Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here is the waitlist data for (most) charters from April of last year. This doesn't tell you the total number of seats or the number of siblings/non-siblings accepted, but it does give you a sense of demand across the grade levels.

Keep in mind that schools with asterisks were not in the common lottery last year.

http://www.dcpcsb.org/report/2014-15-available-public-charter-school-seats-and-wait-list

I wish there was information about how many seats popular charters have had in the past for non-siblings!

Anyone know if these data are updated to reflect current enrollment? I thought I had heard on this forum that Bridges went through most of its waitlist, but this chart indicates that there are 147 pk3 on its waitlist...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB had 533 applicants for the 11 available Pre-K 3 spots. They only take kids at PK-3 and PK-4, and had no slots for PK-4. They may have had a couple of extra slots over the summer due to attrition.

Based on the high-status individuals who "won" spots for the PK'er this year–and due to the fact that they haven't entered the citywide shared system–I'm going to speculate they only people who got spots last year, and into the future until the join the common lottery, are very well connected insiders.

What high-status individual's kid is at LAMB?

We turned down a spot at lamb for pk3 this year. Based on our wait list number, I estimate that maybe half of the people offered a spot at lamb for pk3 this year declined to enrol. So this conspiracy theory seems implausible.

Be aware that just because a school is not popular on dcum does not mean it's not a hot charter. I recall on parent who complained about being shut out of the lottery. She put kipp schools as a safety but actually many of the kipp schools get hundreds of applications.

My issue with LAMB are the non-DC residents attending the school. I have no stake at all in this - we were not interested in language immersion or Montessori - but with so many DC families interested in attending the school, I think it is shameful that non-DC kids are attending and shameful that the PCSB has permitted this.

I agree with PP. My DS got in off the waitlist with a good number <5 for PK3 but dreadfully had to turn down the spot on the first day of school as I was trying very hard to look for someone to pick up my DS one day a week and keep him until 7:30pm because my job made changes in my department at the last minute. As I look back where my DS would have been at the S.Dakota campus I could have easily picked him up during my lunch break and brought him to my job with no problem with my manager. So once again "status" means nothing to LAMB.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB had 533 applicants for the 11 available Pre-K 3 spots. They only take kids at PK-3 and PK-4, and had no slots for PK-4. They may have had a couple of extra slots over the summer due to attrition.

Based on the high-status individuals who "won" spots for the PK'er this year–and due to the fact that they haven't entered the citywide shared system–I'm going to speculate they only people who got spots last year, and into the future until the join the common lottery, are very well connected insiders.

What high-status individual's kid is at LAMB?

We were one of the families that won one of the 11 available PreK3 spots at LAMB this past year in the lottery. I think that only ten families won this year because one family has twins.

Our family is not connected in any way to the school, OSSE, educational policy, or anything else 'prominent' -- we certainly have no 'status'. I am confident that if the lottery had been rigged, we would not have won!! Due to start-of-school playdates and orientations, I also know five of the other nine families that won the lottery this year. None have any connections or 'status' so to speak; all work in fields unrelated to education and are not prominent individuals.

Overall, I am fairly confident that the LAMB lottery is not rigged for the following additional reasons:
1. It is an open lottery that a lot of people attended in person. (I didn't attend based on low chances but they call you later that day if you win). People observe the lottery to make sure it is not rigged.
2. After getting to know the LAMB administration, I think that they care too much about their school's reputation to put it at risk by rigging the lottery. It just wouldn't be worth it to them to take that risk.
3. All of the entering students this year were boys, as well as many of the siblings. As a result, many of the classrooms are now predominantly boys in the younger age group. The administration was really frustrated by this because it makes it hard to have balanced classes - but as one of the administrators said, "that's what you get when you have a lottery. You don't get to choose".
4. As noted above, and at the risk of being repetitive, our family and most of the others I know wouldn't have been accepted if it had been rigged.....

I think they might not be joining the common lottery because they don't want to have to lottery in kids in the upper grades. The Montessori model works best when kids enter at a young age, which is why they only have spots in PK3 and PK4.

LAMB lottery is not rigged. If a prominent individual won, they won fair and square. Just like we did. We were just lucky. (Don't hate us).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB had 533 applicants for the 11 available Pre-K 3 spots. They only take kids at PK-3 and PK-4, and had no slots for PK-4. They may have had a couple of extra slots over the summer due to attrition.

