Common Lottery Algorithm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I really would like to understand this myself, how do the details change anything about what each of us does as parents? The main issue I needed to resolve for myself was whether my ranking of the schools matters. It does, a lot, even though there are other factors that also matter or maybe even matter more.

So if you make sure you rank the schools according to which school you want the most, next most, etc, do the details of how the algorithm works change anything about what we do when we apply?

Yes, thank you. People getting their panties in a bunch when the simple advice, repeated over and over again here and by lottery folks, to rank in order in which you wish to attend holds true.

Indeed. And I think the other piece of advice is the same as it has been in the past: don't waste one of your 12 slots on a school that you have literally no chance of getting in to, because it does not have space for out-of-boundary or non-sibling kids. This only really applies to a couple of DCPS schools, and maybe one or two charters. Just because you put Janney as your number 1 slot for PK4, if you don't live in the boundary you will not get in. And by doing that you knock off a school that you might have a chance at, even it's small, like a Capital City or LAMB.

I'm sure you mean well and I'm not necessarily questioning your point, but NO ONE should believe this to be true (about not "wasting" a choice on an impossible school) without calling the lottery directly and asking them this question. I'm still putting my true first choices down in order, because I'm not clear that the highest demand schools are really "impossible" even if I have no preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I really would like to understand this myself, how do the details change anything about what each of us does as parents? The main issue I needed to resolve for myself was whether my ranking of the schools matters. It does, a lot, even though there are other factors that also matter or maybe even matter more.

So if you make sure you rank the schools according to which school you want the most, next most, etc, do the details of how the algorithm works change anything about what we do when we apply?

Yes, thank you. People getting their panties in a bunch when the simple advice, repeated over and over again here and by lottery folks, to rank in order in which you wish to attend holds true.

Indeed. And I think the other piece of advice is the same as it has been in the past: don't waste one of your 12 slots on a school that you have literally no chance of getting in to, because it does not have space for out-of-boundary or non-sibling kids. This only really applies to a couple of DCPS schools, and maybe one or two charters. Just because you put Janney as your number 1 slot for PK4, if you don't live in the boundary you will not get in. And by doing that you knock off a school that you might have a chance at, even it's small, like a Capital City or LAMB.

I don't know. I kind of have a different approach to that. If you really really really like Janney and want a chance at it, while also not being that upset with your IB selection I would rank Janney above my IB. That way if I get my IB I'll still be on the Janney waitlist, otherwise if I put my IB as #1 I'd miss out on the opportunity.

That's fine for charters which have 5 non-sibling spots, or schools likes Eaton which will admit or small number of out-of-boundary kids. Your odds are long, but hey, why not take a shot. But for Janney, Lafayette, Mann, Key (any others?), you literally have no chance if you don't live in-boundary. Those schools have no room for out-of-boundary kids. All you do if you put one of those is waste a chance at a safer option.

This is probably true, but I'm still going to call and ask this myself. I don't want to miss a chance if it's possible I could get an OOB spot and it's my dream school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I really would like to understand this myself, how do the details change anything about what each of us does as parents? The main issue I needed to resolve for myself was whether my ranking of the schools matters. It does, a lot, even though there are other factors that also matter or maybe even matter more.

So if you make sure you rank the schools according to which school you want the most, next most, etc, do the details of how the algorithm works change anything about what we do when we apply?

Yes, thank you. People getting their panties in a bunch when the simple advice, repeated over and over again here and by lottery folks, to rank in order in which you wish to attend holds true.

Indeed. And I think the other piece of advice is the same as it has been in the past: don't waste one of your 12 slots on a school that you have literally no chance of getting in to, because it does not have space for out-of-boundary or non-sibling kids. This only really applies to a couple of DCPS schools, and maybe one or two charters. Just because you put Janney as your number 1 slot for PK4, if you don't live in the boundary you will not get in. And by doing that you knock off a school that you might have a chance at, even it's small, like a Capital City or LAMB.

I'm sure you mean well and I'm not necessarily questioning your point, but NO ONE should believe this to be true (about not "wasting" a choice on an impossible school) without calling the lottery directly and asking them this question. I'm still putting my true first choices down in order, because I'm not clear that the highest demand schools are really "impossible" even if I have no preference.

You are right, it is just my opinion, but I have been watching this pretty closely for the past few years, looking at the lottery lists, talking with people. There are only a couple of schools to which it applies. And it doesn't impact my family at all- my interest is academic at this point (went through all of this 2 years ago). For charters there a couple of schools which in the past have had no non-sibling spots, but it might make sense to apply for a PS3 or PK4 kid if you were also applying for an older kid who had a shot at admission, and then would pull the younger kid in through sibling preference. I just think people should be realistic. The other one to which is applies is the PK4 english-dominant at Oyster. Every year there are in-boundary kids who never get in, and have to wait until K to start. So why put that on your list if you don't live in boundary and don't have a kid already there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I really would like to understand this myself, how do the details change anything about what each of us does as parents? The main issue I needed to resolve for myself was whether my ranking of the schools matters. It does, a lot, even though there are other factors that also matter or maybe even matter more.

