Common Lottery Algorithm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, I understand your wish for neighborhood preference for charters...I feel the same way when I see EL Haynes from my backyard and now that my child was in the 300s on the waitlist. But, I personally believe the charters should not adopt neighborhood preference. I know all the arguments, most of which are very logical...I mean, it sure would be easier and healthier and better for the environment to have children in this city walking to school rather than driving across it. But because most charters are intended to provide specialized education (immersion, Montesorri, IB, etc.) they really must be left open to the entire city. And don't argue that they can still apply...sure, yes. But for the desirable charters the kids for Anacostia won't have a chance.

I agree, and I also think that's why specialized DCPS should remain city-wide, such as Logan Montessori and SWS (Reggio), along with the various test-in high schools. In fact, I think DCPS would be stronger if more schools were specialized and city-wide.

[Anonymous]

Anyone know whether they will be incorporating the methodology from New Orleans described at the following URL?

http://media.nola.com/education_impact/photo/diagram-enrollment-041512jpg-aea0b995c0aa929b.jpg

I think this would be the best way to ensure that as many people get into a high-ranked choice as possible, and it seems consistent with the FAQs on the My School DC website.

[Anonymous]

Yes -- this is the one (except Step 5 is Round 2 here.) Earlier in the thread there is a link to this exact graphic. A statistician came along and said there were minimal differences between New O, Denver, and Brooklyn - and I don't have the knowledge to weigh-in on that, but once again -- this is why you should rank in order of preference -- or that the most people have the most chances to be pleased.

[Anonymous]

The description of the New Orleans lottery is maddeningly imprecise, but it doesn't sound like DC. They describe a scenario where "the top ranked student for school B... has selected school C as his number one choice." That would never happen in DC.

There are two fundamentally different ways of running a multi-choice lottery like this. The difference stems from what happens when someone doesn't get into their number one choice. Do you:
A. Try their number two, then number three, and so on, all the way to number twelve; or
B. Skip over that person, and try to get the next person into their number one choice. Once you have placed as many people as possible in their number one choice, then you go back and try to put as many as possible in their number two choice, then number three, and so on all the way through number 12.

Some notes:
Method A is the way DC does it.

In Method A, the optimum strategy is to rank your choices in your actual preference.

In Method B, it makes a great deal of difference whether you get into your number one choice or a lower choice. If you don't get into your number one you get put to the end of the list. So the optimal strategy is not to rank in your actual order of preference, but instead to take into consideration your chances of being accepted.

In Method B, it is possible that three-way (or more) exchanges will exist where every participant improves their outcome by trading. This is not possible under Method A.

Since this article (imprecisely) seems to be talking about three-way switches, I suspect that New Orleans uses method B, which is not the same as DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes -- this is the one (except Step 5 is Round 2 here.) Earlier in the thread there is a link to this exact graphic. A statistician came along and said there were minimal differences between New O, Denver, and Brooklyn - and I don't have the knowledge to weigh-in on that, but once again -- this is why you should rank in order of preference -- or that the most people have the most chances to be pleased.

One thing that has come out loud and clear in this thread is that it is a mistake to use the description from any other city when trying to understand DC. It just muddies things, they're all different in crucial ways.

Step 5 in the NO process is:

"Students who don't get a spot at any of their top eight choices will be manually assigned, and every student will have the right to appeal their placement."

In DC, students who don't get a spot at any of their choices are assigned to their in-boundary school.

Can you imagine the chaos that would erupt if every student had the right to appeal their placement? In a properly designed lottery there's nothing to appeal -- a sucky lottery number is a sucky lottery number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The description of the New Orleans lottery is maddeningly imprecise, but it doesn't sound like DC. They describe a scenario where "the top ranked student for school B... has selected school C as his number one choice." That would never happen in DC.

There are two fundamentally different ways of running a multi-choice lottery like this. The difference stems from what happens when someone doesn't get into their number one choice. Do you:
A. Try their number two, then number three, and so on, all the way to number twelve; or
B. Skip over that person, and try to get the next person into their number one choice. Once you have placed as many people as possible in their number one choice, then you go back and try to put as many as possible in their number two choice, then number three, and so on all the way through number 12.

Some notes:
Method A is the way DC does it.

In Method A, the optimum strategy is to rank your choices in your actual preference.

