Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This may be a dumb question but what happens if you have two kids in a charter and the oldest gets a spot at a middle school that starts in 5th/spot at another school for 4th/5th? The sibling who has been at the original school for several years, doesn't get booted, right? The OP's scenario only matters if you have a sibling entering the school for the first time because the sibling preference pulled them in?

I assume the sibling preference only applies to the school year in which you enter the lottery, so the second child in your scenario would not get booted. If OP had pulled her older kid out next school year (20/21), there would be no issue.

This is correct. Once your kid is a student at the school they can automatically re-enroll, not dependent on other siblings continuing or leaving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's what may help: In MySchoolDC, there should be a warning or definition about "Sibling Offered." It really wouldn't be that hard and would put people on notice. It's much better than trying to defend the fine print in a FAQ that no one is reading when they have less than 24 hours to make a decision whether to enroll their child into their top choice school the day before school starts. A little notice could go a long way.

Holy cannolis, exactly how much hand-holding do you need?

If they make more details about how yes, they really do mean the rules as they are listed, you'd complain that there is too much to read, and you can't be expected to make sense of all the text.

It's clear. If it isn't -- because you can't make sense of simple things for some reason -- it will be explained to you when you communicate with the school about changes.

If you can't read and don't talk, then yes, you are going to be surprised by things other people find obvious. That's a hard life.

Hey pp, I know you’re getting a kick out of insulting the earlier poster’s intelligence, but remember there are a good number of parents submitting applications that are barely literate. It’s really not too much to ask to highlight a critical policy such as this one.

Anonymous wrote:This may be a dumb question but what happens if you have two kids in a charter and the oldest gets a spot at a middle school that starts in 5th/spot at another school for 4th/5th? The sibling who has been at the original school for several years, doesn't get booted, right? The OP's scenario only matters if you have a sibling entering the school for the first time because the sibling preference pulled them in?

I assume the sibling preference only applies to the school year in which you enter the lottery, so the second child in your scenario would not get booted. If OP had pulled her older kid out next school year (20/21), there would be no issue.

OP, how long has MSDC been trying to get you to withdraw your younger kid? Have you been ignoring them for weeks allowing your kid to get more acclimated, or did they only just realize the issue this week and reach out now?

I agree this should not be a surprise.

That said, the uncertainty of the lottery and waitlist system set this up as a problem that will arise and the problems that will come of it are clearly foreseeable. All parents have an incentive to get their kids in the best school possible. They may, as OP did, get an opportunity for one child that will undermine the other’s options. If OP’s older child received the offer 3 weeks into the school year and the younger was already an established student, I do not think this rule would apply. By using sibling preference when the parents thought both would be at the first school the parents may have given up other options for the younger child that are no longer available. I think no one is sympathetic to OP because she comes across as entitled and intentionally oblivious. She clearly did not even attempt to have a conversation with the administration of the school that is taking back the slot for the PK 3 student. But if the goal is to educate children, removing options like this could have some negative impacts to children that truly need the PK.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have told people about this policy and it is counter intuitive and people don't believe me. So, yes, I do think there is a way to go in educating people. Take it or leave it, but it's true.

How is it counterintuitive to lose sibling preference if the sibling doesn't go to the school?

It's just as counterintuitive as walking into a store with a BOGO free special on loaves of bread, deciding you only want one after all when you get to the register, and then being shocked (!) that it isn't free.

Who. could. have. known.

There should have been a sign explaining that BOGO free specials only apply if you are actually buying one, because counterintuitive.

A huge difference, actually. When you look in "MySchoolDC" your child is "enrolled." Using your analogy, you have bought both loves of bread and walked out of the store. There is no asterisk, no warning, about becoming un-enrolled months later if one child is successful in the lottery and obtains an offer from a preferred school. With such a serious outcome, there absolutely needs to be more explanation.

Anonymous wrote:There probably is gray area. However, putting the sibling you hang sibling preference onto into another school at the very last minute isn't in that gray area.

I find it really hard to believe that people are shocked, shocked I tell you, that they cannot make a claim if the reason for that claim no longer applies. That's really pretty special.

There absolutely is a grey area. I'm more suspicious of transition years like a rising 9th grader getting sibling pref for rising 5th grader. Even more so if the older student moves to private rather than using the public school lottery. Using sib priority while plotting next move is classic having and eating cake.

This may be a dumb question but what happens if you have two kids in a charter and the oldest gets a spot at a middle school that starts in 5th/spot at another school for 4th/5th? The sibling who has been at the original school for several years, doesn't get booted, right? The OP's scenario only matters if you have a sibling entering the school for the first time because the sibling preference pulled them in?

Anonymous wrote:Its hard to believe that myschoolsdc is this rigid but everyone looks the other way on residency fraud.

Um, I don't think that is actually true. We care about all kinds of fraud, residency and preferences.

But I do like the inferred suggestion that residency verification be handled through a centralized system like myschooldc with enrollment consequences. Good idea!

Anonymous wrote:You know she's invoking sibling preference at the new school to try to get the PK3 in, so she should have sibling preference at two schools?

Of course! Didn’t you see the response upthread? OP firmly believes her child should have preferential treatment (her words.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, the system is working the way it should. You only moved your older child the day before school started in hopes of avoiding this by thinking they wouldn’t notice and you know it. There’s nothing to fight. Move along and play by the rules.

Well I disagree. My child should have preferential treatment.

Your child received the preferential treatment when there was a basis for it. "Sibling formerly enrolled" isn't a preference category for reasons that should be pretty obvious. As for why MSDC enforced the policy and not your school, I would imagine that it is in service of actual fairness to everyone in the system. "School likes you" is not a preference category either.

I disagree

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have told people about this policy and it is counter intuitive and people don't believe me. So, yes, I do think there is a way to go in educating people. Take it or leave it, but it's true.

How is it counterintuitive to lose sibling preference if the sibling doesn't go to the school?

It's just as counterintuitive as walking into a store with a BOGO free special on loaves of bread, deciding you only want one after all when you get to the register, and then being shocked (!) that it isn't free.

Who. could. have. known.

There should have been a sign explaining that BOGO free specials only apply if you are actually buying one, because counterintuitive.

You know she's invoking sibling preference at the new school to try to get the PK3 in, so she should have sibling preference at two schools?

Anonymous wrote:I have told people about this policy and it is counter intuitive and people don't believe me. So, yes, I do think there is a way to go in educating people. Take it or leave it, but it's true.

How is it counterintuitive to lose sibling preference if the sibling doesn't go to the school?

I know people who have enrolled their younger one at a charter and then moved teh older one to a different charter with no issues. The school was on board. Perchaps it is different in a non-charter school or perhaps teh school is not on baord. Talk to your principal.