Based on the high-status individuals who "won" spots for the PK'er this year–and due to the fact that they haven't entered the citywide shared system–I'm going to speculate they only people who got spots last year, and into the future until the join the common lottery, are very well connected insiders.

What high-status individual's kid is at LAMB?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always felt that the odds of getting into a charter were slightly better because you don't have the boundary preference. But I wonder how the new staff preference for charters will factor in.

You mean the latest robbing of public funds?! Basically charters can now negotiate lower wages and offer their employees untaxed benefits == more money to those 'non profit' management companies.

I remain unconvinced that offering the preference will make a dramatic difference in the quality or retention of good teachers. They really need to have implemented it with a "You must be at school teaching for 2 years before staff preference takes effect" clause, but of course they didn't. Or did they?

This policy isn't about retaining good teachers, it is about underpaying staff in lieu of giving their child a high quality seat. Quid pro quo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here is the waitlist data for (most) charters from April of last year. This doesn't tell you the total number of seats or the number of siblings/non-siblings accepted, but it does give you a sense of demand across the grade levels.

Keep in mind that schools with asterisks were not in the common lottery last year.

http://www.dcpcsb.org/report/2014-15-available-public-charter-school-seats-and-wait-list

I wish there was information about how many seats popular charters have had in the past for non-siblings!

I agree that it's frustrating not to have it. My guess is that it will be available at some point after this year's lottery - probably in a similar format as the DCPS data. There has definitely be a move to more data transparency each of the past few years, helped tremendously by the unified lottery.

You should check schools that are adding or expanding which increase your odds. Creative Minds is adding a class room at the PK3 level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always felt that the odds of getting into a charter were slightly better because you don't have the boundary preference. But I wonder how the new staff preference for charters will factor in.

You mean the latest robbing of public funds?! Basically charters can now negotiate lower wages and offer their employees untaxed benefits == more money to those 'non profit' management companies.

I remain unconvinced that offering the preference will make a dramatic difference in the quality or retention of good teachers. They really need to have implemented it with a "You must be at school teaching for 2 years before staff preference takes effect" clause, but of course they didn't. Or did they?

Anonymous wrote:I always felt that the odds of getting into a charter were slightly better because you don't have the boundary preference. But I wonder how the new staff preference for charters will factor in.

You mean the latest robbing of public funds?! Basically charters can now negotiate lower wages and offer their employees untaxed benefits == more money to those 'non profit' management companies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB had 533 applicants for the 11 available Pre-K 3 spots. They only take kids at PK-3 and PK-4, and had no slots for PK-4. They may have had a couple of extra slots over the summer due to attrition.

Based on the high-status individuals who "won" spots for the PK'er this year–and due to the fact that they haven't entered the citywide shared system–I'm going to speculate they only people who got spots last year, and into the future until the join the common lottery, are very well connected insiders.

Can you elaborate?

Not without breaking confidentiality laws, no. If you're in one of these classrooms, you know that parents I mean.

Then report them to OSSE?

Haha offenders include those with OSSE connections.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here is the waitlist data for (most) charters from April of last year. This doesn't tell you the total number of seats or the number of siblings/non-siblings accepted, but it does give you a sense of demand across the grade levels.

Keep in mind that schools with asterisks were not in the common lottery last year.

http://www.dcpcsb.org/report/2014-15-available-public-charter-school-seats-and-wait-list

I wish there was information about how many seats popular charters have had in the past for non-siblings!

I agree that it's frustrating not to have it. My guess is that it will be available at some point after this year's lottery - probably in a similar format as the DCPS data. There has definitely be a move to more data transparency each of the past few years, helped tremendously by the unified lottery.

Anonymous wrote:And here is the waitlist data for (most) charters from April of last year. This doesn't tell you the total number of seats or the number of siblings/non-siblings accepted, but it does give you a sense of demand across the grade levels.

Keep in mind that schools with asterisks were not in the common lottery last year.

http://www.dcpcsb.org/report/2014-15-available-public-charter-school-seats-and-wait-list

I wish there was information about how many seats popular charters have had in the past for non-siblings!

I always felt that the odds of getting into a charter were slightly better because you don't have the boundary preference. But I wonder how the new staff preference for charters will factor in.