In Method B, it makes a great deal of difference whether you get into your number one choice or a lower choice. If you don't get into your number one you get put to the end of the list. So the optimal strategy is not to rank in your actual order of preference, but instead to take into consideration your chances of being accepted.

In Method B, it is possible that three-way (or more) exchanges will exist where every participant improves their outcome by trading. This is not possible under Method A.

Since this article (imprecisely) seems to be talking about three-way switches, I suspect that New Orleans uses method B, which is not the same as DC.

Don't disagree with this but we're going in circles because New Orleans ALSO uses method A - but I digress as PP since no one understands anything well enough to make the comparison useful, and the graphic apparently doesn't help people either. Step 5 is IB, you're correct PP, but there is also,the "Round 2" process - whereby people that didn't get assigned in first round get a second go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes -- this is the one (except Step 5 is Round 2 here.) Earlier in the thread there is a link to this exact graphic. A statistician came along and said there were minimal differences between New O, Denver, and Brooklyn - and I don't have the knowledge to weigh-in on that, but once again -- this is why you should rank in order of preference -- or that the most people have the most chances to be pleased.

One thing that has come out loud and clear in this thread is that it is a mistake to use the description from any other city when trying to understand DC. It just muddies things, they're all different in crucial ways.

Step 5 in the NO process is:

"Students who don't get a spot at any of their top eight choices will be manually assigned, and every student will have the right to appeal their placement."

In DC, students who don't get a spot at any of their choices are assigned to their in-boundary school.

Can you imagine the chaos that would erupt if every student had the right to appeal their placement? In a properly designed lottery there's nothing to appeal -- a sucky lottery number is a sucky lottery number.

That might be the case K and up. Not so for preschool or prekindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes -- this is the one (except Step 5 is Round 2 here.) Earlier in the thread there is a link to this exact graphic. A statistician came along and said there were minimal differences between New O, Denver, and Brooklyn - and I don't have the knowledge to weigh-in on that, but once again -- this is why you should rank in order of preference -- or that the most people have the most chances to be pleased.

One thing that has come out loud and clear in this thread is that it is a mistake to use the description from any other city when trying to understand DC. It just muddies things, they're all different in crucial ways.

Step 5 in the NO process is:

"Students who don't get a spot at any of their top eight choices will be manually assigned, and every student will have the right to appeal their placement."

In DC, students who don't get a spot at any of their choices are assigned to their in-boundary school.

Can you imagine the chaos that would erupt if every student had the right to appeal their placement? In a properly designed lottery there's nothing to appeal -- a sucky lottery number is a sucky lottery number.

That might be the case K and up. Not so for preschool or prekindergarten.

Ps and pk4 are NOT something DC even has to offer.

[Anonymous]

No matter what happens in the lottery, you already have an assigned spot at your In-Boundary or Feeder/Destination school (except for PS/PK). The only way you "lose" your assigned school is if you accept a spot at a different school. Even then you really only "lose" it for that school year. You can always switch back to your assigned school in future school years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No matter what happens in the lottery, you already have an assigned spot at your In-Boundary or Feeder/Destination school (except for PS/PK). The only way you "lose" your assigned school is if you accept a spot at a different school. Even then you really only "lose" it for that school year. You can always switch back to your assigned school in future school years.

No, a child can transfer to an InBounds school at any point in the school year; if the charter or OOB school doesn't work out, you have that option at any time to enroll in your neighborhood school be it October 4th or February 4th. What the students "lose" then, is the OOB or charter spot, probably for good.

[Anonymous]

Why rank your IB school at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why rank your IB school at all?

You only need to do that for PK3 and PK4, where you are not guaranteed a seat at your IB school. From K on, there is no reason to rank your IB school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to muddy the chain - which I think has ultimately turned out to be very informative and on-track, but one odd emotional result I'm experiencing while reading through all of this is anger that any Public or Charter school had the ability to opt out of this.

It seems to me that if it's so difficult to convince everyone that the process is "fair" that to allow those few schools a chance to completely bypass the process leaves me feeling I have very little reason to believe those few schools' lottery processes (whether they entail time stamps, etc.) are on any level "fair."

