MSDC waitlist data posted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Over 200 at BASIS 5th. Is there higher than in the past or in line?

Much higher than previous years. Last year there were 148 on the WL for 5th grade which was the previous high since the lottery started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capitol Hill watch: LT, Peabody & SWS lists are considerably shorter (LT -70, Peabody -60 SWS -80) -- although all still are above 200+ on WL. Brent and Maury are both up. Miner is up considerably (70 people on WL vs 50 last year). JOW is the same. CHML is the same (despite annual doomsaying on this board).

Payne has 151. Up over 40 from last year. Not surprised.

SWS applications are down due to its renovation.

I would have thought so but how to explain the drops in LT/Peabody, both of which have had perfectly normal years?

[Anonymous]

Anyone who didn't match for PK3 or 4 should see from this that they have options if they want them!

[Anonymous]

When we will see the waitlist breakdown - like IB, OOB with sibling, etc.

Can’t remember when that came out last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When we will see the waitlist breakdown - like IB, OOB with sibling, etc.

Can’t remember when that came out last year.

It's been posted on the DCPS enrollment site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Capitol Hill watch: LT, Peabody & SWS lists are considerably shorter (LT -70, Peabody -60 SWS -80) -- although all still are above 200+ on WL. Brent and Maury are both up. Miner is up considerably (70 people on WL vs 50 last year). JOW is the same. CHML is the same (despite annual doomsaying on this board).

The PK3 year is smaller on the Hill than last year’s enormous year. There were even more spaces in private 2 year old programs this year compared to last. Also of interest, L-T’s WLs are longer than Peabody/Watkins in the non-PK years and they offered no lottery spots from 1st up (and all 4 in K at subs and there are still 5 sibs not admitted). Looks like the scuttlebutt on this board about LT IB buy one and LT becoming more desirable/stable than Watkins is actually starting to show up in the #s now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capitol Hill watch: LT, Peabody & SWS lists are considerably shorter (LT -70, Peabody -60 SWS -80) -- although all still are above 200+ on WL. Brent and Maury are both up. Miner is up considerably (70 people on WL vs 50 last year). JOW is the same. CHML is the same (despite annual doomsaying on this board).

Payne has 151. Up over 40 from last year. Not surprised.

So, I actually think some of this may be that people had a shot OOB at LT OOB as recently as 4 years ago and it takes awhile to show up in the numbers that there’s no point in listing it. Those people now list Miner and Payne which are now we’ll regarded ECE programs where you still have some shot OOB. Maury’s number was artificially low last year because of trailers; now they have a gorgeous new building. SWS’ number is likely artificially low because of trailers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When we will see the waitlist breakdown - like IB, OOB with sibling, etc.

Can’t remember when that came out last year.

It's been posted on the DCPS enrollment site.

Omg. So caught up in corona I missed that. Didn’t play the lottery this year, obviously. Just curious about our changing demographics. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When we will see the waitlist breakdown - like IB, OOB with sibling, etc.

Can’t remember when that came out last year.

It's been posted on the DCPS enrollment site.

Omg. So caught up in corona I missed that. Didn’t play the lottery this year, obviously. Just curious about our changing demographics. Thanks.

https://enrolldcps.dc.gov/node/61

[Anonymous]

If the waitlist length is zero, you can't tell how many seats were actually filled and how many left empty.

I wonder if the schools that didn't match enough students will be on the next charter board meeting agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the waitlist length is zero, you can't tell how many seats were actually filled and how many left empty.

I wonder if the schools that didn't match enough students will be on the next charter board meeting agenda.

It’s a pretty safe assumption that no waitlist means empty seats and that the PCSB doesn’t care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the waitlist length is zero, you can't tell how many seats were actually filled and how many left empty.

I wonder if the schools that didn't match enough students will be on the next charter board meeting agenda.

It’s a pretty safe assumption that no waitlist means empty seats and that the PCSB doesn’t care.

They care if new schools don't meet the minimum needed for their budgets. And they care for schools up for review next year (SSMA). Often no waitlist is a sign of poor re-enrollment, which is part of the PMF score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the waitlist length is zero, you can't tell how many seats were actually filled and how many left empty.

I wonder if the schools that didn't match enough students will be on the next charter board meeting agenda.

It’s a pretty safe assumption that no waitlist means empty seats and that the PCSB doesn’t care.

I don't know that this is true across the board. I know of a school that "over matched" (e.g. they had 80 seats and matched 95 kids) presuming some wouldn't enroll. And the waitlist shows as zero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the waitlist length is zero, you can't tell how many seats were actually filled and how many left empty.

I wonder if the schools that didn't match enough students will be on the next charter board meeting agenda.

It’s a pretty safe assumption that no waitlist means empty seats and that the PCSB doesn’t care.

I don't know that this is true across the board. I know of a school that "over matched" (e.g. they had 80 seats and matched 95 kids) presuming some wouldn't enroll. And the waitlist shows as zero.

Yes. And it doesn't tell you how many empty seats. Could be zero. Could be most of the seats, with a new school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LAMB actually offered a meaningful number of PK4 and K seats.

On this point, I suspect that the PK4 and K seats at Kingsbury are not new families, but younger siblings of older students currently at South Dakota that had to apply via MSDC with a transfer preference to attend the same school as their older siblings. Or I suppose they could just be any primary students currently at SD that want to attend the Kingsbury campus instead of SD next year. That being said, I do suspect that the South Dakota PK4 and K spots are likely new families, which is a larger number than have been admitted in recent years.