So if you make sure you rank the schools according to which school you want the most, next most, etc, do the details of how the algorithm works change anything about what we do when we apply?

Yes, thank you. People getting their panties in a bunch when the simple advice, repeated over and over again here and by lottery folks, to rank in order in which you wish to attend holds true.

Indeed. And I think the other piece of advice is the same as it has been in the past: don't waste one of your 12 slots on a school that you have literally no chance of getting in to, because it does not have space for out-of-boundary or non-sibling kids. This only really applies to a couple of DCPS schools, and maybe one or two charters. Just because you put Janney as your number 1 slot for PK4, if you don't live in the boundary you will not get in. And by doing that you knock off a school that you might have a chance at, even it's small, like a Capital City or LAMB.

I'm sure you mean well and I'm not necessarily questioning your point, but NO ONE should believe this to be true (about not "wasting" a choice on an impossible school) without calling the lottery directly and asking them this question. I'm still putting my true first choices down in order, because I'm not clear that the highest demand schools are really "impossible" even if I have no preference.

You are right, it is just my opinion, but I have been watching this pretty closely for the past few years, looking at the lottery lists, talking with people. There are only a couple of schools to which it applies. And it doesn't impact my family at all- my interest is academic at this point (went through all of this 2 years ago). For charters there a couple of schools which in the past have had no non-sibling spots, but it might make sense to apply for a PS3 or PK4 kid if you were also applying for an older kid who had a shot at admission, and then would pull the younger kid in through sibling preference. I just think people should be realistic. The other one to which is applies is the PK4 english-dominant at Oyster. Every year there are in-boundary kids who never get in, and have to wait until K to start. So why put that on your list if you don't live in boundary and don't have a kid already there?

As an example, take a look at Janney for last years PK4 lottery- lottery.dcps.dc.gov. The first non-preference slot on the waitlist is 61. They might have pulled in 10-20 kids off the waitlist if they decided to open a new classroom or add a kid or two to the existing classrooms. But there's no way they went 61 deep. Same for Lafayette- 26 deep before non-preference, with probably 60 or so admitted. Mann might be possible, they had non-preference kids starting at 7 on the waitlist, but that's still a longshot, that school is very small and they probably don't have any way to open up new classes. Murch went 23 deep before non-preference, that one is probably on the edge also. For Oyster English dominant- only 10 slots, that is a hard number, and you have to get to 20 on the waitlist until you get to non-preference kids. I didn't even know how in-demand Stoddert was- you need to get to 62 on the waitlist before you see a non-preference kid.

All of this is to say- a lot of this is logic and probability. You don't have unlimited slots. Is there a chance one of those schools might dip into the non-preference waitlist? Very, very low, like way less than 1%. If you are reaching, why not put another school like Inspired Teaching or Mundo Verde, which have low odds but will very likely take at least some non-sibling kids? I'd rather have a 20 in 500 shot than a 1 in 1000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I really would like to understand this myself, how do the details change anything about what each of us does as parents? The main issue I needed to resolve for myself was whether my ranking of the schools matters. It does, a lot, even though there are other factors that also matter or maybe even matter more.

So if you make sure you rank the schools according to which school you want the most, next most, etc, do the details of how the algorithm works change anything about what we do when we apply?

Yes, thank you. People getting their panties in a bunch when the simple advice, repeated over and over again here and by lottery folks, to rank in order in which you wish to attend holds true.

Indeed. And I think the other piece of advice is the same as it has been in the past: don't waste one of your 12 slots on a school that you have literally no chance of getting in to, because it does not have space for out-of-boundary or non-sibling kids. This only really applies to a couple of DCPS schools, and maybe one or two charters. Just because you put Janney as your number 1 slot for PK4, if you don't live in the boundary you will not get in. And by doing that you knock off a school that you might have a chance at, even it's small, like a Capital City or LAMB.

I'm sure you mean well and I'm not necessarily questioning your point, but NO ONE should believe this to be true (about not "wasting" a choice on an impossible school) without calling the lottery directly and asking them this question. I'm still putting my true first choices down in order, because I'm not clear that the highest demand schools are really "impossible" even if I have no preference.

You are right, it is just my opinion, but I have been watching this pretty closely for the past few years, looking at the lottery lists, talking with people. There are only a couple of schools to which it applies. And it doesn't impact my family at all- my interest is academic at this point (went through all of this 2 years ago). For charters there a couple of schools which in the past have had no non-sibling spots, but it might make sense to apply for a PS3 or PK4 kid if you were also applying for an older kid who had a shot at admission, and then would pull the younger kid in through sibling preference. I just think people should be realistic. The other one to which is applies is the PK4 english-dominant at Oyster. Every year there are in-boundary kids who never get in, and have to wait until K to start. So why put that on your list if you don't live in boundary and don't have a kid already there?

