Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand why people are against sibling preference. When I was a kid I had a family with 8 kids. Because of boundary changes, one year we attended six different schools. We got our picture int he local paper because of it. I doubt my parents went to a single PTA meeting at any of the schools.

It just makes sense to have siblings attend the same school. It's environmentally friendly by promoting carpooling, it reduces parents' stress by easing the morning routine, it enables parents to become more invested in the school.

The only argument people make is that the sibling is taking up a space that a non-sibling would otherwise take. But they don't really care about that non-affiliated student, because as soon as the person is admitted they become affiliated and might -- horror! -- also have siblings taking up more spaces. But each student can take no more and no less than one space. They have to take a space somewhere, and nobody else will be able to take that space.

People who complain about sibling preference remind me of children who throw a fit to get a toy from another child, only to toss it aside and throw another fit when the other child picks up a different toy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not just teachers--it is any full-time employee.

This is an important point. The law will give a preference to the children of any full-time employee without considering the number of years of service.

It might be hard to attract good teachers, but I don't think it is hard to attract good secretaries, janitors, etc.

Parents will game the system. They'll apply for any full-time position for which they are qualified at a desirable charter and take any salary offered in order to ensure that their child gets in. Once their child is in, they move on to a better position elsewhere. After all, they can rely on sibling preference for their younger children.

This does seem like it would be a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This also gives an admissions preference to a certain set of largely higher SES students (students with parents working in the schools). These students are not going to be homeless, or be raised by a single parent too disabled to work. They are also largely going to be raised by parents who are very invested in education. These are exactly the type of kids many people want their kids going to school with - so I get why people whose kids are already in a charter school want this proposal to pass. But from an equity perspective, this seems nuts.

Also, for people who think this won't be manipulated, I know a lot of stay at home parents (many are former teachers) who would happily teach or work in a charter school for a few years to gain an admissions preference.

This X 1,000! I also know teachers who, while not SAHMs, have actually said that if this was a policy, they'd not hesitate to drop the school's they're currently at to work at a choice school when they've got babies, and then get their kids in and either go back to their other school or move onto something else (grad school, etc). I have heard several current teachers say this. It is naive to think people won't be strategic as hell about how to game this policy.

Anonymous wrote:Parents will game the system. They'll apply for any full-time position for which they are qualified at a desirable charter and take any salary offered in order to ensure that their child gets in. Once their child is in, they move on to a better position elsewhere. After all, they can rely on sibling preference for their younger children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not just teachers--it is any full-time employee.

This is an important point. The law will give a preference to the children of any full-time employee without considering the number of years of service.

It might be hard to attract good teachers, but I don't think it is hard to attract good secretaries, janitors, etc.

Parents will game the system. They'll apply for any full-time position for which they are qualified at a desirable charter and take any salary offered in order to ensure that their child gets in. Once their child is in, they move on to a better position elsewhere. After all, they can rely on sibling preference for their younger children.

Anonymous wrote:It is not just teachers--it is any full-time employee.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CCPCS offers this. There are children who got in by their parent being on the staff - and the parent left.

There is also the class that was made up of 25% of teacher / staff children. When you hit the point of 25% - it fundamentally impacts the class culture.

When 25% of the class have parent's that are teachers - the burden of chaperons / class parent / etc goes to the other families.

If CCPCS is really offering this already, then they are in violation of the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to know how many teachers/staffers this would actually affect. Since they would have to have children of the right age AND live in DC. Most teachers at our HRCS live in Maryland.

I would imagine many teachers and staff members would move to DC to take advantage of the provision if they knew they could get their kids in.

I wonder, actually. Living in DC on a teacher's salary, with kids? That's not a move I would undertake lightly. Would love to see some real data.

The point is that you can't get data on what would happen if a policy change came about in the future. And Maryland isn't cheap, either, especially relative to parts of the city where charters set up (this is not JKLMM territory).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to know how many teachers/staffers this would actually affect. Since they would have to have children of the right age AND live in DC. Most teachers at our HRCS live in Maryland.

I would imagine many teachers and staff members would move to DC to take advantage of the provision if they knew they could get their kids in.

I wonder, actually. Living in DC on a teacher's salary, with kids? That's not a move I would undertake lightly. Would love to see some real data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to know how many teachers/staffers this would actually affect. Since they would have to have children of the right age AND live in DC. Most teachers at our HRCS live in Maryland.

I would imagine many teachers and staff members would move to DC to take advantage of the provision if they knew they could get their kids in.

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to know how many teachers/staffers this would actually affect. Since they would have to have children of the right age AND live in DC. Most teachers at our HRCS live in Maryland.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This also gives an admissions preference to a certain set of largely higher SES students (students with parents working in the schools). These students are not going to be homeless, or be raised by a single parent too disabled to work. They are also largely going to be raised by parents who are very invested in education. These are exactly the type of kids many people want their kids going to school with - so I get why people whose kids are already in a charter school want this proposal to pass. But from an equity perspective, this seems nuts.

Also, for people who think this won't be manipulated, I know a lot of stay at home parents (many are former teachers) who would happily teach or work in a charter school for a few years to gain an admissions preference.

This X 1,000! I also know teachers who, while not SAHMs, have actually said that if this was a policy, they'd not hesitate to drop the school's they're currently at to work at a choice school when they've got babies, and then get their kids in and either go back to their other school or move onto something else (grad school, etc). I have heard several current teachers say this. It is naive to think people won't be strategic as hell about how to game this policy.