Anonymous
Post 10/24/2013 20:31     Subject: Stokes changes wait list procedures
Anonymous wrote:There is a family at Stokes who were at Sela, got called off the wait-list at YY and left Sela, and then got called off the wait list for Stokes and left YY. Tell me that the system isn't broken. Kudos to the PCSB for getting tough on these shenanigans and blocking schools from time stamping applications for parents with the luxury to camp out. They aren't more committed - they just don't have the resources to skip work, have a spouse, or pay the au pair.

Amen!
Anonymous
Post 10/11/2013 11:38     Subject: Stokes changes wait list procedures
I also know of several kids (7) that got into Stokes this year. All of them were brown non Latino kids except 1 Caucasian child.
Anonymous
Post 10/11/2013 11:14     Subject: Stokes changes wait list procedures
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

What "practices" are you talking about? Speak plain or don't comment--the forum is anonymous, so there is no need to be coy.


Questions have been raised about how strictly Stokes adheres to the lottery-> Waitlist pure process for admission. Rumblings of "people who know people" actually gaining admission without being picked in lottery or next up on Waitlist.


I actually wondered this, only because I know of several families (at least 5) who have been called off the waitlist, and all but one were native Spanish speakers. It's great for the program, but I did always wonder if it was a coincidence.


I also know of several kids (7) that got into Stokes this year. All of them were brown non Latino kids except 1 Caucasian child.
Anonymous
Post 10/11/2013 10:15     Subject: Stokes changes wait list procedures
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

What "practices" are you talking about? Speak plain or don't comment--the forum is anonymous, so there is no need to be coy.


Questions have been raised about how strictly Stokes adheres to the lottery-> Waitlist pure process for admission. Rumblings of "people who know people" actually gaining admission without being picked in lottery or next up on Waitlist.


I actually wondered this, only because I know of several families (at least 5) who have been called off the waitlist, and all but one were native Spanish speakers. It's great for the program, but I did always wonder if it was a coincidence.


Didn't LAMB get in trouble for the same thing? Although I think they were a bit more obvious about essentially having 2 different lists (Spanish speaking and not Spanish speaking).
Anonymous
Post 10/11/2013 10:01     Subject: Stokes changes wait list procedures
Anonymous wrote:

What "practices" are you talking about? Speak plain or don't comment--the forum is anonymous, so there is no need to be coy.


Questions have been raised about how strictly Stokes adheres to the lottery-> Waitlist pure process for admission. Rumblings of "people who know people" actually gaining admission without being picked in lottery or next up on Waitlist.


I actually wondered this, only because I know of several families (at least 5) who have been called off the waitlist, and all but one were native Spanish speakers. It's great for the program, but I did always wonder if it was a coincidence.
Anonymous
Post 10/11/2013 09:05     Subject: Stokes changes wait list procedures
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There is a family at Stokes who were at Sela, got called off the wait-list at YY and left Sela, and then got called off the wait list for Stokes and left YY. Tell me that the system isn't broken. Kudos to the PCSB for getting tough on these shenanigans and blocking schools from time stamping applications for parents with the luxury to camp out. They aren't more committed - they just don't have the resources to skip work, have a spouse, or pay the au pair.


You are conflating two things - waitlist order and the common lottery. PCSB has nothing to say about the timestamping; that is up to the individual schools to decide. The common lottery would not have helped this situation as long as Stokes and YY are not participating. If all the schools were participating, the situation would presumably have been better because all students, including those who had to leave YY and Stokes in order to move those lists, would have gotten into the schools they liked best from the outset.

Not sure why Stokes isn't joining the common lottery if they're not continuing their practice of ordering their waitlist by time.


Someone claimed earlier that this change was put in place by the PCSB as a condition of getting the Stokes charter renewed. Seemed very fishy to me. I think Stokes just decided to make this change on their own, probably because of all the problems with the server last year when they went online only and had the time stamp--I'm sure a lot of people complained that they tried to get on when the system wouldn't let them, and that it was unfair. In any case, I agree with you that Stokes should sign up for the common lottery--seems odd that they are not, given this change.


I have the same suspicion.


I think it's bigger than that. I think maybe some of Stokes' other "practices" that were way *not* kosher were also complained about and may have been brought up to the PCSB. Maybe Stokes got called on it, like LAMB did previously?


What "practices" are you talking about? Speak plain or don't comment--the forum is anonymous, so there is no need to be coy.


Questions have been raised about how strictly Stokes adheres to the lottery-> Waitlist pure process for admission. Rumblings of "people who know people" actually gaining admission without being picked in lottery or next up on Waitlist.
Anonymous
Post 10/10/2013 22:54     Subject: Stokes changes wait list procedures
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There is a family at Stokes who were at Sela, got called off the wait-list at YY and left Sela, and then got called off the wait list for Stokes and left YY. Tell me that the system isn't broken. Kudos to the PCSB for getting tough on these shenanigans and blocking schools from time stamping applications for parents with the luxury to camp out. They aren't more committed - they just don't have the resources to skip work, have a spouse, or pay the au pair.


