Lottery results are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One has to wonder why DCPS doesn’t want transparency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One has to wonder why DCPS doesn’t want transparency.

Isn’t it obvious? Equity people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One has to wonder why DCPS doesn’t want transparency.

Isn’t it obvious? Equity people.

I’m actually not sure if that’s it. But there is something super shady about the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One has to wonder why DCPS doesn’t want transparency.

Isn’t it obvious? Equity people.

I’m actually not sure if that’s it. But there is something super shady about the process.

It’s probably like most things in DC where no one is used to being held accountable, no one really was doing anything all that systematic, and even central/ the administration is afraid to look under the rug as it were for what it would reveal.

As bad as race relations can be in DC, stuff like colorism can be far worse, and that might have been written down in some deeply inconvenient ways.

[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.

+1. Banneker has been a tough admit for years. The people posting about Banneker on DCUM tend to be 7-10 years out of date, imo.

Even all the way back to the SY14-15 lottery, Banneker had 754 students apply for 160 seats (21% matched). Walls had 1097 apply for 139 seats (13% matched).

Last year it was 1159 applicants for 254 seats (22% matched) at Banneker and 1361 applicants for 190 seats (14% matched) at Walls.

Banneker has been competitive for a long time.

I believe it but pretty much everyone we know who applied got into Banneker and/or Walls this year.

You must not be at Deal or Hardy, is that true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One has to wonder why DCPS doesn’t want transparency.

Isn’t it obvious? Equity people.

I’m actually not sure if that’s it. But there is something super shady about the process.

Well the city actually said they wanted more kids from wards that were under-represented at Walls when they dropped the test. They actually sent people out to schools in ward 7 and 8 to tell the kids to apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you’re happy with your current ES or would be happy at DCB, why not wait until middle school to move to the suburbs depending on the outcome of MS lottery?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Low number at DC Bilingual PK4. Not sure what to do now as we were thinking of moving to the suburbs for schools before we hit a point of no return with 5th grade lottery results (IB MS is McFarland), and it’s not like DCI is a guarantee

Looks like last year they made 6 PK4 offers by August and 12 by October, so you may have a good chance. When were you planning to move to the suburbs?

Not until K. On one hand, if we are happy with our current school and are moving anyway, why bother changing. On the other hand, maybe DCB would change our perspective on leaving DC, though feeder pattern is not a sure thing. DCB is extremely convenient for us which is another plus, more so than our current ES or IB ES.

Risk tolerance. We are a stones throw from Latin but I see triple digit waitlists on here for there and other top schools. Waiting until 5th and then striking out puts considerable pressure on scrambling to move into a better school district and making a bad housing decision.

I would be willing to roll the dice but my spouse is over DC. I was hoping DCB could change minds if we got in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One has to wonder why DCPS doesn’t want transparency.

Isn’t it obvious? Equity people.

I’m actually not sure if that’s it. But there is something super shady about the process.

It’s probably like most things in DC where no one is used to being held accountable, no one really was doing anything all that systematic, and even central/ the administration is afraid to look under the rug as it were for what it would reveal.

As bad as race relations can be in DC, stuff like colorism can be far worse, and that might have been written down in some deeply inconvenient ways.

You apply to private to see how competitive your child truly is?

I think a lot of people here have flawed perspective of their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:#2 for Janney- fourth grade. Any chance?

I doubt it. They'll want to save space for new IB kids, and it's also a risk to them to take OOB kids in grades 3-5 because they can bring test scores down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One has to wonder why DCPS doesn’t want transparency.

Isn’t it obvious? Equity people.

I’m actually not sure if that’s it. But there is something super shady about the process.

Well the city actually said they wanted more kids from wards that were under-represented at Walls when they dropped the test. They actually sent people out to schools in ward 7 and 8 to tell the kids to apply.

But Walls didn’t actually wind up enrolling more kids from Wards 7 and 8. The Post did a story on it. What they have is a system that enrolls a wildly disproportionate number of kids from Deal, Hardy, and the Hill, but is unpredictable about which of those kids it takes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One has to wonder why DCPS doesn’t want transparency.

Isn’t it obvious? Equity people.

I’m actually not sure if that’s it. But there is something super shady about the process.

