Anonymous
04/16/2015 14:55
Subject: Re:Fairness of Common Lottery?
Anonymous wrote:
Not following at all. My charter was happy to join the common lottery (Bridges). Why would ranked preference within the common lottery be something charters would want to separate themselves from? Just curious, not saying I agree with the poster who wants the 1 rankings separate. But I don't understand what you wrote.
As others have noted, ranked preference would be highly destabilizing, it would lead to a lot of kids at schools they don't really want to attend and a lot of churn. Schools won't want to be part of that.
Anonymous
04/16/2015 12:26
Subject: Re:Fairness of Common Lottery?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not surprised people are piling on the resistant poster, but unless I'm missing something they're not suggesting going back to original system of each school holding their own. Their idea may not work, but it's not the old system they are proposing.
We know. The system they are proposing is infinitely worse than the old system, which is not bad at all by comparison.
Then why did someone just post that anyone considering going back to the old system should read an article? That sounds like someone who didn't know.
In effect it would be the same, since charters should prefer the old system to the ranked-preference lottery & so would just withdraw from the common lottery if it switched.
Not following at all. My charter was happy to join the common lottery (Bridges). Why would ranked preference within the common lottery be something charters would want to separate themselves from? Just curious, not saying I agree with the poster who wants the 1 rankings separate. But I don't understand what you wrote.
Anonymous
04/16/2015 12:02
Subject: Re:Fairness of Common Lottery?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not surprised people are piling on the resistant poster, but unless I'm missing something they're not suggesting going back to original system of each school holding their own. Their idea may not work, but it's not the old system they are proposing.
We know. The system they are proposing is infinitely worse than the old system, which is not bad at all by comparison.
Then why did someone just post that anyone considering going back to the old system should read an article? That sounds like someone who didn't know.
In effect it would be the same, since charters should prefer the old system to the ranked-preference lottery & so would just withdraw from the common lottery if it switched.