2nd round of lottery: Moved back due to IB

[Anonymous]

I am on the waitlist for PK4 as an OOB. I was just knocked down a few slots by IB applicants from the second round. I thought the second round applicants were behind everyone else no matter what. Please clarify if you have info.

[Anonymous]

OP here, I was on the waitlist in the first round.

[Anonymous]

This has to suck, although IB families have preferences over all.

[Anonymous]

OP - I was under the same impression as you. That anyone from the second round, regardless of preference, would come after those on the 1st round waitlist. It would only put them ahead of those in round 2 without preference. That does not seem fair. If the IB people really wanted that spot (like a person who actually applied during round 1), they had their opportunity to apply in round 1. They passed up that opportunity.

[Anonymous]

You go behind the IB students.

http://www.myschooldc.org/faq/#round2-3

If schools have a waitlist, students who applied through Round 2 of the lottery were added to waitlists below the Round 1 students. Students who apply after Round 2 get added to waitlists below the Round 1 and Round 2 students. The only exception to this is for applicants with lottery preferences. For example, an applicant with in-boundary preference will jump ahead of an applicant without in-boundary preference on the waitlist regardless of when they applied.

[Anonymous]

I would call the critical response team on this one--sounds like the school is not handling it properly. You are correct that round 2 people are supposed to be behind round 1 people even if the round 2 people are IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You go behind the IB students.

http://www.myschooldc.org/faq/#round2-3

If schools have a waitlist, students who applied through Round 2 of the lottery were added to waitlists below the Round 1 students. Students who apply after Round 2 get added to waitlists below the Round 1 and Round 2 students. The only exception to this is for applicants with lottery preferences. For example, an applicant with in-boundary preference will jump ahead of an applicant without in-boundary preference on the waitlist regardless of when they applied.

Interesting, because that is definitely not what they said before. in fact, I applied round 1 to my crappy IB school specifically for this reason. I would otherwise have applied in round 2 to it.

[Anonymous]

I actually think this is the right policy to get children into their neighborhood school, even if it wasn't their first choice. It also accommodates people like some friends of mine who moved into a district over the summer, after the lottery deadlines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually think this is the right policy to get children into their neighborhood school, even if it wasn't their first choice. It also accommodates people like some friends of mine who moved into a district over the summer, after the lottery deadlines.

+1

[Anonymous]

Ugh...that sucks! think that anybody that didn't apply to their IB school in Round 1, but did in Round 2 because they are scrambling for a spot, has no intention of staying at that school past PK or K and should be placed at the bottom of the list. These people will continue to play the lottery and jump ship as soon as something "better"comes along. They should be placed behind everyone that applied in Round 1, regardless of preference.

[Anonymous]

Yep. We got bumped down too. Sucks. I was not terribly supportive of the DME's idea of "set-asides" but now I am.

[Anonymous]

IB priority makes sense, since they live IB and will be able to attend the school by right for K. Seems not to make sense to keep them out for PK3 or PK4. The feedback has been that people support neighborhood schools, so that should be reflected in the policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep. We got bumped down too. Sucks. I was not terribly supportive of the DME's idea of "set-asides" but now I am.

Are your children "at risk", if not they will not benefit from the set asides. Also, IB would still bump under the set asides as the set aside is merely a preference that follows (per the not yet adopted proposal) IB and OOB with a sibling preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. We got bumped down too. Sucks. I was not terribly supportive of the DME's idea of "set-asides" but now I am.

Are your children "at risk", if not they will not benefit from the set asides. Also, IB would still bump under the set asides as the set aside is merely a preference that follows (per the not yet adopted proposal) IB and OOB with a sibling preferences.

No, we are not at-risk, however, our oldest has attended our OOB school for more than 4 years now--the only school she has ever known. Her younger sister was waitlisted for PK in the first round behind a couple dozen in-boundary students. I think that's fair and as it should be--I understood the preference ranking going in. But to be bumped further down by additional in-boundary families that waited until the second round to apply, I think that is truly unfair, particularly when the second round preference ranking was not clearly or broadly explained. So it's looking like set-asides is our best option for next year because while we may not be at-risk, our "OOB w/ sibling" status ranks us higher than at-risk.

[Anonymous]

so will OOB w/ sibling make up part of the 10%? none of this seems to be thought all the way through...