You are conflating two things - waitlist order and the common lottery. PCSB has nothing to say about the timestamping; that is up to the individual schools to decide. The common lottery would not have helped this situation as long as Stokes and YY are not participating. If all the schools were participating, the situation would presumably have been better because all students, including those who had to leave YY and Stokes in order to move those lists, would have gotten into the schools they liked best from the outset.

Not sure why Stokes isn't joining the common lottery if they're not continuing their practice of ordering their waitlist by time.


Someone claimed earlier that this change was put in place by the PCSB as a condition of getting the Stokes charter renewed. Seemed very fishy to me. I think Stokes just decided to make this change on their own, probably because of all the problems with the server last year when they went online only and had the time stamp--I'm sure a lot of people complained that they tried to get on when the system wouldn't let them, and that it was unfair. In any case, I agree with you that Stokes should sign up for the common lottery--seems odd that they are not, given this change.


I have the same suspicion.


I think it's bigger than that. I think maybe some of Stokes' other "practices" that were way *not* kosher were also complained about and may have been brought up to the PCSB. Maybe Stokes got called on it, like LAMB did previously?


What "practices" are you talking about? Speak plain or don't comment--the forum is anonymous, so there is no need to be coy.
Anonymous
Post 10/09/2013 23:51     Subject: Stokes changes wait list procedures
oh no!
Anonymous
Post 10/09/2013 22:20     Subject: Stokes changes wait list procedures
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There is a family at Stokes who were at Sela, got called off the wait-list at YY and left Sela, and then got called off the wait list for Stokes and left YY. Tell me that the system isn't broken. Kudos to the PCSB for getting tough on these shenanigans and blocking schools from time stamping applications for parents with the luxury to camp out. They aren't more committed - they just don't have the resources to skip work, have a spouse, or pay the au pair.


You are conflating two things - waitlist order and the common lottery. PCSB has nothing to say about the timestamping; that is up to the individual schools to decide. The common lottery would not have helped this situation as long as Stokes and YY are not participating. If all the schools were participating, the situation would presumably have been better because all students, including those who had to leave YY and Stokes in order to move those lists, would have gotten into the schools they liked best from the outset.

Not sure why Stokes isn't joining the common lottery if they're not continuing their practice of ordering their waitlist by time.


Someone claimed earlier that this change was put in place by the PCSB as a condition of getting the Stokes charter renewed. Seemed very fishy to me. I think Stokes just decided to make this change on their own, probably because of all the problems with the server last year when they went online only and had the time stamp--I'm sure a lot of people complained that they tried to get on when the system wouldn't let them, and that it was unfair. In any case, I agree with you that Stokes should sign up for the common lottery--seems odd that they are not, given this change.


I have the same suspicion.


I think it's bigger than that. I think maybe some of Stokes' other "practices" that were way *not* kosher were also complained about and may have been brought up to the PCSB. Maybe Stokes got called on it, like LAMB did previously?
Anonymous
Post 10/09/2013 16:54     Subject: Stokes changes wait list procedures
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There is a family at Stokes who were at Sela, got called off the wait-list at YY and left Sela, and then got called off the wait list for Stokes and left YY. Tell me that the system isn't broken. Kudos to the PCSB for getting tough on these shenanigans and blocking schools from time stamping applications for parents with the luxury to camp out. They aren't more committed - they just don't have the resources to skip work, have a spouse, or pay the au pair.


You are conflating two things - waitlist order and the common lottery. PCSB has nothing to say about the timestamping; that is up to the individual schools to decide. The common lottery would not have helped this situation as long as Stokes and YY are not participating. If all the schools were participating, the situation would presumably have been better because all students, including those who had to leave YY and Stokes in order to move those lists, would have gotten into the schools they liked best from the outset.

Not sure why Stokes isn't joining the common lottery if they're not continuing their practice of ordering their waitlist by time.


Someone claimed earlier that this change was put in place by the PCSB as a condition of getting the Stokes charter renewed. Seemed very fishy to me. I think Stokes just decided to make this change on their own, probably because of all the problems with the server last year when they went online only and had the time stamp--I'm sure a lot of people complained that they tried to get on when the system wouldn't let them, and that it was unfair. In any case, I agree with you that Stokes should sign up for the common lottery--seems odd that they are not, given this change.


I have the same suspicion.
Anonymous
Post 10/09/2013 16:52     Subject: Stokes changes wait list procedures
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There is a family at Stokes who were at Sela, got called off the wait-list at YY and left Sela, and then got called off the wait list for Stokes and left YY. Tell me that the system isn't broken. Kudos to the PCSB for getting tough on these shenanigans and blocking schools from time stamping applications for parents with the luxury to camp out. They aren't more committed - they just don't have the resources to skip work, have a spouse, or pay the au pair.


