Reply to More lottery questions

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "More lottery questions"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=dcmom][quote=Anonymous]This is a question:

Let's pretend I am applying with no special preferances for PreK4.

I am applying to schools A, B and C.

My lottery # for PreK4 is 280.
so for schools A, B and C - anyone who has a lottery # less than 280 will across the board have priority in front of me?[/quote]

The answer as anything with the lottery seems to be "it's complicated." Here's how the DME office explained it to me:

The computer has everyone request a seat from their first choice school. So in round one, the computer has you request school A, and let's just say it's a public non-dual language school. School A say has 50 people request seats from them, but they only have 30 seats. Of the 50 who apply in round one, let's say 5 people apply who are in-boundary with siblings, 10 people apply who are in boundary, 2 people apply out of boundary with siblings, and everyone else is just out of boundary. They take everyone they can from the preference category -- 17 people -- and then they have 33 applicants left for only 13 out of boundary spots. Of the 33 applicants, they take the first 13 lottery numbers. So if you are 280, then it depends on whether there were 13 people out of boundary who applied to your #1 school in round 1 of the lottery. Let's say there aren't, there are only 12, then you get the 13th spot. But it's only a temporary assignment.

In round 2, the computer has everyone who did not get a spot in round 1 request a seat from their second-choice school. Let's say someone else put school A as their second-choice school and they are in-boundary. All the people who got temporarily assigned to the school in round 1, along with all the people who bid in round 2, are now compared by the computer. Again, the seats first go to those with preferences. So even though you were temporarily assigned a seat in round 1, now in round 2 someone who is in-boundary gets a seat and knocks you onto the waitlist.

The process continues to the next round. At the end of round 2, anyone not assigned (which now includes you) bids on their next-lower choice. For you, it is choice B. The same process continues on and on until it has iterated through everything.

The DME office told me that the Nobel Prize people who came up with it said the outcomes are much better when only one lottery number is used, which is why they are going with that. This seemed counter-intuitive to me, but I tried it out with my own example and they are absolutely right--more people are matched with a higher-ranked option with just one lottery number, and you always get into the highest-ranked school with availability when there is just one number. [b]When I ran it with a unique lottery number for each school, there were people who should be "traded"--i.e., someone who preferred A but got into B, and someone who preferred B but got into A. Using a single lottery number in the example I ran made it so this never happened.[/b]

It is a very different algorithm from what was used last year, which essentially had each DCPS running its own lottery but then letting people only be assigned to one school.

Hope this helps. I'm a total data geek, which is why I asked them. Obviously, understanding the algorithm makes no difference to how it actually plays out. Main thing I took away from my discussion is that:

1) I should have at least one "safety" school, since I may have number 10,000/10,000 PK3 applicants and I want to make sure my kid goes somewhere. That's why I explored my in-boundary school and decided to apply. It is not a popular school and historically all in-boundary applicants get in during the initial lottery. I also added a few other schools that are convenient and traditionally go through their entire waitlist.

2) Once I choose the school I'm applying to, I should rank them in the order that I actually want my kid to go. There is no benefit of being strategic in rankings.[/quote]

I dont understand the reference to the trade-ins. I understand they are not possible under the system, but they could still be beneficial if they were done by the computer and allowed trading for someone who preferred A but got into B, and someone who preferred B but got into A.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics