by employees and administrators preference just off share numbers alone then would age gap siblings?
The numbers for that kind of preference are capped so I don't think it would matter a lot.
Perhaps you could explain how a sibling alumni preference benefits the general public in any significant way.
This. It's a perk without need. Sorry you had your kids too far apart, OP. Time to move on.
Anonymous
10/27/2020 13:56
Subject: One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:not sure why you are focusing on a year old policy that makes total sense...
One year would arguably produce the evidence of the policy changes efficacy, wouldn't you agree?
It was an across the board change imposed on schools with little evidence to support shutting the door to siblings based on facility/age gap. Just asking if there has been anyone affected (positively or negatively) by the policy change.
Sidebar: Rumor has it that it was solely initiated to ensure space for a specific school administrator's late bloomer kid in a school that needed several open spaces based on the numbers by 2022.
What "evidence" could possibly support it? Sorry you are having a hard time but only children already are disadvantaged and sibling alumni preference just makes it worse.
What evidence supports that only children are any more worse off? I'd think more spaces would be taken by employees and administrators preference just off share numbers alone then would age gap siblings?
The numbers for that kind of preference are capped so I don't think it would matter a lot.
Perhaps you could explain how a sibling alumni preference benefits the general public in any significant way.
Anonymous
10/27/2020 13:48
Subject: One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference
Sidebar: Would LOVE to see if the employee/administrator number admissions preference increased equity... would be much easier for nepotism in admissions/hiring to be in place (just hire your friends and their kid gets into the school).
Anonymous
10/27/2020 13:26
Subject: One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:not sure why you are focusing on a year old policy that makes total sense...
One year would arguably produce the evidence of the policy changes efficacy, wouldn't you agree?
It was an across the board change imposed on schools with little evidence to support shutting the door to siblings based on facility/age gap. Just asking if there has been anyone affected (positively or negatively) by the policy change.
Sidebar: Rumor has it that it was solely initiated to ensure space for a specific school administrator's late bloomer kid in a school that needed several open spaces based on the numbers by 2022.
What "evidence" could possibly support it? Sorry you are having a hard time but only children already are disadvantaged and sibling alumni preference just makes it worse.
What evidence supports that only children are any more worse off? I'd think more spaces would be taken by employees and administrators preference just off share numbers alone then would age gap siblings?
Anonymous
10/27/2020 13:24
Subject: One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:not sure why you are focusing on a year old policy that makes total sense...
One year would arguably produce the evidence of the policy changes efficacy, wouldn't you agree?
It was an across the board change imposed on schools with little evidence to support shutting the door to siblings based on facility/age gap. Just asking if there has been anyone affected (positively or negatively) by the policy change.
Sidebar: Rumor has it that it was solely initiated to ensure space for a specific school administrator's late bloomer kid in a school that needed several open spaces based on the numbers by 2022.
What "evidence" could possibly support it? Sorry you are having a hard time but only children already are disadvantaged and sibling alumni preference just makes it worse.
+1
Why should siblings of alums have presence? Makes no sense.
Anonymous
10/27/2020 13:21
Subject: One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:not sure why you are focusing on a year old policy that makes total sense...
One year would arguably produce the evidence of the policy changes efficacy, wouldn't you agree?
It was an across the board change imposed on schools with little evidence to support shutting the door to siblings based on facility/age gap. Just asking if there has been anyone affected (positively or negatively) by the policy change.
Sidebar: Rumor has it that it was solely initiated to ensure space for a specific school administrator's late bloomer kid in a school that needed several open spaces based on the numbers by 2022.
What "evidence" could possibly support it? Sorry you are having a hard time but only children already are disadvantaged and sibling alumni preference just makes it worse.
Anonymous
10/27/2020 13:14
Subject: One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference
Seems more of a policy change based on theory than on evidence of a massive equity impact based on sibling preference. I'd sure like to see the numbers of the actual number of open spaces made available by eliminating sibling preference...
Anonymous
10/27/2020 13:10
Subject: One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference
Anonymous wrote:not sure why you are focusing on a year old policy that makes total sense...
One year would arguably produce the evidence of the policy changes efficacy, wouldn't you agree?
It was an across the board change imposed on schools with little evidence to support shutting the door to siblings based on facility/age gap. Just asking if there has been anyone affected (positively or negatively) by the policy change.
Sidebar: Rumor has it that it was solely initiated to ensure space for a specific school administrator's late bloomer kid in a school that needed several open spaces based on the numbers by 2022.
Anonymous
10/27/2020 13:05
Subject: One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference
Anonymous wrote:Since there are crickets chirping on this post, I'm at a loss for understanding how this seemingly out of nowhere policy change increased equity or did anything for the admissions process...
What, the sibling thing? Makes sense- the preference is to make sure families are not having to commute hither and yon among schools. But once an older kid has left the school, the reason for the preference goes away, thus opening up more seats for everyone.
Anonymous
10/27/2020 13:03
Subject: One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference
not sure why you are focusing on a year old policy that makes total sense...
Anonymous
10/27/2020 13:02
Subject: One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference
Since there are crickets chirping on this post, I'm at a loss for understanding how this seemingly out of nowhere policy change increased equity or did anything for the admissions process...
Anonymous
10/26/2020 21:59
Subject: One Year Later: Changes to Sibling Preference
Any stories of how policy changes at the board level have impacted your family? Did any of your younger children have to attend different schools due to facility changes?
https://dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/media/file/2019-10-28%20-%20Admission%20Preference%20Policy%20%20%281%29_0.pdf
Very curious as to why PCSB felt the need to target families with time spans between children.
https://dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/media/file/2019-10-28%20-%20Admission%20Preference%20Policy%20%20%281%29_0.pdf
Very curious as to why PCSB felt the need to target families with time spans between children.