Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You should read this:
https://www.washingtonian.com/2014/03/24/how-not-to-get-your-kid-into-kindergarten/
Dated information.
Not that dated. Although I wish she would do a follow up.
I agree it is not dated at all. The core of the article is about the hoops parents jump through for a situation that is largely beyond their control. The single driving factor is the lottery number. A high lottery number means that you'll get one of your top picks, and a low number means you'll get one of your low picks. The strategy of it is really all at the low end: trying to identify a few schools you could live with for a year, which hopefully no-one else has identified, and maybe get luckier next season. Nothing about that has fundamentally changed.
It is the calculus that makes me question the value of the common lottery. Yes, I know it was designed by a prize-winning mathematician and I readily concede he is smarter than I am. I simply submit that the model was originally about getting med students into their desired internships, and by and large med students are highly mobile (for the most part they don't have children and mortgages). In the case of the DC school lottery, we're talking about data points that are much more fixed (even if the school 4 miles away is available, that doesn't necessarily make it feasible for any given family to attend). At least with the old system, if you really wanted Spanish Immersion, and you bombed out in the LAMB lottery, you had another shot with the Stokes lottery; with the DC Bi lottery, with the MV lottery, with DCPS ranking Oyster, Cleveland, Tyler, etc. Now if you get a great number you run the table and if you get a bad number you're left with the dregs.
Med students have strongly different geographical preferences, different specialty preferences, and can easily move. This is not representative of EOTP families competing for the exact same spots.
This is true and I think the old system, while messy, distributed the odds more fairly because everyone had multiple shots.
This is not true. The odds are not distributed more with multiple lotteries. A person with a lucky lottery number can only pick one school, then the other options they had trickle down. There's still the same amount of spots and offered to same amount of people. I can understand how it feels otherwise if you've been dealt a bad lottery number, but don't let your personal experience ignore statistics.
Then can you use some probability theory and statistics to explain it to the rest of us? Because I recall knowing people who did terribly in one school's lottery, but very well in another's. Let's call the first one school A and the second school B. Granted they preferred school A to school B, but they still vastly preferred school B to schools C & D & E - not to mention their local neighborhood school. So, even though they preferred A, they still got lucky with B. Now, under the new system, the low number they got lands them at the bottom of the pile and they only get into school N or O or P. How far down do parents have to fall because of one bad draw?
The lottery concept works when everyone isn't competing for the exact same schools. But the reality is that they are. It's not a matter of "I want something in Ward 7 or Ward 8, but I'll take Two Rivers or Oyster as a last choice" vs. "I'd really rather have Yu Ying or LAMB, but otherwise I want Payne or Miner." No. Thousands of people want a few dozen seats. At least multiple lotteries gave them multiple chances at multiple schools. Sorry you didn't get Mundo Verde, but at least you got Cap City! Now if you blow up once, that's it: better luck next year.
You don't get it. It's ok. It's not about "my friend got more lucky a few years ago" blah blah blah.
No need to be so snide, it was a genuine question. I am not a mathematician, which is why I specifically asked for you to explain it. Which I notice you did not do. Maybe "trust me, I'm smarter than you are, so this is better" works for you, but it doesn't satisfy everybody.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
One more https://ms-dc.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2016-lottery-unique-applicants-on-wls-by-grade.pdf
Thank you for posting this list. I'm realizing that a huge number of students don't get in anywhere for PK. DC clearly needs more school options - even though the number of slots for students has been rising rapidly, the number of students seems to be rising even more rapidly. I wonder what the prospects are for:
1) WOTP schools to offer PK3 (Potentially parents who would aspire to move to a WOTP neighborhood eventually stay EOTP until their children are older to have an opportunity for PK3)
2) A guaranteed slot for PK3 at neighborhood schools instead of starting at kindergarten (some parents are perhaps choosing the lottery instead of their in-bounds school because of the lack of guarantee?)
3) Either additional schools open or existing schools expand their programs
Interested what people think of this.
