Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Latins and BASIS cleared (or within 1, cleared) their EA lists. I would like to hear from those people on DCUM who complained that the paltry # of EA seats offered by those schools was proof that they weren't serious about supporting at risk populations. Seems like maybe those schools knew more about their admitted and projected demos than DCUM whiners who like to sit in the corner and throw stones from the cheap seats.

Why don't you fill us in on why BASIS has so few at-risk kids then. Since it is awesome.

They don't apply because that's not what they're looking for. Just like UMC kids don't apply to KIPP schools. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with either model.

Oooh you said the quiet part loud! At-risk kids just don't like BASIS. Oke doke.

NP. They didn't say that. The DATA SAID THAT.

No, the data said there aren't very many. You made up the reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latin made more offers off the 5th grade waitlist than they ever have before - 36. BASIS made 98 (highest since SY20-21) and Latin Cooper 41.

Bolded is an example of why cherry picking a single data point isn't useful. BASIS pulled 98 kids off of WL which was indeed higher than prior years (e.g. +23 YoY) but there were 52 more kids on WL this year than last.

OG Latin pulled 25 more kids off WL than last year. But there were 86 more kids on WL than last year.

So what's the more meaningful data point? Kids who were pulled in off WL (when the class size remained basically constant) or kids left on WL who did not get in? I would argue the latter, but at a minimum any reasoned analysis demands consideration of more than a single data point.

About the same percent of applicants got offers this year at both Latin I and BASIS as in the previous two years. So your odds of getting in were about the same, despite the increase in applications.

Which means more people declined offered seats, despite no obvious increase in the fixed supply of "good" middle school seats across the city.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Latins and BASIS cleared (or within 1, cleared) their EA lists. I would like to hear from those people on DCUM who complained that the paltry # of EA seats offered by those schools was proof that they weren't serious about supporting at risk populations. Seems like maybe those schools knew more about their admitted and projected demos than DCUM whiners who like to sit in the corner and throw stones from the cheap seats.

Why don't you fill us in on why BASIS has so few at-risk kids then. Since it is awesome.

They don't apply because that's not what they're looking for. Just like UMC kids don't apply to KIPP schools. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with either model.

Oooh you said the quiet part loud! At-risk kids just don't like BASIS. Oke doke.

NP. They didn't say that. The DATA SAID THAT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Latins and BASIS cleared (or within 1, cleared) their EA lists. I would like to hear from those people on DCUM who complained that the paltry # of EA seats offered by those schools was proof that they weren't serious about supporting at risk populations. Seems like maybe those schools knew more about their admitted and projected demos than DCUM whiners who like to sit in the corner and throw stones from the cheap seats.

Or maybe it shows they need to make a more concerted effort to recruit at risk populations rather than set a performatively low number of set aside seats to make DCPCSB ok with them backing away on their commitment to put a second campus east of the river.

No one committed to putting a second campus east of the river. Latin didn't. BASIS didn't. When faced with logic and facts you fall back on tropes and fiction. The argument for EA is not what your shifting reasoning purports it to be. The argument is that there is more of a need for at risk kids to get quality seats than for kids who are not at risk so they should have a better chance. By setting aside seats dedicated to this population there are seats available for at risk kids who want them (or, at a minimum, a better chance).

The data tells us a story you don't like so you pivot to some weird argument that this shows Latin and BASIS aren't doing enough. Both advertise and to info sessions in underserved areas. My School DC markets the heck out of the lottery. At what point can we stop blaming individual charter schools for not solving all of public education? You confuse "at risk" with stupid, lazy or unmotivated. That's pretty offensive. If the demand is not there then maybe the demand is not there for at risk kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latin made more offers off the 5th grade waitlist than they ever have before - 36. BASIS made 98 (highest since SY20-21) and Latin Cooper 41.

Bolded is an example of why cherry picking a single data point isn't useful. BASIS pulled 98 kids off of WL which was indeed higher than prior years (e.g. +23 YoY) but there were 52 more kids on WL this year than last.

OG Latin pulled 25 more kids off WL than last year. But there were 86 more kids on WL than last year.

So what's the more meaningful data point? Kids who were pulled in off WL (when the class size remained basically constant) or kids left on WL who did not get in? I would argue the latter, but at a minimum any reasoned analysis demands consideration of more than a single data point.

I was assuming people interested in this topic were already aware of the longer waitlists this year for 5th, as it was discussed extensively on this forum over the summer.

