Creative Minds - Unified Lottery?

[Anonymous]

Anyone know if they are doing it? While the website is pretty...there doesn't seem to be any content on it.

The school hasn't returned my call.

[Anonymous]

They are not on the list.

[Anonymous]

Schools that are not participating are suspect, CM, YY etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schools that are not participating are suspect, CM, YY etc.

Why?

[Anonymous]

I don't know about suspect but it certainly seems odd that a few schools do not want to participate in something that is intended to make the whole lottery system less chaotic and horrendous for families. The new system may not be perfect but a change needs to happen and we need to start somewhere. Makes me wonder what kind of community and leadership exists at those schools and whether those schools truly see themselves as part of the DC community.

[Anonymous]

Or maybe, they want to take time and evaluate how it's working before leaping in blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe, they want to take time and evaluate how it's working before leaping in blind.

Or maybe its the three major schools that have questionable practices...too much of a coincidence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe, they want to take time and evaluate how it's working before leaping in blind.

Or maybe its the three major schools that have questionable practices...too much of a coincidence

Please list the so called "questionable" practices.

[Anonymous]

I emailed James to ask, and he replied that they are considering entering it. YY and Stokes definitely are not, as they've announced their lottery details, but I think LAMB, CM, and any other schools not on there are still considering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe, they want to take time and evaluate how it's working before leaping in blind.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe, they want to take time and evaluate how it's working before leaping in blind.

+1

Or maybe, that's yu ying's cover story so it will have an out after a year or two by saying "we have carefullly assessed .... After full consideration ..... Commitment to our families and to our Mission .... Blah blah blah .......... We have decided to maintain our current lottery process that we feel is working well to support our unique Mission."

And then they'll get to keep their NON-TRANSPARENT process of loading up the waitlist with affluent white parents, parents with a Chinese daughter, and the 1-2 families in DC each year who already know/speak some Mandarin at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe, they want to take time and evaluate how it's working before leaping in blind.

+1

Or maybe, that's yu ying's cover story so it will have an out after a year or two by saying "we have carefullly assessed .... After full consideration ..... Commitment to our families and to our Mission .... Blah blah blah .......... We have decided to maintain our current lottery process that we feel is working well to support our unique Mission."

And then they'll get to keep their NON-TRANSPARENT process of loading up the waitlist with affluent white parents, parents with a Chinese daughter, and the 1-2 families in DC each year who already know/speak some Mandarin at home.

I really don't want to go down this road yet again, but what evidence do you have that the waitlist is non-transparent? I stood in line last year and I know who was there with me. The waitlist went exactly as expected, and the line-standers were not even close to all affluent white parents. I'm sure somebody took some camera phone pictures so they could see exactly who was there. I get that some people don't like the line-standing practice, but it is hardly non-transparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe, they want to take time and evaluate how it's working before leaping in blind.

+1

Or maybe, that's yu ying's cover story so it will have an out after a year or two by saying "we have carefullly assessed .... After full consideration ..... Commitment to our families and to our Mission .... Blah blah blah .......... We have decided to maintain our current lottery process that we feel is working well to support our unique Mission."

And then they'll get to keep their NON-TRANSPARENT process of loading up the waitlist with affluent white parents, parents with a Chinese daughter, and the 1-2 families in DC each year who already know/speak some Mandarin at home.

I really don't want to go down this road yet again, but what evidence do you have that the waitlist is non-transparent? I stood in line last year and I know who was there with me. The waitlist went exactly as expected, and the line-standers were not even close to all affluent white parents. I'm sure somebody took some camera phone pictures so they could see exactly who was there. I get that some people don't like the line-standing practice, but it is hardly non-transparent.

It is transparent, or obvious I guess, to see who is standing in line with you, that is true. You know what number you got.

What you don't know is who is online, and what numbers they get. You don't see the mixture of the online applicants synchronized with the on-the-street applicants, and how their numbers shake out.

You also don't see clearly who is plucked from the back of the line on the day you were there and given a seat ahead of you. Maybe they have a sibling, or, like my colleague, maybe they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe, they want to take time and evaluate how it's working before leaping in blind.

+1

Or maybe, that's yu ying's cover story so it will have an out after a year or two by saying "we have carefullly assessed .... After full consideration ..... Commitment to our families and to our Mission .... Blah blah blah .......... We have decided to maintain our current lottery process that we feel is working well to support our unique Mission."

And then they'll get to keep their NON-TRANSPARENT process of loading up the waitlist with affluent white parents, parents with a Chinese daughter, and the 1-2 families in DC each year who already know/speak some Mandarin at home.

I really don't want to go down this road yet again, but what evidence do you have that the waitlist is non-transparent? I stood in line last year and I know who was there with me. The waitlist went exactly as expected, and the line-standers were not even close to all affluent white parents. I'm sure somebody took some camera phone pictures so they could see exactly who was there. I get that some people don't like the line-standing practice, but it is hardly non-transparent.

It is transparent, or obvious I guess, to see who is standing in line with you, that is true. You know what number you got.

What you don't know is who is online, and what numbers they get. You don't see the mixture of the online applicants synchronized with the on-the-street applicants, and how their numbers shake out.

You also don't see clearly who is plucked from the back of the line on the day you were there and given a seat ahead of you. Maybe they have a sibling, or, like my colleague, maybe they don't.

Dun, dun, dun, break to commercial..... Seriously people, what's with all these conspiracy theories?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is transparent, or obvious I guess, to see who is standing in line with you, that is true. You know what number you got.

What you don't know is who is online, and what numbers they get. You don't see the mixture of the online applicants synchronized with the on-the-street applicants, and how their numbers shake out.

You also don't see clearly who is plucked from the back of the line on the day you were there and given a seat ahead of you. Maybe they have a sibling, or, like my colleague, maybe they don't.

Although I'm sure it's possible, I think it would be difficult, not to mention risky, for administrators to do that. There is so much information sharing and scrutiny of the list and line that waitlist manipulation certainly could not be done on a large scale, as you claim ("loading" the list). Please, if you have specific evidence or concerns, send them to the PCSB.