As an example, take a look at Janney for last years PK4 lottery- lottery.dcps.dc.gov. The first non-preference slot on the waitlist is 61. They might have pulled in 10-20 kids off the waitlist if they decided to open a new classroom or add a kid or two to the existing classrooms. But there's no way they went 61 deep. Same for Lafayette- 26 deep before non-preference, with probably 60 or so admitted. Mann might be possible, they had non-preference kids starting at 7 on the waitlist, but that's still a longshot, that school is very small and they probably don't have any way to open up new classes. Murch went 23 deep before non-preference, that one is probably on the edge also. For Oyster English dominant- only 10 slots, that is a hard number, and you have to get to 20 on the waitlist until you get to non-preference kids. I didn't even know how in-demand Stoddert was- you need to get to 62 on the waitlist before you see a non-preference kid.

All of this is to say- a lot of this is logic and probability. You don't have unlimited slots. Is there a chance one of those schools might dip into the non-preference waitlist? Very, very low, like way less than 1%. If you are reaching, why not put another school like Inspired Teaching or Mundo Verde, which have low odds but will very likely take at least some non-sibling kids? I'd rather have a 20 in 500 shot than a 1 in 1000.

You are missing a really key difference between this year and all years prior. In the past, the IB family with a sibling lost nothing by applying to their IB school and also as many charters as they wanted to. Really, anyone could apply to any number of charters and not have to know in advance which they were most interested in going to. And it hasn't been long that you were limited in how many DCPS schools you applied to as well.

This year, each family only has 12 choices in Round 1. I may be IB and/or have sib preference, but if my 1st child is in a non-immersion school and I want immersion, I may put 3 immersion schools ahead of my IB school or the school my 1st child is in. Someone else may have my same preference, or no preference, and get a way better random pull position and get in to my IB/sib school before me. OR, I could get into one of my immersion schools which takes me off the list for my IB if I ranked them ahead.

This year is really, truly different, because it's all linked and families who in the past lost nothing by applying to multiple schools actually have to prioritize, AND if they get into one, they are OUT of running for the others automatically. No more getting into 3 schools and holding the spots until you decide.

This isn't to say that schools that had no non-sibling spots last year will somehow miraculously have sib spots this year. It's just to say that the process is different, and when people need to rank their choices and automatically get dropped from lower choices if they get into one, PLUS it all being one system so so much less room for gaming the system... this all means it'll be the first year that we have a much more real understanding of demand for each school and probably have more of a chance at the ones we want the most, whichever school it is.

All that said, the odds for the most popular schools still suck, so it'll still be a rough road for many, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I really would like to understand this myself, how do the details change anything about what each of us does as parents? The main issue I needed to resolve for myself was whether my ranking of the schools matters. It does, a lot, even though there are other factors that also matter or maybe even matter more.

So if you make sure you rank the schools according to which school you want the most, next most, etc, do the details of how the algorithm works change anything about what we do when we apply?

Yes, thank you. People getting their panties in a bunch when the simple advice, repeated over and over again here and by lottery folks, to rank in order in which you wish to attend holds true.

Indeed. And I think the other piece of advice is the same as it has been in the past: don't waste one of your 12 slots on a school that you have literally no chance of getting in to, because it does not have space for out-of-boundary or non-sibling kids. This only really applies to a couple of DCPS schools, and maybe one or two charters. Just because you put Janney as your number 1 slot for PK4, if you don't live in the boundary you will not get in. And by doing that you knock off a school that you might have a chance at, even it's small, like a Capital City or LAMB.

I'm sure you mean well and I'm not necessarily questioning your point, but NO ONE should believe this to be true (about not "wasting" a choice on an impossible school) without calling the lottery directly and asking them this question. I'm still putting my true first choices down in order, because I'm not clear that the highest demand schools are really "impossible" even if I have no preference.

You are right, it is just my opinion, but I have been watching this pretty closely for the past few years, looking at the lottery lists, talking with people. There are only a couple of schools to which it applies. And it doesn't impact my family at all- my interest is academic at this point (went through all of this 2 years ago). For charters there a couple of schools which in the past have had no non-sibling spots, but it might make sense to apply for a PS3 or PK4 kid if you were also applying for an older kid who had a shot at admission, and then would pull the younger kid in through sibling preference. I just think people should be realistic. The other one to which is applies is the PK4 english-dominant at Oyster. Every year there are in-boundary kids who never get in, and have to wait until K to start. So why put that on your list if you don't live in boundary and don't have a kid already there?

As an example, take a look at Janney for last years PK4 lottery- lottery.dcps.dc.gov. The first non-preference slot on the waitlist is 61. They might have pulled in 10-20 kids off the waitlist if they decided to open a new classroom or add a kid or two to the existing classrooms. But there's no way they went 61 deep. Same for Lafayette- 26 deep before non-preference, with probably 60 or so admitted. Mann might be possible, they had non-preference kids starting at 7 on the waitlist, but that's still a longshot, that school is very small and they probably don't have any way to open up new classes. Murch went 23 deep before non-preference, that one is probably on the edge also. For Oyster English dominant- only 10 slots, that is a hard number, and you have to get to 20 on the waitlist until you get to non-preference kids. I didn't even know how in-demand Stoddert was- you need to get to 62 on the waitlist before you see a non-preference kid.

All of this is to say- a lot of this is logic and probability. You don't have unlimited slots. Is there a chance one of those schools might dip into the non-preference waitlist? Very, very low, like way less than 1%. If you are reaching, why not put another school like Inspired Teaching or Mundo Verde, which have low odds but will very likely take at least some non-sibling kids? I'd rather have a 20 in 500 shot than a 1 in 1000.

1 in 1000 is still better than 0 in 0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You are missing a really key difference between this year and all years prior. In the past, the IB family with a sibling lost nothing by applying to their IB school and also as many charters as they wanted to. Really, anyone could apply to any number of charters and not have to know in advance which they were most interested in going to. And it hasn't been long that you were limited in how many DCPS schools you applied to as well.

This year, each family only has 12 choices in Round 1. I may be IB and/or have sib preference, but if my 1st child is in a non-immersion school and I want immersion, I may put 3 immersion schools ahead of my IB school or the school my 1st child is in. Someone else may have my same preference, or no preference, and get a way better random pull position and get in to my IB/sib school before me. OR, I could get into one of my immersion schools which takes me off the list for my IB if I ranked them ahead.

This year is really, truly different, because it's all linked and families who in the past lost nothing by applying to multiple schools actually have to prioritize, AND if they get into one, they are OUT of running for the others automatically. No more getting into 3 schools and holding the spots until you decide.

This isn't to say that schools that had no non-sibling spots last year will somehow miraculously have sib spots this year. It's just to say that the process is different, and when people need to rank their choices and automatically get dropped from lower choices if they get into one, PLUS it all being one system so so much less room for gaming the system... this all means it'll be the first year that we have a much more real understanding of demand for each school and probably have more of a chance at the ones we want the most, whichever school it is.

All that said, the odds for the most popular schools still suck, so it'll still be a rough road for many, unfortunately.

I think that's a fair point- this year is truly different. But I really doubt that there will be a significant number of people from west of Rock Creek who will drop their neighborhood school in favor of a charter that is a 20-30 minute drive. There will be some, absolutely. But my SWAG is that you are talking 5 or so per school, based on my admittedly non-scientific review of the parents from my kid's immersion charter. Not enough to swing those lists all that much. My impression is that people move to those neighborhoods specifically for those schools, and are incredibly disappointed if they don't get in for PK4, and just wait it out until they get automatic admittance for K. Again, I don't really have an interest here other than academic- I think it's an interesting process that this city is going through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong, afraid to call them youself and confirm that you're full of crap? Yes, you are, because you know you're full of crap. The person I spoke to was quite able to explain the algorithm, was not reading off a script, gave examples, and answered my specific "What if...?" questions with ease. I'll take their accurate, relevant info over your admittedly (because if you had an official, verifiable source you would have posted it by now) not-official musings/misleading.

I read your posting of your conversation with the lottery person, and I can see where you misunderstood. There is a difference between weighting and priority. Weighting means you have a better chance. Priority means the person with priority gets it every time over the person without priority. We do not have a weighted system, we have a priority system. IB first priority, sibs second priority, then priority by lottery number.

What the nice person in the lottery office was saying to you is that even if you have a good lottery number, there might be a higher priority person than you who gets the spot. The "might" isn't whether they get the spot, if they exist they get it, the "might" is they might exist.

In my experience DCPS doesn't like to admit that it's a strict priority system, they tend to waffle around that point because it's so depressing for the people who don't have priority.

I don't care if I sound like a broken record. Wrong info on this is too damaging, even though no one should be relying totally on anything said here.

Re: your post, post a verifiable official source for your take on the lottery, or I don't believe it. I did not misunderstand what I was told, as I asked the specific question re: whether someone with no sibling preference or inbound but who ranked a school #1 could get in over someone with sibling or IB preference but who ranked it #2, and was told yes that is absolutely possible. There are several variables re: who the computer even looks at first and what the other applicants who are being looked at before/at the same time had re: rankings or preferences.

I won't argue terms "priority" vs. "weighting". I just know that ranking a school #1 gives you as much of an advantage as having a sibling at the school but ranking it #2... who gets that particular spot depends on who the computer looks at first. In one pull it could be the #1/no sib who gets it, in another it could be the #2 w/sib who gets it. But in either pull, #3 with or without sib or IB or not is not getting it unless they are pulled ahead of the others and don't get into their 1 or 2.

If ranking didn't matter or wasn't weighted, it wouldn't give you just as much an advantage as IB or sibling. And it was explained to me repeatedly as being just as important, giving you the same edge as IB or sibling. (Although a combo of #1, sib and IB (for PS/PK) will be hard to beat.)