But while people don't all get matched with schools they lotteried for, there are more seats for both PK3 and PK4 than applicants city-wide. But not all are deemed desirable or geographically feasible.
https://ms-dc.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2016-lottery-applications-and-seats-offered.pdf
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
One more https://ms-dc.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2016-lottery-unique-applicants-on-wls-by-grade.pdf
Thank you for posting this list. I'm realizing that a huge number of students don't get in anywhere for PK. DC clearly needs more school options - even though the number of slots for students has been rising rapidly, the number of students seems to be rising even more rapidly. I wonder what the prospects are for:
1) WOTP schools to offer PK3 (Potentially parents who would aspire to move to a WOTP neighborhood eventually stay EOTP until their children are older to have an opportunity for PK3)
2) A guaranteed slot for PK3 at neighborhood schools instead of starting at kindergarten (some parents are perhaps choosing the lottery instead of their in-bounds school because of the lack of guarantee?)
3) Either additional schools open or existing schools expand their programs
Interested what people think of this.
Very unlikely. PK3 and PK4 is not a compulsory year in DC for good reason.
However, in the areas of most need (about 1 dozen Title 1 or likely Title I schools) they have now made PK3 and PK4 guaranteed to all IB students who enter Round 1 of lottery and list that school first.
The problem is parents are acting like they have a RIGHT to PK3 and PK4. And they don't.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
One more https://ms-dc.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2016-lottery-unique-applicants-on-wls-by-grade.pdf
Thank you for posting this list. I'm realizing that a huge number of students don't get in anywhere for PK. DC clearly needs more school options - even though the number of slots for students has been rising rapidly, the number of students seems to be rising even more rapidly. I wonder what the prospects are for:
1) WOTP schools to offer PK3 (Potentially parents who would aspire to move to a WOTP neighborhood eventually stay EOTP until their children are older to have an opportunity for PK3)
2) A guaranteed slot for PK3 at neighborhood schools instead of starting at kindergarten (some parents are perhaps choosing the lottery instead of their in-bounds school because of the lack of guarantee?)
3) Either additional schools open or existing schools expand their programs
Interested what people think of this.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
One more https://ms-dc.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2016-lottery-unique-applicants-on-wls-by-grade.pdf
Thank you for posting this list. I'm realizing that a huge number of students don't get in anywhere for PK. DC clearly needs more school options - even though the number of slots for students has been rising rapidly, the number of students seems to be rising even more rapidly. I wonder what the prospects are for:
1) WOTP schools to offer PK3 (Potentially parents who would aspire to move to a WOTP neighborhood eventually stay EOTP until their children are older to have an opportunity for PK3)
2) A guaranteed slot for PK3 at neighborhood schools instead of starting at kindergarten (some parents are perhaps choosing the lottery instead of their in-bounds school because of the lack of guarantee?)
3) Either additional schools open or existing schools expand their programs
Interested what people think of this.
Anonymous wrote:
One more https://ms-dc.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2016-lottery-unique-applicants-on-wls-by-grade.pdf
Anonymous wrote:People who are fondly remembering the old system forget the complaints.
Applications necessarily done online - people had to run all over town to submit applications and some got lost. Lack of transparency or trust in the lottery draws because they were done at each school. The multiple different deadlines. And the people who sat on multiple yes's meaning significant student movement for weeks into the new year.
There are simply more people entering the lottery now than 4-5 years ago. And not enough new seats have been created to keep up with demand. That's the reason for the tightness you are feeling.
It is deeply related to the shortage of real estate appropriate for a school which has slowed the charter sector growth significantly. This was a DCPS strategy to maintain / increase market share. And it's working.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You should read this:
https://www.washingtonian.com/2014/03/24/how-not-to-get-your-kid-into-kindergarten/
Dated information.
Not that dated. Although I wish she would do a follow up.
