Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sibling preference is a model designed for charter or magnet schools, where school assignments are not determined by geographic boundaries at all. It would be impossible to retain families without that benefit.
When applied to public schools that serve, whether officially or practically, exclusively in boundary students that all have a right to attend at K, they don't make sense. Instead, they serve as a means to deciding who gets free, formal preK and who does not.
It's not about "keeping families together" at that point since the school is presumably in your neighborhood to begin with and your younger child will have a spot there within a couple years. Maybe it makes sense for twins, but not for younger siblings.
Agree with this 100%. Sibling preference does not make sense for public schools with geographic boundaries (not citywide).
Free preschool doesn't make sense for schools with wealthy students either.
Universal entitlements have universal support. That's why public preschool for all makes sense.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sibling preference is a model designed for charter or magnet schools, where school assignments are not determined by geographic boundaries at all. It would be impossible to retain families without that benefit.
When applied to public schools that serve, whether officially or practically, exclusively in boundary students that all have a right to attend at K, they don't make sense. Instead, they serve as a means to deciding who gets free, formal preK and who does not.
It's not about "keeping families together" at that point since the school is presumably in your neighborhood to begin with and your younger child will have a spot there within a couple years. Maybe it makes sense for twins, but not for younger siblings.
Agree with this 100%. Sibling preference does not make sense for public schools with geographic boundaries (not citywide).
Free preschool doesn't make sense for schools with wealthy students either.
Anonymous wrote:We didn't get into preK at our in-bounds school - -Bancroft -- because out-of-bound families with siblings get preference over in-bound families at the preK level. Not a huge deal. I see preK as a bonus and we could go by right in K. But we got into a charter in preK and started there and stayed. I think Bancroft loses a lot of in-bound families who might otherwise stay in the neighborhood because of this policy (which I think is just for bi-lingual schools)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sibling preference is a model designed for charter or magnet schools, where school assignments are not determined by geographic boundaries at all. It would be impossible to retain families without that benefit.
When applied to public schools that serve, whether officially or practically, exclusively in boundary students that all have a right to attend at K, they don't make sense. Instead, they serve as a means to deciding who gets free, formal preK and who does not.
It's not about "keeping families together" at that point since the school is presumably in your neighborhood to begin with and your younger child will have a spot there within a couple years. Maybe it makes sense for twins, but not for younger siblings.
Agree with this 100%. Sibling preference does not make sense for public schools with geographic boundaries (not citywide).
Outside of a handful of schools, most DCPS schools have a sizeable OOB population, especially in the older grades. Education exists beyond preschool.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sibling preference is a model designed for charter or magnet schools, where school assignments are not determined by geographic boundaries at all. It would be impossible to retain families without that benefit.
When applied to public schools that serve, whether officially or practically, exclusively in boundary students that all have a right to attend at K, they don't make sense. Instead, they serve as a means to deciding who gets free, formal preK and who does not.
It's not about "keeping families together" at that point since the school is presumably in your neighborhood to begin with and your younger child will have a spot there within a couple years. Maybe it makes sense for twins, but not for younger siblings.
Agree with this 100%. Sibling preference does not make sense for public schools with geographic boundaries (not citywide).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sibling preference is a model designed for charter or magnet schools, where school assignments are not determined by geographic boundaries at all. It would be impossible to retain families without that benefit.
When applied to public schools that serve, whether officially or practically, exclusively in boundary students that all have a right to attend at K, they don't make sense. Instead, they serve as a means to deciding who gets free, formal preK and who does not.
It's not about "keeping families together" at that point since the school is presumably in your neighborhood to begin with and your younger child will have a spot there within a couple years. Maybe it makes sense for twins, but not for younger siblings.
Agree with this 100%. Sibling preference does not make sense for public schools with geographic boundaries (not citywide).
Free preschool doesn't make sense for schools with wealthy students either.