Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The main thing EVERY family doing the common lottery this year needs to understand is this:
Research your choices and make sure our #1 is really the school you would be happiest with if you got in. You ranking it #1 will affect both your chances of actually getting any available lottery slots, as well as your position on the waitlist. And rank in your true rank order.
Can we all at least agree that that is the approach families should take to ranking their 12 choices?
I am the PP who said that if the Denver system is adopted, there is a real incentive for families not to rank in the true rank order and instead to think strategically about what schools should be listed early on.
I have been researching this a lot (am the one who posted the links from Denver and New Orleans- found them on the site of the non-profit that's running this). I vaguely remember reading somewhere that if your first choices are full, say your top 3, your 4th choice is considered your number 1 choice now, because you still haven't been matched. So then you will be equivalent with those who ranked that school number 1. But can't remember where I saw that, and can't find it now. But it would make sense to prevent trying to game the system. Everything I have read says that these models prevent gaming, which I take to be pretty much gospel because these researchers are experts on game theory, and many of the papers specifically discuss these issues.
I am the PP to whom you are responding, and thank you for posting this! Very helpful. I did some follow-up research and found that you are right--the first assignment is just a temporary assignment and in subsequent rounds people are reordered. Preference (like siblings, boundaries, etc.) matter most, but after that, your ranking does make some difference. Here is an article on how Boston and NYC do it, with the methodology described on p. 9:
http://www.educationsector.org/sites/default/files/publications/ChoiceMatching.pdf
Specifically, below is the methodology. Some schools in DC, like those in NY, do rank students (e.g., SWW high school); certainly, all schools have preferences, even brand-new charter schools, who have a founders' preference. Thus, it seems like this system would be able to work within the constraints of ranking/preferences inherent to the DC system, while still using the student ranking secondarily. And the method below is also "strategy-proof," meaning that people have no incentive to misrepresent their preferences.
"The new mathematical formulas for matching students and schools that Harvard economist Al Roth and his colleagues created for the New York and Boston school systems differ from the troublesome models they replaced in subtle but important ways.
"The priority matching strategies that both cities abandoned— but that many other school districts still use—begins, reasonably enough, by trying to match students with their first-choice schools. Students listing a school as their first choice are placed on a list. In some districts, a student’s rank on the list is merely a matter of random selection. In other places, including Boston, students are moved up the list if they live near the school or have a sibling already in the school. Students are then assigned to the school from the list until it is full. The assignments are final. If there are more students on the first-choice list than there are seats in the school, as is routinely the case, unmatched students are then added to the lists of their second-choice schools. But because they are ranked below students who have made these schools their first choice, they often fail to get seats in these schools either. As this process repeats itself, many students fail to get assignments in any of the schools they’ve selected under the priority matching model.
"The key difference between the priority matching model and the algorithm that Roth and his colleagues introduced in New York and Boston is that under Roth’s model (also called the Gale-Shapley algorithm, for mathematicians David Gale and Lloyd Shapley) school assignments are temporary—that is, they are deferred—until the computerized matching process is completed.
"The process begins the same way as the priority matching model. Every student is given a ranking by every school. In Boston, the ranking is based on a combination of sibling and walk-zone preferences and a random lottery number that’s given to every student in the school choice system—primarily the city’s kindergartners and sixth- and eighth-graders. In New York as well, each of the city’s nearly 80,000 eighth- graders is given a random lottery number, but, in deference to a recent past where individual high schools had much freedom in selecting their students, New York allows for certain schools to rank students. Depending on their method for selecting students, some schools are allowed to “screen” students based on the student’s academic record and their attendance at school-based fairs. At the city’s roughly 200 “educational options” schools (a vestige of the city’s earlier experience with school choice), schools can rank students based on where they fall in the citywide distribution of scores on the seventh-grade reading test (every educational option school must have a bell-curve-like distribution of high, middle, and low achievers). These schools can express their priorities for individual applicants to fill half their seats, but both the ranked and unranked halves must meet the bell-curve distribution.
"Next, students’ rankings and schools’ priorities are loaded into computers. Students are then matched to their first-choice schools. If the schools are filled with higher-priority students, the unmatched students are moved by the computers to the pool for their second-choice schools. But, because all seat allocations under the Gale-Shapley model are temporary, the second choices of unmatched students are compared to the schools’ first-choice matches. The computers then reshuffle the assignments to the schools to give seats to students who have listed the schools as their second choice, if those students rank higher in the citywide priority lists than students who have selected the schools as their first choices. These bumped students are then added to the pools of their second- choice selections.
"This process continues until student choices are completely exhausted or all schools are full. Only then are the matches finalized and sent out to students. Because it’s centralized and computerized, the entire process takes only a few minutes once students’ preferences and schools’ priorities are entered."