Anonymous wrote:The lottery is an advertisement for improving neighborhood by right schools.

I never heard anyone running the lottery say that.

The lottery is an advertisement for improving neighborhood by right schools.

I was matched with my #2 school and have made peace with that choice. To me it seems to have worked very well, because I am waitlisted in the top ten at my #1 choice, and have not yet received a call asking if I want that spot. This means that those who matched truly wanted those spots, and weren't just grabbing as many spots as they could.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that logically, a randomized process is always going to be the most fair option, and that ranking schools cuts down on the shuffle and general chaos. But I was one of the people entirely shut out, so if asked this question I am always going to respond that it was a total failure. That's the difference between cold hard logic and reason and my personal situation. This process has turned me into someone who is anti-lottery and a big supporter of good quality neighborhood schools.

Someone (possibly you) would have been entirely shut out in past years too. The difference is that you know it now, not next October. That was a hard six months for almost everyone, and it served nobody any good.

OK, so let's say the system is better than it was, but no system that is set up for some parents to be shut out of a decent public education for their children is a good system.

A system that works is one in which every kid gets a good education because they live in the city - not because they lucked out in a lottery in which there are winners and losers.

The lottery process will not by itself fix the schools. Duh. There needs to be actual work on the schools to make them attractive. It seems idiotic to me that someone would think otherwise, but I see it a lot around here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that logically, a randomized process is always going to be the most fair option, and that ranking schools cuts down on the shuffle and general chaos. But I was one of the people entirely shut out, so if asked this question I am always going to respond that it was a total failure. That's the difference between cold hard logic and reason and my personal situation. This process has turned me into someone who is anti-lottery and a big supporter of good quality neighborhood schools.

Someone (possibly you) would have been entirely shut out in past years too. The difference is that you know it now, not next October. That was a hard six months for almost everyone, and it served nobody any good.

OK, so let's say the system is better than it was, but no system that is set up for some parents to be shut out of a decent public education for their children is a good system.

A system that works is one in which every kid gets a good education because they live in the city - not because they lucked out in a lottery in which there are winners and losers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that logically, a randomized process is always going to be the most fair option, and that ranking schools cuts down on the shuffle and general chaos. But I was one of the people entirely shut out, so if asked this question I am always going to respond that it was a total failure. That's the difference between cold hard logic and reason and my personal situation. This process has turned me into someone who is anti-lottery and a big supporter of good quality neighborhood schools.

Someone (possibly you) would have been entirely shut out in past years too. The difference is that you know it now, not next October. That was a hard six months for almost everyone, and it served nobody any good.

Yes, and the fact remains people (including myself) bought in crap school districts and are now disappointed they're shut out. You didn't lose something you already had, someone else won something they wouldn't have an option for otherwise.

I had a crap number too but hat doesn't change that it worked. There are a limited # of good seats; no method of allocation can change that. The same # of people would have been locked out of the old system. At least now people are in the schools they most desire.

Anonymous wrote:I understand that logically, a randomized process is always going to be the most fair option, and that ranking schools cuts down on the shuffle and general chaos. But I was one of the people entirely shut out, so if asked this question I am always going to respond that it was a total failure. That's the difference between cold hard logic and reason and my personal situation. This process has turned me into someone who is anti-lottery and a big supporter of good quality neighborhood schools.

Someone (possibly you) would have been entirely shut out in past years too. The difference is that you know it now, not next October. That was a hard six months for almost everyone, and it served nobody any good.

Anonymous wrote:I understand that logically, a randomized process is always going to be the most fair option, and that ranking schools cuts down on the shuffle and general chaos. But I was one of the people entirely shut out, so if asked this question I am always going to respond that it was a total failure. That's the difference between cold hard logic and reason and my personal situation. This process has turned me into someone who is anti-lottery and a big supporter of good quality neighborhood schools.

Sorry to the three PPs shut out/on the losing end, but in my opinion, the bold means it REALLY worked. The logic doesn't change based on your personal perspective.

You are screwed if you get shut out. People holding on to no -common lottery slots, please decline your slots!

We are quiet because we have zero hope for movement. I still think the people on the bottom got screwed across the board. And since it was such a thorough screw, we are coming to terms with it and have nothing new to say. I preferred the old way because I had multiple chances, so I would not say I agree with you. People talk when they have hope or something to talk about.

I understand that logically, a randomized process is always going to be the most fair option, and that ranking schools cuts down on the shuffle and general chaos. But I was one of the people entirely shut out, so if asked this question I am always going to respond that it was a total failure. That's the difference between cold hard logic and reason and my personal situation. This process has turned me into someone who is anti-lottery and a big supporter of good quality neighborhood schools.

I think it calmed down quicker because there's going to be a lot less movement this year. People were shuffling around up until the first weeks of school because numerous people got numbers all over the board. Under the combined, you had to rank the coveted schools high in order to get in and you're taking it.

I agree it did work well for the most people it could. Much better combined.

As lotteries go, it was a smashing success. You can never make everyone happy, but having a rational process benefits all. Next step is to "encourage" the renegade charters to join.

This is the 3rd year I've read DCUM daily around school lottery time. My impression is that aside from the very initial "Which schools and what order?" threads and then the lottery results threads, and then the "Has this school's waitlist moved at all?" threads, everything overall is MUCH QUIETER this year. There was the "What do you do if you got shut out?" series of threads and discussions, but it's not even summer yet and it seems like most of the intensity has died down. In the past 2 years, the mania seemed to go all the way through the summer.

Seems to me that maybe, just maybe, the common lottery worked and more people really were matched with a school they can live with.

What's your impression of this year's DCUM lottery frenzy or lack of frenzy, compared to last year or the last 2 years?