Wow. You are so very wrong. It's clear to everyone here. Please call them back, speak to a supervisor and then come back here and take back everything you said. You don't even understand the difference between priority and weighting. Here is the list of preferences from the DC lottery website:

1.In-boundary with a sibling already enrolled at the school (PK3 and PK4 only)
2.In-boundary with a sibling who is applying at the same time and is matched to the school (PK3 and PK4 only)
3.In-boundary (PK3 and PK4 only)
4.Out-of-boundary with a sibling already enrolled at the school
5.Out-of-boundary with a sibling who is applying at the same time and is matched to the school
6.Out-of-boundary with proximity
7.No preference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong, afraid to call them youself and confirm that you're full of crap? Yes, you are, because you know you're full of crap. The person I spoke to was quite able to explain the algorithm, was not reading off a script, gave examples, and answered my specific "What if...?" questions with ease. I'll take their accurate, relevant info over your admittedly (because if you had an official, verifiable source you would have posted it by now) not-official musings/misleading.

I read your posting of your conversation with the lottery person, and I can see where you misunderstood. There is a difference between weighting and priority. Weighting means you have a better chance. Priority means the person with priority gets it every time over the person without priority. We do not have a weighted system, we have a priority system. IB first priority, sibs second priority, then priority by lottery number.

What the nice person in the lottery office was saying to you is that even if you have a good lottery number, there might be a higher priority person than you who gets the spot. The "might" isn't whether they get the spot, if they exist they get it, the "might" is they might exist.

In my experience DCPS doesn't like to admit that it's a strict priority system, they tend to waffle around that point because it's so depressing for the people who don't have priority.

I don't care if I sound like a broken record. Wrong info on this is too damaging, even though no one should be relying totally on anything said here.

Re: your post, post a verifiable official source for your take on the lottery, or I don't believe it. I did not misunderstand what I was told, as I asked the specific question re: whether someone with no sibling preference or inbound but who ranked a school #1 could get in over someone with sibling or IB preference but who ranked it #2, and was told yes that is absolutely possible. There are several variables re: who the computer even looks at first and what the other applicants who are being looked at before/at the same time had re: rankings or preferences.

I won't argue terms "priority" vs. "weighting". I just know that ranking a school #1 gives you as much of an advantage as having a sibling at the school but ranking it #2... who gets that particular spot depends on who the computer looks at first. In one pull it could be the #1/no sib who gets it, in another it could be the #2 w/sib who gets it. But in either pull, #3 with or without sib or IB or not is not getting it unless they are pulled ahead of the others and don't get into their 1 or 2.

If ranking didn't matter or wasn't weighted, it wouldn't give you just as much an advantage as IB or sibling. And it was explained to me repeatedly as being just as important, giving you the same edge as IB or sibling. (Although a combo of #1, sib and IB (for PS/PK) will be hard to beat.)

Wow. You are so very wrong. It's clear to everyone here. Please call them back, speak to a supervisor and then come back here and take back everything you said. You don't even understand the difference between priority and weighting. Here is the list of preferences from the DC lottery website:

1.In-boundary with a sibling already enrolled at the school (PK3 and PK4 only)
2.In-boundary with a sibling who is applying at the same time and is matched to the school (PK3 and PK4 only)
3.In-boundary (PK3 and PK4 only)
4.Out-of-boundary with a sibling already enrolled at the school
5.Out-of-boundary with a sibling who is applying at the same time and is matched to the school
6.Out-of-boundary with proximity
7.No preference

Just curious, why do you care? It's been established that it doesn't change the fact that each parent needs to pay careful attention to the order they rank the schools. What changes whether you are right or the PP is right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong, afraid to call them youself and confirm that you're full of crap? Yes, you are, because you know you're full of crap. The person I spoke to was quite able to explain the algorithm, was not reading off a script, gave examples, and answered my specific "What if...?" questions with ease. I'll take their accurate, relevant info over your admittedly (because if you had an official, verifiable source you would have posted it by now) not-official musings/misleading.

I read your posting of your conversation with the lottery person, and I can see where you misunderstood. There is a difference between weighting and priority. Weighting means you have a better chance. Priority means the person with priority gets it every time over the person without priority. We do not have a weighted system, we have a priority system. IB first priority, sibs second priority, then priority by lottery number.

What the nice person in the lottery office was saying to you is that even if you have a good lottery number, there might be a higher priority person than you who gets the spot. The "might" isn't whether they get the spot, if they exist they get it, the "might" is they might exist.

In my experience DCPS doesn't like to admit that it's a strict priority system, they tend to waffle around that point because it's so depressing for the people who don't have priority.

I don't care if I sound like a broken record. Wrong info on this is too damaging, even though no one should be relying totally on anything said here.

Re: your post, post a verifiable official source for your take on the lottery, or I don't believe it. I did not misunderstand what I was told, as I asked the specific question re: whether someone with no sibling preference or inbound but who ranked a school #1 could get in over someone with sibling or IB preference but who ranked it #2, and was told yes that is absolutely possible. There are several variables re: who the computer even looks at first and what the other applicants who are being looked at before/at the same time had re: rankings or preferences.