Yu Ying's process is totally public. You should go watch it (unless you didn't apply and don't really care), because it's unfortunate that you are doubting it when you don't know anything about it apparently. Anyone who has gone in person can see how old fashioned (the cage rotating lottery machine they spin before each draw) and transparent their process is. They take the card and project the student's name and info on the list of open slots as they go along. What is "unfair" or suspicious about that, when there are as many people as interested in the room who can see which names get pulled?

Can't speak to Creative Minds or Stokes. I was interested in attending their lotteries last year, but I think Stokes was entirely electronic and not public, and CM was definitely NOT public. CM also didn't post their admitted and waitlist ever, so if there was any process last year that seemed a little shady (because of the lack of public information shared beyond calling the school and them just telling you where YOU are on the waitlist), it was CM.

But I don't understand painting all the processes as "unfair" without actually looking into the differences between the processes last year.

Very classy for one charter school to smack another down. You don't know anything about CM's process, when your own is under so much doubt, don't deflect by casting doubt on another school.

All PCS are reviewed by the PCSB and were found legal, so for you to call it "shady" means you don't know about either schools process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to muddy the chain - which I think has ultimately turned out to be very informative and on-track, but one odd emotional result I'm experiencing while reading through all of this is anger that any Public or Charter school had the ability to opt out of this.

It seems to me that if it's so difficult to convince everyone that the process is "fair" that to allow those few schools a chance to completely bypass the process leaves me feeling I have very little reason to believe those few schools' lottery processes (whether they entail time stamps, etc.) are on any level "fair."

Yu Ying's process is totally public. You should go watch it (unless you didn't apply and don't really care), because it's unfortunate that you are doubting it when you don't know anything about it apparently. Anyone who has gone in person can see how old fashioned (the cage rotating lottery machine they spin before each draw) and transparent their process is. They take the card and project the student's name and info on the list of open slots as they go along. What is "unfair" or suspicious about that, when there are as many people as interested in the room who can see which names get pulled?

Can't speak to Creative Minds or Stokes. I was interested in attending their lotteries last year, but I think Stokes was entirely electronic and not public, and CM was definitely NOT public. CM also didn't post their admitted and waitlist ever, so if there was any process last year that seemed a little shady (because of the lack of public information shared beyond calling the school and them just telling you where YOU are on the waitlist), it was CM.

But I don't understand painting all the processes as "unfair" without actually looking into the differences between the processes last year.

Very classy for one charter school to smack another down. You don't know anything about CM's process, when your own is under so much doubt, don't deflect by casting doubt on another school.

All PCS are reviewed by the PCSB and were found legal, so for you to call it "shady" means you don't know about either schools process.

Not the PP but did she say anything that was not true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to muddy the chain - which I think has ultimately turned out to be very informative and on-track, but one odd emotional result I'm experiencing while reading through all of this is anger that any Public or Charter school had the ability to opt out of this.

It seems to me that if it's so difficult to convince everyone that the process is "fair" that to allow those few schools a chance to completely bypass the process leaves me feeling I have very little reason to believe those few schools' lottery processes (whether they entail time stamps, etc.) are on any level "fair."

Yu Ying's process is totally public. You should go watch it (unless you didn't apply and don't really care), because it's unfortunate that you are doubting it when you don't know anything about it apparently. Anyone who has gone in person can see how old fashioned (the cage rotating lottery machine they spin before each draw) and transparent their process is. They take the card and project the student's name and info on the list of open slots as they go along. What is "unfair" or suspicious about that, when there are as many people as interested in the room who can see which names get pulled?

Can't speak to Creative Minds or Stokes. I was interested in attending their lotteries last year, but I think Stokes was entirely electronic and not public, and CM was definitely NOT public. CM also didn't post their admitted and waitlist ever, so if there was any process last year that seemed a little shady (because of the lack of public information shared beyond calling the school and them just telling you where YOU are on the waitlist), it was CM.

But I don't understand painting all the processes as "unfair" without actually looking into the differences between the processes last year.

Very classy for one charter school to smack another down. You don't know anything about CM's process, when your own is under so much doubt, don't deflect by casting doubt on another school.

All PCS are reviewed by the PCSB and were found legal, so for you to call it "shady" means you don't know about either schools process.

Not the PP but did she say anything that was not true?

I'm not any of the PPs, but I think I remember a big kerfluffle on DCUM about CM not having a public lottery, which seems like a violation of the law. Not sure if anything ever came of that.