Anonymous wrote:looks like all the top charters had 0-4 spaces for PK 4. this is absurd. I think if a parent didn't get into one of their top 3 choices the previous year, then they should be first crack at the lottery the next year. yes I am bitter, but I know families who got their 1st choice last year in PK 3 and played again this year "just to see what happens" and again, got another top PK3 (think CMI versus Inspired). its fucking wrong, they should have to wait for a second round to play again.

This doesn't make any sense. If they left CMI, for example, that is leaving a new preK 3 spot for another family. You can't begrudge others for getting a better randomly generated number than your own. (Or you can and you'll feel bitter about not just this but many things in life.)

Anonymous wrote:looks like all the top charters had 0-4 spaces for PK 4. this is absurd. I think if a parent didn't get into one of their top 3 choices the previous year, then they should be first crack at the lottery the next year. yes I am bitter, but I know families who got their 1st choice last year in PK 3 and played again this year "just to see what happens" and again, got another top PK3 (think CMI versus Inspired). its fucking wrong, they should have to wait for a second round to play again.

Why does it matter to you? They can only take one space. If they move to CMI then there's a space for someone else at IT.

And why should getting a bad number one year boost you up next year, relative to people who moved to DC in a later grade or found out a school was a bad for their kid?

Anonymous wrote:looks like all the top charters had 0-4 spaces for PK 4. this is absurd. I think if a parent didn't get into one of their top 3 choices the previous year, then they should be first crack at the lottery the next year. yes I am bitter, but I know families who got their 1st choice last year in PK 3 and played again this year "just to see what happens" and again, got another top PK3 (think CMI versus Inspired). its fucking wrong, they should have to wait for a second round to play again.

There are a lot of reasons why a family would play the lottery again, even if they got into their first choice the prior year. It's not your place to say whether or not their reasons are valid - and nor is it MSDC's. Do you really expect MSDC to interview every single family re-lotterying and decide whether or not they qualify to enter the lottery again, or should or shouldn't be awarded a spot at a top choice? Ludicrous.

Anonymous wrote:looks like all the top charters had 0-4 spaces for PK 4. this is absurd. I think if a parent didn't get into one of their top 3 choices the previous year, then they should be first crack at the lottery the next year. yes I am bitter, but I know families who got their 1st choice last year in PK 3 and played again this year "just to see what happens" and again, got another top PK3 (think CMI versus Inspired). its fucking wrong, they should have to wait for a second round to play again.

oh, honey. with that attitude bad karma will continue to pursue you

looks like all the top charters had 0-4 spaces for PK 4. this is absurd. I think if a parent didn't get into one of their top 3 choices the previous year, then they should be first crack at the lottery the next year. yes I am bitter, but I know families who got their 1st choice last year in PK 3 and played again this year "just to see what happens" and again, got another top PK3 (think CMI versus Inspired). its fucking wrong, they should have to wait for a second round to play again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2017-18 Charter WL data is now available here

https://data.dcpcsb.org/Waitlists-Spaces-Available/2017-2018-Waitlist/dhvk-6fm5/data

but no DCPS data?

Curious about the accuracy of the list since we have wait list numbers for a couple of these schools in PK3 that are higher than what is listed as the number of wait list slots (obviously we got a terrible number and are not getting in to these schools).

For example we have #371 at YY but the waitlist only goes to 355. How do you explain this? I'm interested because in my mind this is a question of accuracy and integrity in the system.

Seems like the wrong data set was linked to. Revised data referenced in a prior post.

P.S. I hope it doesn't make me a horrible person, but #371/389 makes me feel a little better about my own lousy #. Not that it will make a darn bit of difference.

Anonymous wrote:I think the data set is lsat year's -

ugh. now a second data set has been posted.


The one titled "2017-2018 Wait list" seems to have the same data as last year.

The one marked "SY17-18 Public Charter School Waitlists" has different data


https://data.dcpcsb.org/browse?category=Waitlists%2FSpaces+Available

Yes, I think the previous link was full of last year's data. This is different, at least. Maybe also accurate, IDK.

https://data.dcpcsb.org/Waitlists-Spaces-Available/SY17-18-Public-Charter-School-Waitlists/qaee-waer/data

I also know someone with a WL number from the initial lottery deemed impossible by these figures. It's not that far off, so maybe some families have already officially pulled out or come off the WL? Definitely not accurate (or friend got inaccurate WL originally) if this is supposed to indicate the initial, just post-lottery WL lengths.

If you want to know the length of a waitlist at a DCPS school, I suggest contacting the principal. We did this and were successful at getting more information. She had to go to the central office to get it, though.

Okay, I agree that these numbers look more accurate.

https://data.dcpcsb.org/Waitlists-Spaces-Available/SY17-18-Public-Charter-School-Waitlists/qaee-waer

These look like the initial waitlist numbers to me. For example, we applied to MV before the deadline. This chart says the waitlist is up to 531, and my daughter's number is 464. However, we applied to Friendship Armstrong on March 31, and she's #12 there even though this chart says the WL for PK3 is only up to #3. So don't rely on this chart to figure out what the current waitlist length is. If you want to add a school post-lottery, go ahead and do it on MSDC. That's the only way to check the current WL.

Anonymous wrote:why does Bridges appear to have several different types of waitlists? "Special classroom," "IEP" and I guess their regular waitlist? Does Bridges have the ability/approval to have children apply to different categories? Like Oyster does for Spanish and English tracks?

Yes - it's a new-ish thing. It was first allowed for the 16-17 lottery.

A school can now offer a special needs preference for a self-contained classroom. There are significant costs associated with running and staffing these, because the teacher-student ratio is much lower To apply you must have an existing IEP that has >15 or 20 hours a week of specialized instruction. Schools who offer it also must have a track record of serving special needs students well, and agree to specific ways of measuring progress for those students who enroll.

Bridges is the only charter that has asked for permission to offer the preference.

why does Bridges appear to have several different types of waitlists? "Special classroom," "IEP" and I guess their regular waitlist? Does Bridges have the ability/approval to have children apply to different categories? Like Oyster does for Spanish and English tracks?

I think the data set is lsat year's -

ugh. now a second data set has been posted.


The one titled "2017-2018 Wait list" seems to have the same data as last year.

The one marked "SY17-18 Public Charter School Waitlists" has different data


https://data.dcpcsb.org/browse?category=Waitlists%2FSpaces+Available

Looking at the charter data, all the numbers of kids for PK4 are lower numbers than DD's waitlist number. Can anyonr explain?

The lack of transparency is really maddening. Why not reveal how many lottery spots were awarded by grade? When I started participating in the schools lottery 8 years ago with my first child it was way more transparent. Yes, there have been improvements that benefit everyone (starting with the unified lottery) but the lack of basic data is frustrating.