The raw number tells you that previous rules-of-thumb (e.g., "you're not getting off the waitlist at Latin if your number is above mid teens") may need to be revisited.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Latins and BASIS cleared (or within 1, cleared) their EA lists. I would like to hear from those people on DCUM who complained that the paltry # of EA seats offered by those schools was proof that they weren't serious about supporting at risk populations. Seems like maybe those schools knew more about their admitted and projected demos than DCUM whiners who like to sit in the corner and throw stones from the cheap seats.

Why don't you fill us in on why BASIS has so few at-risk kids then. Since it is awesome.

They don't apply because that's not what they're looking for. Just like UMC kids don't apply to KIPP schools. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with either model.

Oooh you said the quiet part loud! At-risk kids just don't like BASIS. Oke doke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Latins and BASIS cleared (or within 1, cleared) their EA lists. I would like to hear from those people on DCUM who complained that the paltry # of EA seats offered by those schools was proof that they weren't serious about supporting at risk populations. Seems like maybe those schools knew more about their admitted and projected demos than DCUM whiners who like to sit in the corner and throw stones from the cheap seats.

Why don't you fill us in on why BASIS has so few at-risk kids then. Since it is awesome.

They don't apply because that's not what they're looking for. Just like UMC kids don't apply to KIPP schools. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with either model.

Anonymous wrote:Both Latins and BASIS cleared (or within 1, cleared) their EA lists. I would like to hear from those people on DCUM who complained that the paltry # of EA seats offered by those schools was proof that they weren't serious about supporting at risk populations. Seems like maybe those schools knew more about their admitted and projected demos than DCUM whiners who like to sit in the corner and throw stones from the cheap seats.

Why don't you fill us in on why BASIS has so few at-risk kids then. Since it is awesome.

Anonymous wrote:Both Latins and BASIS cleared (or within 1, cleared) their EA lists. I would like to hear from those people on DCUM who complained that the paltry # of EA seats offered by those schools was proof that they weren't serious about supporting at risk populations. Seems like maybe those schools knew more about their admitted and projected demos than DCUM whiners who like to sit in the corner and throw stones from the cheap seats.

Or maybe it shows they need to make a more concerted effort to recruit at risk populations rather than set a performatively low number of set aside seats to make DCPCSB ok with them backing away on their commitment to put a second campus east of the river.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latin made more offers off the 5th grade waitlist than they ever have before - 36. BASIS made 98 (highest since SY20-21) and Latin Cooper 41.

Interestingly, the desirable DCPS middle schools seem to have made fewer offers for 6th this year (Hardy, Stuart-Hobson, Francis ... Eliot-Hine even left 12 students on the the waitlist)

Haters aside, the trend line for SH is very strong. Seems like the kids who have by right feeder access are filling those slots. Not sure there is any negative way to read the SH lottery data, although DCUM will surely make an effort.

Both Latins and BASIS cleared (or within 1, cleared) their EA lists. I would like to hear from those people on DCUM who complained that the paltry # of EA seats offered by those schools was proof that they weren't serious about supporting at risk populations. Seems like maybe those schools knew more about their admitted and projected demos than DCUM whiners who like to sit in the corner and throw stones from the cheap seats.

Anonymous wrote:Latin made more offers off the 5th grade waitlist than they ever have before - 36. BASIS made 98 (highest since SY20-21) and Latin Cooper 41.

Bolded is an example of why cherry picking a single data point isn't useful. BASIS pulled 98 kids off of WL which was indeed higher than prior years (e.g. +23 YoY) but there were 52 more kids on WL this year than last.

OG Latin pulled 25 more kids off WL than last year. But there were 86 more kids on WL than last year.

So what's the more meaningful data point? Kids who were pulled in off WL (when the class size remained basically constant) or kids left on WL who did not get in? I would argue the latter, but at a minimum any reasoned analysis demands consideration of more than a single data point.

Anonymous wrote:Latin made more offers off the 5th grade waitlist than they ever have before - 36. BASIS made 98 (highest since SY20-21) and Latin Cooper 41.

Yes, but more applying every year so hundreds still turned away at all three.

Anonymous wrote:Is there a demographic gap at middle school?

Not sure what you mean by this question.

Anonymous wrote:Other schools/years that came up often in this forum:
- ITDS 6th grade made 0 offers but 5th grade made 28 (of 43 on waitlist)
- Sojourner Truth 9th grade ultimately made 30 waitlist offers. So fewer seats in the initial lottery but ultimately offering around the same number of seats as SY23-24
- MacArthur 9th initially offered 0 seats but eventually made 307 offers (of 331 on waitlist)

My kid went to 9th this year, and it was a rough lottery year. I'm glad that so many 9th grade waitlist seats were offered, though lots of my kids' friends headed to private because they struck out and got settled before being offered anything public.