I won't argue terms "priority" vs. "weighting". I just know that ranking a school #1 gives you as much of an advantage as having a sibling at the school but ranking it #2... who gets that particular spot depends on who the computer looks at first. In one pull it could be the #1/no sib who gets it, in another it could be the #2 w/sib who gets it. But in either pull, #3 with or without sib or IB or not is not getting it unless they are pulled ahead of the others and don't get into their 1 or 2.

If ranking didn't matter or wasn't weighted, it wouldn't give you just as much an advantage as IB or sibling. And it was explained to me repeatedly as being just as important, giving you the same edge as IB or sibling. (Although a combo of #1, sib and IB (for PS/PK) will be hard to beat.)

Not the PP you are arguing with, but you are now spreading total horseshit if you are claiming that putting a school #1 gives you just as much of an advantage as having sibling preference. I don't care who you talked to, that is absolutely not true. Talk about spreading damaging information.

I'm not spreading horshit or damaging info. I'm spreading what I was told 3 times by actual Common Lottery staff. It's all about what the computer gets to first. If you don't think ranking #1 is as important as sib preference, then how is it that someone ranking the school #1 but with no sib preference can get in ahead of someone ranking it #2 with a sib? If it's not as important then that couldn't happen. Ok, now really done. Guess I'll have to stop reading the thread, because it's hard to not post when people have a LOT of opinions, but no freaking sources for who said THEIR opinion to them. Done done done.

It can't happen. It's against the law. Read the FAQ on the common lottery website. That's my source. It's a much better source than someone online who claims to have talked to staff there. (I do believe you talked to them but you either misunderstood or they didn't know what they were talking about).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong, afraid to call them youself and confirm that you're full of crap? Yes, you are, because you know you're full of crap. The person I spoke to was quite able to explain the algorithm, was not reading off a script, gave examples, and answered my specific "What if...?" questions with ease. I'll take their accurate, relevant info over your admittedly (because if you had an official, verifiable source you would have posted it by now) not-official musings/misleading.

I read your posting of your conversation with the lottery person, and I can see where you misunderstood. There is a difference between weighting and priority. Weighting means you have a better chance. Priority means the person with priority gets it every time over the person without priority. We do not have a weighted system, we have a priority system. IB first priority, sibs second priority, then priority by lottery number.

What the nice person in the lottery office was saying to you is that even if you have a good lottery number, there might be a higher priority person than you who gets the spot. The "might" isn't whether they get the spot, if they exist they get it, the "might" is they might exist.

In my experience DCPS doesn't like to admit that it's a strict priority system, they tend to waffle around that point because it's so depressing for the people who don't have priority.

I don't care if I sound like a broken record. Wrong info on this is too damaging, even though no one should be relying totally on anything said here.

Re: your post, post a verifiable official source for your take on the lottery, or I don't believe it. I did not misunderstand what I was told, as I asked the specific question re: whether someone with no sibling preference or inbound but who ranked a school #1 could get in over someone with sibling or IB preference but who ranked it #2, and was told yes that is absolutely possible. There are several variables re: who the computer even looks at first and what the other applicants who are being looked at before/at the same time had re: rankings or preferences.

I won't argue terms "priority" vs. "weighting". I just know that ranking a school #1 gives you as much of an advantage as having a sibling at the school but ranking it #2... who gets that particular spot depends on who the computer looks at first. In one pull it could be the #1/no sib who gets it, in another it could be the #2 w/sib who gets it. But in either pull, #3 with or without sib or IB or not is not getting it unless they are pulled ahead of the others and don't get into their 1 or 2.

If ranking didn't matter or wasn't weighted, it wouldn't give you just as much an advantage as IB or sibling. And it was explained to me repeatedly as being just as important, giving you the same edge as IB or sibling. (Although a combo of #1, sib and IB (for PS/PK) will be hard to beat.)

Wow. You are so very wrong. It's clear to everyone here. Please call them back, speak to a supervisor and then come back here and take back everything you said. You don't even understand the difference between priority and weighting. Here is the list of preferences from the DC lottery website:

1.In-boundary with a sibling already enrolled at the school (PK3 and PK4 only)
2.In-boundary with a sibling who is applying at the same time and is matched to the school (PK3 and PK4 only)
3.In-boundary (PK3 and PK4 only)
4.Out-of-boundary with a sibling already enrolled at the school
5.Out-of-boundary with a sibling who is applying at the same time and is matched to the school
6.Out-of-boundary with proximity
7.No preference

Just curious, why do you care? It's been established that it doesn't change the fact that each parent needs to pay careful attention to the order they rank the schools. What changes whether you are right or the PP is right?

Also, the PP you're quoting said over and over that everyone should call for themselves, hear it for themselves. They reported their understanding, you're reporting your understanding, and anyone who listens blindly to either without checking for themselves (if they really care) is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By law, sibs get preference. No ranking of algorithm will change that. So, if there are 10 open spots with 10 siblings to fill them, you will never get one of those 10 spots. Period.