You are conflating two things - waitlist order and the common lottery. PCSB has nothing to say about the timestamping; that is up to the individual schools to decide. The common lottery would not have helped this situation as long as Stokes and YY are not participating. If all the schools were participating, the situation would presumably have been better because all students, including those who had to leave YY and Stokes in order to move those lists, would have gotten into the schools they liked best from the outset.

Not sure why Stokes isn't joining the common lottery if they're not continuing their practice of ordering their waitlist by time.


Someone claimed earlier that this change was put in place by the PCSB as a condition of getting the Stokes charter renewed. Seemed very fishy to me. I think Stokes just decided to make this change on their own, probably because of all the problems with the server last year when they went online only and had the time stamp--I'm sure a lot of people complained that they tried to get on when the system wouldn't let them, and that it was unfair. In any case, I agree with you that Stokes should sign up for the common lottery--seems odd that they are not, given this change.
Anonymous
Post 10/09/2013 16:48     Subject: Stokes changes wait list procedures
Anonymous wrote:There is a family at Stokes who were at Sela, got called off the wait-list at YY and left Sela, and then got called off the wait list for Stokes and left YY. Tell me that the system isn't broken. Kudos to the PCSB for getting tough on these shenanigans and blocking schools from time stamping applications for parents with the luxury to camp out. They aren't more committed - they just don't have the resources to skip work, have a spouse, or pay the au pair.


You are conflating two things - waitlist order and the common lottery. PCSB has nothing to say about the timestamping; that is up to the individual schools to decide. The common lottery would not have helped this situation as long as Stokes and YY are not participating. If all the schools were participating, the situation would presumably have been better because all students, including those who had to leave YY and Stokes in order to move those lists, would have gotten into the schools they liked best from the outset.

Not sure why Stokes isn't joining the common lottery if they're not continuing their practice of ordering their waitlist by time.
Anonymous
Post 10/09/2013 16:43     Subject: Stokes changes wait list procedures
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Another one for whom the sibling preference has proven rough - we had a pretty good WL number for Stokes pre-K this year and didn't come near to getting a phone call. Turned down several other open spots to hedge our bet that Stokes would come through but the number of siblings overran the wait list. Frustrating as hell, but it's a risk we took and it didn't pay off. Was fully prepared to apply at noon on Friday for K and now we're simply screwed.
I hate this f-ing game and can only hope the unified lottery is a step in the direction of fixing it (though it will take years, which we don't have, so we're stuck at the mercy of a crappy system in the meantime.)
And yes, we're now looking at moving out of DC since we don't have the time or the energy to navigate the school system here.


Wait - why would you turn down spots at other decent options just because you were on the waitlist at Stokes? Sounds like you played the system wrong - there is nothing wrong with taking a spot knowing you might turn it down if you were accepted elsewhere. Why make an already difficult system even more stressful??


I'm the PP - we totally took a gamble and it fizzled! We had a back-up plan (which is what we're going now) but with our proximity to Stokes and our strong preference for it, we decided not to bother with accepting other spots and shuffling our daughter around and just went with the calculated risk. Definitely not the right move for everyone but we knew what we were getting into Definitely did not anticipate the avalanche of siblings and had a number that would have made it off the WL last year, so... oh well!
Anonymous
Post 10/09/2013 16:19     Subject: Stokes changes wait list procedures
Anonymous wrote:Another one for whom the sibling preference has proven rough - we had a pretty good WL number for Stokes pre-K this year and didn't come near to getting a phone call. Turned down several other open spots to hedge our bet that Stokes would come through but the number of siblings overran the wait list. Frustrating as hell, but it's a risk we took and it didn't pay off. Was fully prepared to apply at noon on Friday for K and now we're simply screwed.
I hate this f-ing game and can only hope the unified lottery is a step in the direction of fixing it (though it will take years, which we don't have, so we're stuck at the mercy of a crappy system in the meantime.)
And yes, we're now looking at moving out of DC since we don't have the time or the energy to navigate the school system here.


Wait - why would you turn down spots at other decent options just because you were on the waitlist at Stokes? Sounds like you played the system wrong - there is nothing wrong with taking a spot knowing you might turn it down if you were accepted elsewhere. Why make an already difficult system even more stressful??
Anonymous
Post 10/09/2013 16:07     Subject: Re:Stokes changes wait list procedures
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Schools like these will make this mistake only once. Because, unless they either have a system to prioritize the really determined or participate in the unified process, they will get every single person on the market to apply. Really too bad for those who truly have a strong preference for Stokes.

I concur with your thoughts. If we want charters to succeed, they need to be allowed the cherry-pick the best possible students. Charter schools don't have better teachers or educational philosophies - they just have kids from better families.


Lovin' the satire