I agree it is not dated at all. The core of the article is about the hoops parents jump through for a situation that is largely beyond their control. The single driving factor is the lottery number. A high lottery number means that you'll get one of your top picks, and a low number means you'll get one of your low picks. The strategy of it is really all at the low end: trying to identify a few schools you could live with for a year, which hopefully no-one else has identified, and maybe get luckier next season. Nothing about that has fundamentally changed.
It is the calculus that makes me question the value of the common lottery. Yes, I know it was designed by a prize-winning mathematician and I readily concede he is smarter than I am. I simply submit that the model was originally about getting med students into their desired internships, and by and large med students are highly mobile (for the most part they don't have children and mortgages). In the case of the DC school lottery, we're talking about data points that are much more fixed (even if the school 4 miles away is available, that doesn't necessarily make it feasible for any given family to attend). At least with the old system, if you really wanted Spanish Immersion, and you bombed out in the LAMB lottery, you had another shot with the Stokes lottery; with the DC Bi lottery, with the MV lottery, with DCPS ranking Oyster, Cleveland, Tyler, etc. Now if you get a great number you run the table and if you get a bad number you're left with the dregs.
Med students have strongly different geographical preferences, different specialty preferences, and can easily move. This is not representative of EOTP families competing for the exact same spots.
This is true and I think the old system, while messy, distributed the odds more fairly because everyone had multiple shots.
This is not true. The odds are not distributed more with multiple lotteries. A person with a lucky lottery number can only pick one school, then the other options they had trickle down. There's still the same amount of spots and offered to same amount of people. I can understand how it feels otherwise if you've been dealt a bad lottery number, but don't let your personal experience ignore statistics.
Then can you use some probability theory and statistics to explain it to the rest of us? Because I recall knowing people who did terribly in one school's lottery, but very well in another's. Let's call the first one school A and the second school B. Granted they preferred school A to school B, but they still vastly preferred school B to schools C & D & E - not to mention their local neighborhood school. So, even though they preferred A, they still got lucky with B. Now, under the new system, the low number they got lands them at the bottom of the pile and they only get into school N or O or P. How far down do parents have to fall because of one bad draw?
The lottery concept works when everyone isn't competing for the exact same schools. But the reality is that they are. It's not a matter of "I want something in Ward 7 or Ward 8, but I'll take Two Rivers or Oyster as a last choice" vs. "I'd really rather have Yu Ying or LAMB, but otherwise I want Payne or Miner." No. Thousands of people want a few dozen seats. At least multiple lotteries gave them multiple chances at multiple schools. Sorry you didn't get Mundo Verde, but at least you got Cap City! Now if you blow up once, that's it: better luck next year.
You don't get it. It's ok. It's not about "my friend got more lucky a few years ago" blah blah blah.
No need to be so snide, it was a genuine question. I am not a mathematician, which is why I specifically asked for you to explain it. Which I notice you did not do. Maybe "trust me, I'm smarter than you are, so this is better" works for you, but it doesn't satisfy everybody.
Anonymous wrote:there are only so many spots. whether under the current lottery system or the previous one, not everyone is going to get their top choice. there will be lucky and unlucky people in both systems. the difference here is that the system knows what your top choice is, and if you're lucky with your overall draw, you will get it.
in the old system, it was possible for you to get into your #7 choice, and someone else get into their #7 choice, but if you'd been able to trade, you each would have had a spot at your #1 choice. That doesn't happen anymore. Under the old system, lucky people got into multiple schools and THEN decided which one they preferred. Under the new system, you prioritize in advance, which is much more efficient and means fewer slots open up over the summer.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You should read this:
https://www.washingtonian.com/2014/03/24/how-not-to-get-your-kid-into-kindergarten/
Dated information.
Not that dated. Although I wish she would do a follow up.
I agree it is not dated at all. The core of the article is about the hoops parents jump through for a situation that is largely beyond their control. The single driving factor is the lottery number. A high lottery number means that you'll get one of your top picks, and a low number means you'll get one of your low picks. The strategy of it is really all at the low end: trying to identify a few schools you could live with for a year, which hopefully no-one else has identified, and maybe get luckier next season. Nothing about that has fundamentally changed.
