Anyone playing the lottery for the heck of it?

[Anonymous]

I think that they should make you give up a spot at your current school of you play the lottery and get in. And also that you should lose in boundary status of you go OOB or charter. No more playing just for fun.

I realize these would never get proposed, much less implemented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that they should make you give up a spot at your current school of you play the lottery and get in. And also that you should lose in boundary status of you go OOB or charter. No more playing just for fun.

I realize these would never get proposed, much less implemented.

i

So if you get into your #12 spot you should give up that spot to lottery for better? What happens if you don't get in anywhere?

[Anonymous]

No. Our IB school is great and I wouldn't want to drive kids to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that they should make you give up a spot at your current school of you play the lottery and get in. And also that you should lose in boundary status of you go OOB or charter. No more playing just for fun.

I realize these would never get proposed, much less implemented.

i

So if you get into your #12 spot you should give up that spot to lottery for better? What happens if you don't get in anywhere?

Then you stay at your current school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that they should make you give up a spot at your current school of you play the lottery and get in. And also that you should lose in boundary status of you go OOB or charter. No more playing just for fun.

I realize these would never get proposed, much less implemented.

i

So if you get into your #12 spot you should give up that spot to lottery for better? What happens if you don't get in anywhere?

Then you stay at your current school

PP said you should have to give up your current school if you lottery elsewhere. Maybe she meant if you didn't get in anywhere.

[Anonymous]

I mean maybe she meant only if you get in somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean maybe she meant only if you get in somewhere.

I don't get the lambasting of people for playing. We're in a PK3 program that is OK - some ups, some downs. The commute is fair, the school's location is not certain beyond the next year or so. As a result of all of those factors, we'll play the lottery and see if we get in somewhere with a more stable future (solid location, feeder path to good middle schools). If we don't get in anywhere like that, we'll just stay put and try again at K and see what happens. Our interest in moving our kid through another transition is pretty low - so it'd have to be a good choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean maybe she meant only if you get in somewhere.

I don't get the lambasting of people for playing. We're in a PK3 program that is OK - some ups, some downs. The commute is fair, the school's location is not certain beyond the next year or so. As a result of all of those factors, we'll play the lottery and see if we get in somewhere with a more stable future (solid location, feeder path to good middle schools). If we don't get in anywhere like that, we'll just stay put and try again at K and see what happens. Our interest in moving our kid through another transition is pretty low - so it'd have to be a good choice.

That isn't playing for playing. That is trying to see if you can get your kid in a better school. Completly different. OP is talking about if you had no desire to move your kid at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love my school (love, love) but it was our second choice two years ago. We play for the hell of it to see if we get our top choice. Even if we do, not sure if we would switch, but just want the choice.

What's your current school and top choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean maybe she meant only if you get in somewhere.

I don't get the lambasting of people for playing. We're in a PK3 program that is OK - some ups, some downs. The commute is fair, the school's location is not certain beyond the next year or so. As a result of all of those factors, we'll play the lottery and see if we get in somewhere with a more stable future (solid location, feeder path to good middle schools). If we don't get in anywhere like that, we'll just stay put and try again at K and see what happens. Our interest in moving our kid through another transition is pretty low - so it'd have to be a good choice.

That isn't playing for playing. That is trying to see if you can get your kid in a better school. Completly different. OP is talking about if you had no desire to move your kid at all.

no, I don't think that i what OP is saying. She is talking about being happy and 90% sure you wouldn't witch wouldn't go . . . .but what if you did get into that cool immersion program everyone wants? So you play,

If you 100% wouldn't move, than there would be no fun in playing the lottery. It's the 70-90 percenters who play for the heck of it.

I don't think it wise (how anguishing if you do get a spot).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean maybe she meant only if you get in somewhere.

I don't get the lambasting of people for playing. We're in a PK3 program that is OK - some ups, some downs. The commute is fair, the school's location is not certain beyond the next year or so. As a result of all of those factors, we'll play the lottery and see if we get in somewhere with a more stable future (solid location, feeder path to good middle schools). If we don't get in anywhere like that, we'll just stay put and try again at K and see what happens. Our interest in moving our kid through another transition is pretty low - so it'd have to be a good choice.

I agree, PP. I think families should be allowed to roll the dice without being forced to switch if they hit the lottery jackpot.

However, when families roll the dice with little or no intention of switching, it makes it hard for charters to manage enrollment. Those families that get in but don't want to switch will probably drag their feet and hold those spots until the May 1 enrollment deadline. Even worse, those families that get wait listed will sit on the wait list all summer, creating the impression that the school can fill many spots that open up over the summer or in the fall. Of course, when the school calls those families to offer them spots, they decline.

I'm not sure what the right policy is. Perhaps May 1 should be the deadline both to enroll if you are admitted and to "conditionally enroll" if you are wait listed, i.e., submit a form that transfers your enrollment from your current DCPS or DCPCS automatically if a spot opens up by, say, August 1. Thus only serious participants would remain after May 1.

[Anonymous]

We played, we didn't expect to get in, we did and we switched and it was agonizing because our kids had a ton of friends and good teachers. I can only hope that a family that was unhappy with their school took our spot, it really is a good school. The other factors that spurred our decision were a more involved PTA, extracurriculars on campus, dedicated green space, and the new school offered diversity with higher test scores and more middle class and higher income parents. The dads all wear their underwear inside their pants.

[Anonymous]

. "The dads all wear their underwear inside their pants".

What the heck does that mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I agree, PP. I think families should be allowed to roll the dice without being forced to switch if they hit the lottery jackpot.

However, when families roll the dice with little or no intention of switching, it makes it hard for charters to manage enrollment. Those families that get in but don't want to switch will probably drag their feet and hold those spots until the May 1 enrollment deadline. Even worse, those families that get wait listed will sit on the wait list all summer, creating the impression that the school can fill many spots that open up over the summer or in the fall. Of course, when the school calls those families to offer them spots, they decline.

I'm not sure what the right policy is. Perhaps May 1 should be the deadline both to enroll if you are admitted and to "conditionally enroll" if you are wait listed, i.e., submit a form that transfers your enrollment from your current DCPS or DCPCS automatically if a spot opens up by, say, August 1. Thus only serious participants would remain after May 1.

I was with you right until you got to the waitlist part. What are you talking about? Yes, families sit on waiting lists until spots open up. Then they decide if they will enroll or not. You can't force them to commit to switching schools before the school offers them a place. Some schools don't even let you tour the classrooms until you've been admitted.

Most schools can fill their classrooms handily, whether they need to call 20 families or 200. The second-round lottery takes care of any extra seats. And in my experience, the "what the heck" lottery players are only putting down one or two schools that might entice them to leave their current placement. They're not getting on 11 waiting lists and waiting until May 1 to decide if they want to leave their current school for their 12th choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:. "The dads all wear their underwear inside their pants".

What the heck does that mean?

racist