So you're saying if I'm a Sibling at IT (my #12 choice) but get in at Mundo Verde (my #1) with an early choice, I will be able to keep my IT spot and bump someone from the IT spot? So I'm admitted to IT and high wait listed for MV?

No, if you get in at Mundo Verde you have given up your sibling preference at IT. If you get in at your #1 choice you are no longer on any wait lists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong, afraid to call them youself and confirm that you're full of crap? Yes, you are, because you know you're full of crap. The person I spoke to was quite able to explain the algorithm, was not reading off a script, gave examples, and answered my specific "What if...?" questions with ease. I'll take their accurate, relevant info over your admittedly (because if you had an official, verifiable source you would have posted it by now) not-official musings/misleading.

I read your posting of your conversation with the lottery person, and I can see where you misunderstood. There is a difference between weighting and priority. Weighting means you have a better chance. Priority means the person with priority gets it every time over the person without priority. We do not have a weighted system, we have a priority system. IB first priority, sibs second priority, then priority by lottery number.

What the nice person in the lottery office was saying to you is that even if you have a good lottery number, there might be a higher priority person than you who gets the spot. The "might" isn't whether they get the spot, if they exist they get it, the "might" is they might exist.

In my experience DCPS doesn't like to admit that it's a strict priority system, they tend to waffle around that point because it's so depressing for the people who don't have priority.

I don't care if I sound like a broken record. Wrong info on this is too damaging, even though no one should be relying totally on anything said here.

Re: your post, post a verifiable official source for your take on the lottery, or I don't believe it. I did not misunderstand what I was told, as I asked the specific question re: whether someone with no sibling preference or inbound but who ranked a school #1 could get in over someone with sibling or IB preference but who ranked it #2, and was told yes that is absolutely possible. There are several variables re: who the computer even looks at first and what the other applicants who are being looked at before/at the same time had re: rankings or preferences.

I won't argue terms "priority" vs. "weighting". I just know that ranking a school #1 gives you as much of an advantage as having a sibling at the school but ranking it #2... who gets that particular spot depends on who the computer looks at first. In one pull it could be the #1/no sib who gets it, in another it could be the #2 w/sib who gets it. But in either pull, #3 with or without sib or IB or not is not getting it unless they are pulled ahead of the others and don't get into their 1 or 2.

If ranking didn't matter or wasn't weighted, it wouldn't give you just as much an advantage as IB or sibling. And it was explained to me repeatedly as being just as important, giving you the same edge as IB or sibling. (Although a combo of #1, sib and IB (for PS/PK) will be hard to beat.)

Not the PP you are arguing with, but you are now spreading total horseshit if you are claiming that putting a school #1 gives you just as much of an advantage as having sibling preference. I don't care who you talked to, that is absolutely not true. Talk about spreading damaging information.

I'm not spreading horshit or damaging info. I'm spreading what I was told 3 times by actual Common Lottery staff. It's all about what the computer gets to first. If you don't think ranking #1 is as important as sib preference, then how is it that someone ranking the school #1 but with no sib preference can get in ahead of someone ranking it #2 with a sib? If it's not as important then that couldn't happen. Ok, now really done. Guess I'll have to stop reading the thread, because it's hard to not post when people have a LOT of opinions, but no freaking sources for who said THEIR opinion to them. Done done done.

It can't happen. It's against the law. Read the FAQ on the common lottery website. That's my source. It's a much better source than someone online who claims to have talked to staff there. (I do believe you talked to them but you either misunderstood or they didn't know what they were talking about).

You keep saying its "against the law". Please, post the LAW that says this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong, afraid to call them youself and confirm that you're full of crap? Yes, you are, because you know you're full of crap. The person I spoke to was quite able to explain the algorithm, was not reading off a script, gave examples, and answered my specific "What if...?" questions with ease. I'll take their accurate, relevant info over your admittedly (because if you had an official, verifiable source you would have posted it by now) not-official musings/misleading.

I read your posting of your conversation with the lottery person, and I can see where you misunderstood. There is a difference between weighting and priority. Weighting means you have a better chance. Priority means the person with priority gets it every time over the person without priority. We do not have a weighted system, we have a priority system. IB first priority, sibs second priority, then priority by lottery number.

What the nice person in the lottery office was saying to you is that even if you have a good lottery number, there might be a higher priority person than you who gets the spot. The "might" isn't whether they get the spot, if they exist they get it, the "might" is they might exist.

In my experience DCPS doesn't like to admit that it's a strict priority system, they tend to waffle around that point because it's so depressing for the people who don't have priority.

I don't care if I sound like a broken record. Wrong info on this is too damaging, even though no one should be relying totally on anything said here.

Re: your post, post a verifiable official source for your take on the lottery, or I don't believe it. I did not misunderstand what I was told, as I asked the specific question re: whether someone with no sibling preference or inbound but who ranked a school #1 could get in over someone with sibling or IB preference but who ranked it #2, and was told yes that is absolutely possible. There are several variables re: who the computer even looks at first and what the other applicants who are being looked at before/at the same time had re: rankings or preferences.