It is the calculus that makes me question the value of the common lottery. Yes, I know it was designed by a prize-winning mathematician and I readily concede he is smarter than I am. I simply submit that the model was originally about getting med students into their desired internships, and by and large med students are highly mobile (for the most part they don't have children and mortgages). In the case of the DC school lottery, we're talking about data points that are much more fixed (even if the school 4 miles away is available, that doesn't necessarily make it feasible for any given family to attend). At least with the old system, if you really wanted Spanish Immersion, and you bombed out in the LAMB lottery, you had another shot with the Stokes lottery; with the DC Bi lottery, with the MV lottery, with DCPS ranking Oyster, Cleveland, Tyler, etc. Now if you get a great number you run the table and if you get a bad number you're left with the dregs.
Med students have strongly different geographical preferences, different specialty preferences, and can easily move. This is not representative of EOTP families competing for the exact same spots.
This is true and I think the old system, while messy, distributed the odds more fairly because everyone had multiple shots.
This is not true. The odds are not distributed more with multiple lotteries. A person with a lucky lottery number can only pick one school, then the other options they had trickle down. There's still the same amount of spots and offered to same amount of people. I can understand how it feels otherwise if you've been dealt a bad lottery number, but don't let your personal experience ignore statistics.
Then can you use some probability theory and statistics to explain it to the rest of us? Because I recall knowing people who did terribly in one school's lottery, but very well in another's. Let's call the first one school A and the second school B. Granted they preferred school A to school B, but they still vastly preferred school B to schools C & D & E - not to mention their local neighborhood school. So, even though they preferred A, they still got lucky with B. Now, under the new system, the low number they got lands them at the bottom of the pile and they only get into school N or O or P. How far down do parents have to fall because of one bad draw?
The lottery concept works when everyone isn't competing for the exact same schools. But the reality is that they are. It's not a matter of "I want something in Ward 7 or Ward 8, but I'll take Two Rivers or Oyster as a last choice" vs. "I'd really rather have Yu Ying or LAMB, but otherwise I want Payne or Miner." No. Thousands of people want a few dozen seats. At least multiple lotteries gave them multiple chances at multiple schools. Sorry you didn't get Mundo Verde, but at least you got Cap City! Now if you blow up once, that's it: better luck next year.
You don't get it. It's ok. It's not about "my friend got more lucky a few years ago" blah blah blah.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think the biggest issue is that there are only a handful of schools that people are genuinely happy to send their children. Lots of people want to send their kids to an immersion school, yet there aren't that many options or seats. It's sort of tough for me to understand why with the money we are spending schools for the most part in DC aren't great. And yes, I absolutely think good parenting will allow a child to thrive in any school, but not every child has the kind of parents who read to them, help them with homework, etc.
I got a TERRIBLE lottery draw - an Appletree in Ward 7, my 12th choice was the only spot my son landed. In actual fact I only know one or two families who landed one of their top five choices. IT's just hard here.
This chart kinda illustrates what you are saying. Families in Wards 1-6 had much lower match rates than those in 7 and 8.
https://ms-dc.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2016-lottery-match-rate-by-ward-of-residence.pdf
The overall match rate also declined this past year - from 72 to 70%.
Anonymous wrote:I think the biggest issue is that there are only a handful of schools that people are genuinely happy to send their children. Lots of people want to send their kids to an immersion school, yet there aren't that many options or seats. It's sort of tough for me to understand why with the money we are spending schools for the most part in DC aren't great. And yes, I absolutely think good parenting will allow a child to thrive in any school, but not every child has the kind of parents who read to them, help them with homework, etc.
I got a TERRIBLE lottery draw - an Appletree in Ward 7, my 12th choice was the only spot my son landed. In actual fact I only know one or two families who landed one of their top five choices. IT's just hard here.