Lottery results are up

[Anonymous]

We’re DCI bound, but here are my child’s results for 5th grade:

- Stokes Spanish: less than 5
- DCB: between 5 and 10
- MV 8th: between 5 and 10
[all the above with a DCI sibling preference]
- Latin Cooper: ~ 80
- Latin 2d ~ 100
- BASIS: Matched

[Anonymous]

In the 50s at MVC8. Based on last years WL data, that would be fine for admission by August, but years prior not so much. I suspect that could be because last year, many folks who wanted MVC8 were placed for a year at JF Cook, and didn't want that, but I could be wrong. Any folks more in the know have insight on whether the WL this year will move?

[Anonymous]

Waitlisted #10 at Latin Cooper. Reviewed the historical waitlist data foe the past 5 years and it looks like every child waitlisted at #10 was offered a seat. What are our chances at getting in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Also has anyone been deemed ineligible for Walls yet? Odd for that designation to be appearing for one school but not the other. McKinley's waitlist is likely small enough that they didn't have to do a cutoff, but I would presume that Walls and Banneker would have similar applicant numbers and similar cut offs for the lottery pool.

The difference is that Walls puts every kid they interview but who doesn't match on a waitlist. And then that waitlist moves some amount over the summer/fall.

Banneker (and McKinley) have historically not maintained a waitlist - so they match the kids they match and no one else gets in.

More transparency in all of the selective high school application review processes would be very valuable, but DCPS doesn't want it so it won't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Waitlisted #10 at Latin Cooper. Reviewed the historical waitlist data foe the past 5 years and it looks like every child waitlisted at #10 was offered a seat. What are our chances at getting in?

You should be good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My rising 9th grader also marked "ineligible" at Banneker (but decent waitlist at Walls, go figure!) even though she has stellar grades and had a good interview and has a sibling at the top of her class at Banneker. Must have been a really competitive year. Congrats to everyone who got what they hoped for! For those who didn't, hope your kids don't take it personally. The system is complete and total crapshoot even for the competitive schools.

Interesting. I have to say, I didn't think Banneker was all that tough of an admit. I honestly thought they accepted nearly all their applicants and weren't like Walls.

Not true at all. They get almost as many applications as Walls. My kid got interviews at both, but a bunch of her friends didn’t even get interviews at Banneker, only at Walls (and most of those got into Walls or waitlisted). Banneker is definitely competitive.

I find it hard to believe that "most" of her friends got into Walls and didn't even get interviews at Banneker. There's no "most" anywhere when it comes to Walls.

I didn’t say that most didn’t get interviews at Banneker, but a bunch did not. But yes, most of her friends that ranked Walls first in the lottery got matched. Some got waitlisted. What can i tell you? It’s single peer group of about 15-20 kids or so. A bunch of them are going private anyway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’re DCI bound, but here are my child’s results for 5th grade:

- Stokes Spanish: less than 5
- DCB: between 5 and 10
- MV 8th: between 5 and 10
[all the above with a DCI sibling preference]
- Latin Cooper: ~ 80
- Latin 2d ~ 100
- BASIS: Matched

I am confused by this. You have a child at DCI and are switching schools for a 5th grader. If the plan is DCI why even list Basis and Latin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do find the "ineligible" designations at Banneker a bit strange -- these are all kids who had interviews at Banneker, right? So that would indicate that they did a second screening post interviews based on composite score and the lottery only ran for everyone above a specific score threshold (with others deemed ineligible and thus not actually placed in the lottery for Banneker).

If that's what is happening, it would be useful to know at some point what the score threshold is and what scores kids got. This is a tough process and more transparency would be better, especially for families who may have very weak IB options and be contemplating moves or private as an alternative.

Also has anyone been deemed ineligible for Walls yet? Odd for that designation to be appearing for one school but not the other. McKinley's waitlist is likely small enough that they didn't have to do a cutoff, but I would presume that Walls and Banneker would have similar applicant numbers and similar cut offs for the lottery pool.

It means they didn’t do as well in their interview and on-site essay. They don’t accept everyone that interviews (same as Walls), it’s part of the screening.

Two cuts would be news. I’m surprised they don’t rank into the hundreds.

What are you talking about? Two cuts? Of course there are two “cuts” - one to select who gets an interview and one to select out of those who were interviewed get accepted. This is very basic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My rising 9th grader also marked "ineligible" at Banneker (but decent waitlist at Walls, go figure!) even though she has stellar grades and had a good interview and has a sibling at the top of her class at Banneker. Must have been a really competitive year. Congrats to everyone who got what they hoped for! For those who didn't, hope your kids don't take it personally. The system is complete and total crapshoot even for the competitive schools.

Interesting. I have to say, I didn't think Banneker was all that tough of an admit. I honestly thought they accepted nearly all their applicants and weren't like Walls.

DCUM certainly pushes that narrative.

I think it's harder than it used to be. My DD 7th is pining to go.

I actually think it's just that people used to say whatever they wanted about Banneker with zero first-hand information and it was mostly informed by racism. Now that the "DCUM" kind of people are priced out of privates and running out of spots at J-R and SWW, all of a sudden they're "taking a chance" on the school they considered themselves benevolent pioneers for even considering, only to find out . . . it's not a cakewalk just because it's full of black kids.

DCUM kind of people would never be priced out of privates. The problem is people who don't belong on DCUM are now on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oh man - older kid got into Hyde-Addison, younger sibling is wait-listed for PK3 there. As of now, both of them could also attend the immersion charter elementary where older kid has been attending for a few years.

Commute is - I won't get into the particulars, but both of them are roughly the same distance from our home, and for various reasons represent about the same level of convenience/inconvenience.