It’s probably like most things in DC where no one is used to being held accountable, no one really was doing anything all that systematic, and even central/ the administration is afraid to look under the rug as it were for what it would reveal.

As bad as race relations can be in DC, stuff like colorism can be far worse, and that might have been written down in some deeply inconvenient ways.

You apply to private to see how competitive your child truly is?

I think a lot of people here have flawed perspective of their kids.

My point is orthogonal to how competitive the kids are. My point is that DC orgs are afraid to look at their operations too closely because they don’t know what they’ll uncover, and they’re worried about liability. This isn’t just a DC problem, but it does explain why there’s a lack of transparency

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One has to wonder why DCPS doesn’t want transparency.

Isn’t it obvious? Equity people.

I’m actually not sure if that’s it. But there is something super shady about the process.

Well the city actually said they wanted more kids from wards that were under-represented at Walls when they dropped the test. They actually sent people out to schools in ward 7 and 8 to tell the kids to apply.

But Walls didn’t actually wind up enrolling more kids from Wards 7 and 8. The Post did a story on it. What they have is a system that enrolls a wildly disproportionate number of kids from Deal, Hardy, and the Hill, but is unpredictable about which of those kids it takes.

I would suggest relooking at recent data because a lot less kids are getting in from ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I was hoping for slightly better numbers, but as expected I'll be watching waitlists all summer and fall, looks like. But we matched with John Lewis which we're excited about!

For K:
1 Ross Elementary School Waitlisted - #24
2 Garrison Elementary School Waitlisted - #10
3 Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS Waitlisted - #17
4 E.L. Haynes PCS - Elementary School Waitlisted - #6
5 John Lewis Elementary School Match (enrollment pending)
6 Lee Montessori PCS - Brookland Sibling Offered Waitlisted - #1

For 1st Grade:
1 Ross Elementary School Waitlisted - #45
2 Garrison Elementary School Waitlisted - #20
3 Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS Waitlisted - #35
4 E.L. Haynes PCS - Elementary School Waitlisted - #8
5 John Lewis Elementary School Sibling Offered Waitlisted - #1
6 Lee Montessori PCS - Brookland Match (enrollment pending)

We put Lee down without much thought and will be turning down that offer - but is it just me or is it crazy that we got an offer for 1st from them with what must be a pretty crappy lottery number? They must be really falling in popularity.

Ha! I was wondering about you! I think these numbers are actually pretty good. But honestly, Lewis is great (or so I hear).

+1 I was also invested in the outcome for this family. I've heard great things about Lewis (have good friends with two kids there who wound up turning down a spot at a JKLM last year to stay) and think the PP will discover that the joy of being at a neighborhood school with a lot of community buy in will trump whatever perceived advantages they currently see at some of these further flung options.

+1. Having a good neighborhood school makes life so much easier and better during the elementary years. I would much rather do this than commute to a far school.

You may feel different as you get to upper elementary. Our kid is at a popular title 1 school with a nice community but many kids are struggling with grade level work and she is bored.

Curious which school this is. Can you share?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have any guesses for the odds of getting into Chisholm for pk3 with a #4 waitlist spot? No preferences, unfortunately.

Never say never, but be very open to going elsewhere and start making those plans. We were told it’s impossible with no preference but you really don’t know what the situation is for the families ahead of you. Some people may very well turn it down because of the swing space.

Did you get in or waitlisted at any other immersion schools or was Chisholm your #1?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One has to wonder why DCPS doesn’t want transparency.

Isn’t it obvious? Equity people.

I’m actually not sure if that’s it. But there is something super shady about the process.

Well the city actually said they wanted more kids from wards that were under-represented at Walls when they dropped the test. They actually sent people out to schools in ward 7 and 8 to tell the kids to apply.

But Walls didn’t actually wind up enrolling more kids from Wards 7 and 8. The Post did a story on it. What they have is a system that enrolls a wildly disproportionate number of kids from Deal, Hardy, and the Hill, but is unpredictable about which of those kids it takes.

I would suggest relooking at recent data because a lot less kids are getting in from ward 3.

The Hill is not Ward 3. And lots of kids at Deal and Hardy don’t live in Ward 3. Where are the stats on students enrolled in the school by Ward over the past several years?