I won't argue terms "priority" vs. "weighting". I just know that ranking a school #1 gives you as much of an advantage as having a sibling at the school but ranking it #2... who gets that particular spot depends on who the computer looks at first. In one pull it could be the #1/no sib who gets it, in another it could be the #2 w/sib who gets it. But in either pull, #3 with or without sib or IB or not is not getting it unless they are pulled ahead of the others and don't get into their 1 or 2.

If ranking didn't matter or wasn't weighted, it wouldn't give you just as much an advantage as IB or sibling. And it was explained to me repeatedly as being just as important, giving you the same edge as IB or sibling. (Although a combo of #1, sib and IB (for PS/PK) will be hard to beat.)

Not the PP you are arguing with, but you are now spreading total horseshit if you are claiming that putting a school #1 gives you just as much of an advantage as having sibling preference. I don't care who you talked to, that is absolutely not true. Talk about spreading damaging information.

I'm not spreading horshit or damaging info. I'm spreading what I was told 3 times by actual Common Lottery staff. It's all about what the computer gets to first. If you don't think ranking #1 is as important as sib preference, then how is it that someone ranking the school #1 but with no sib preference can get in ahead of someone ranking it #2 with a sib? If it's not as important then that couldn't happen. Ok, now really done. Guess I'll have to stop reading the thread, because it's hard to not post when people have a LOT of opinions, but no freaking sources for who said THEIR opinion to them. Done done done.

It can't happen. It's against the law. Read the FAQ on the common lottery website. That's my source. It's a much better source than someone online who claims to have talked to staff there. (I do believe you talked to them but you either misunderstood or they didn't know what they were talking about).

You keep saying its "against the law". Please, post the LAW that says this.

I've said it once. That doesn't constitute "keep saying". Look up the charter school laws in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong, afraid to call them youself and confirm that you're full of crap? Yes, you are, because you know you're full of crap. The person I spoke to was quite able to explain the algorithm, was not reading off a script, gave examples, and answered my specific "What if...?" questions with ease. I'll take their accurate, relevant info over your admittedly (because if you had an official, verifiable source you would have posted it by now) not-official musings/misleading.

I read your posting of your conversation with the lottery person, and I can see where you misunderstood. There is a difference between weighting and priority. Weighting means you have a better chance. Priority means the person with priority gets it every time over the person without priority. We do not have a weighted system, we have a priority system. IB first priority, sibs second priority, then priority by lottery number.

What the nice person in the lottery office was saying to you is that even if you have a good lottery number, there might be a higher priority person than you who gets the spot. The "might" isn't whether they get the spot, if they exist they get it, the "might" is they might exist.

In my experience DCPS doesn't like to admit that it's a strict priority system, they tend to waffle around that point because it's so depressing for the people who don't have priority.

I don't care if I sound like a broken record. Wrong info on this is too damaging, even though no one should be relying totally on anything said here.

Re: your post, post a verifiable official source for your take on the lottery, or I don't believe it. I did not misunderstand what I was told, as I asked the specific question re: whether someone with no sibling preference or inbound but who ranked a school #1 could get in over someone with sibling or IB preference but who ranked it #2, and was told yes that is absolutely possible. There are several variables re: who the computer even looks at first and what the other applicants who are being looked at before/at the same time had re: rankings or preferences.

I won't argue terms "priority" vs. "weighting". I just know that ranking a school #1 gives you as much of an advantage as having a sibling at the school but ranking it #2... who gets that particular spot depends on who the computer looks at first. In one pull it could be the #1/no sib who gets it, in another it could be the #2 w/sib who gets it. But in either pull, #3 with or without sib or IB or not is not getting it unless they are pulled ahead of the others and don't get into their 1 or 2.

If ranking didn't matter or wasn't weighted, it wouldn't give you just as much an advantage as IB or sibling. And it was explained to me repeatedly as being just as important, giving you the same edge as IB or sibling. (Although a combo of #1, sib and IB (for PS/PK) will be hard to beat.)

Wow. You are so very wrong. It's clear to everyone here. Please call them back, speak to a supervisor and then come back here and take back everything you said. You don't even understand the difference between priority and weighting. Here is the list of preferences from the DC lottery website:

1.In-boundary with a sibling already enrolled at the school (PK3 and PK4 only)
2.In-boundary with a sibling who is applying at the same time and is matched to the school (PK3 and PK4 only)
3.In-boundary (PK3 and PK4 only)
4.Out-of-boundary with a sibling already enrolled at the school
5.Out-of-boundary with a sibling who is applying at the same time and is matched to the school
6.Out-of-boundary with proximity
7.No preference

Just curious, why do you care? It's been established that it doesn't change the fact that each parent needs to pay careful attention to the order they rank the schools. What changes whether you are right or the PP is right?

What changes is that PP presented information as "fact" because she had made a phone call. the DC lottery website is a much more valid source than someone randomly posting here. What changes is that by questioning someone spreading misinformation others reading this may be better informed. Also, I was catching up on this thread in order, what "has been established" came in later messages.