Hyde-Addison is...on paper, at least...light years ahead of our current charter in almost every respect - academics and test scores, physical facilities, supplemental activities, resources, surrounding neighborhood, an actual feeder pattern (even if it's not our ideal) - but two: the language instruction...which we do care about...and the community - leadership, staff, parents, kids. I mean, I'm sure they have great people at H-A too! But we don't know them, and we DO know and love the community at our charter.

Oh man...I could see this dilemma coming. I know we're lucky to have it! But that doesn't make it less agonizing.

(And even though younger sibling is pretty high on the waitlist, there's obviously no guarantee. so we could be in a situation where we've pulled older kid from the charter but are still sending younger kid - which would be only slightly inconvenient for us, but probably very awkward...)

One thing is that once you enroll your older kid, your younger kid should jump to the top of the waitlist. This is still not certain, but the odds are better.

As someone who has moved schools -- you will connect with your new community, too. Don't make school choices based on community.

OP here: Thank you! I needed to hear that...
I will say that we really do believe in this charter - it's unique, and we love it, and we want it to succeed! It's just - not where Hyde-Addison is, on any metric.

It sounds like you know HA is the right choice! Saying goodbye to a warm community is always hard, but you'll be equally happy on the other side and you'll stay close with the people you were genuinely close with (happened to us.)

I agree on taking the spot for your older child even if your younger child needs a differen PK3 plan. They will get in eventually (by K at the latest) and then both of your kids are set for years, potentially all the way through 12th. sacrificing on PK will be worth it to you in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pretty far down the waitlist at Walls (>160). My kid will be pretty bummed - guessing it’s unlikely *that* many kids decide to go to their in-bound, another charter or private. Good life lesson to process disappointment I suppose, and our default option isn’t bad.

Walls has done some form of yield management in recent years with about 190 offers for 150 seats. This means that the wait list moves a bit but not a lot. You can check the data on myschool dc for historical movement but #160 is tough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My rising 9th grader also marked "ineligible" at Banneker (but decent waitlist at Walls, go figure!) even though she has stellar grades and had a good interview and has a sibling at the top of her class at Banneker. Must have been a really competitive year. Congrats to everyone who got what they hoped for! For those who didn't, hope your kids don't take it personally. The system is complete and total crapshoot even for the competitive schools.

Interesting. I have to say, I didn't think Banneker was all that tough of an admit. I honestly thought they accepted nearly all their applicants and weren't like Walls.

DCUM certainly pushes that narrative.

I think it's harder than it used to be. My DD 7th is pining to go.

I actually think it's just that people used to say whatever they wanted about Banneker with zero first-hand information and it was mostly informed by racism. Now that the "DCUM" kind of people are priced out of privates and running out of spots at J-R and SWW, all of a sudden they're "taking a chance" on the school they considered themselves benevolent pioneers for even considering, only to find out . . . it's not a cakewalk just because it's full of black kids.

DCUM kind of people would never be priced out of privates. The problem is people who don't belong on DCUM are now on here.

Wtf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My rising 9th grader also marked "ineligible" at Banneker (but decent waitlist at Walls, go figure!) even though she has stellar grades and had a good interview and has a sibling at the top of her class at Banneker. Must have been a really competitive year. Congrats to everyone who got what they hoped for! For those who didn't, hope your kids don't take it personally. The system is complete and total crapshoot even for the competitive schools.

Interesting. I have to say, I didn't think Banneker was all that tough of an admit. I honestly thought they accepted nearly all their applicants and weren't like Walls.

DCUM certainly pushes that narrative.

I think it's harder than it used to be. My DD 7th is pining to go.

I actually think it's just that people used to say whatever they wanted about Banneker with zero first-hand information and it was mostly informed by racism. Now that the "DCUM" kind of people are priced out of privates and running out of spots at J-R and SWW, all of a sudden they're "taking a chance" on the school they considered themselves benevolent pioneers for even considering, only to find out . . . it's not a cakewalk just because it's full of black kids.

DCUM kind of people would never be priced out of privates. The problem is people who don't belong on DCUM are now on here.

Wtf

lol my thoughts exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Waitlisted #10 at Latin Cooper. Reviewed the historical waitlist data foe the past 5 years and it looks like every child waitlisted at #10 was offered a seat. What are our chances at getting in?

You may not find out until August or so, but you will probably get in. It takes them a very long time to go through the process of offering seats to people on the waitlist. They give each family some time to decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My rising 9th grader also marked "ineligible" at Banneker (but decent waitlist at Walls, go figure!) even though she has stellar grades and had a good interview and has a sibling at the top of her class at Banneker. Must have been a really competitive year. Congrats to everyone who got what they hoped for! For those who didn't, hope your kids don't take it personally. The system is complete and total crapshoot even for the competitive schools.

Interesting. I have to say, I didn't think Banneker was all that tough of an admit. I honestly thought they accepted nearly all their applicants and weren't like Walls.

DCUM certainly pushes that narrative.

I think it's harder than it used to be. My DD 7th is pining to go.

I actually think it's just that people used to say whatever they wanted about Banneker with zero first-hand information and it was mostly informed by racism. Now that the "DCUM" kind of people are priced out of privates and running out of spots at J-R and SWW, all of a sudden they're "taking a chance" on the school they considered themselves benevolent pioneers for even considering, only to find out . . . it's not a cakewalk just because it's full of black kids.

DCUM kind of people would never be priced out of privates. The problem is people who don't belong on DCUM are now on here.

LOL. I've seen some crazy statements on this website before but this one really knocks them all out of the park.