2011 Kindergarten Lottery results trickling in

21 April 2011 10:06 am — charlesdschultz

Unit 4 has received the results of the 2011 Kindergarten Lottery, and a small portion of my FOIA has been satisfied so far:

http://champaignunit4.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/champaign-kindergarten-controlled-choice-assignments-2011-12-sy.xlsx

I am still waiting on the rest of the data and the subsequent analysis.

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , . 23 Comments »

23 Responses to “2011 Kindergarten Lottery results trickling in”

  1. charlesdschultz Says:
    21 April 2011 10:13 am at 10:13 am

    The results are confusing to me. 32 people still unassigned? And I am shocked that 6 folks managed to trickle down to their 5th choice. Barkstall, Bottenfield, Carrie Busey, Robeson and South Side all maxed out (no more available seats). Garden Hills got really close to maxing out, which is a huge change (Magnet program?). In a surprise twist, Kenwood has 26 seats available. Wow!

    Now I continue to wait for the rest of the information I requested……

  2. Greg Novak Says:
    21 April 2011 10:54 am at 10:54 am

    Hi

    Could not open the site – am interested in seeing the results as well

  3. charlesdschultz Says:
    21 April 2011 11:02 am at 11:02 am

    Fixed.

  4. charlesdschultz Says:
    21 April 2011 11:03 am at 11:03 am

    Also, Unit 4 has posted the same thing on their website:
    http://champaignschools.org/News/1011/2011-04-21_choice_assignments.pdf

  6. charlesdschultz Says:
    21 April 2011 12:23 pm at 12:23 pm

    Here is my attempt to explain what the summary means. It would be helpful for Unit 4 to type this up, since they know a whole lot more than I do. :)

    Example 1: Header columns and first row of data
    Example 1
    Code: An arbitrary number assigned to the school. Unit 4 uses this “school code” all over the place, and it is best to ignore it for now.

    Program: ESL (English as a Second Language), BL (Bi-lingual) or RE (Regular Enrollment).

    Total Capacity: The total number of seats for this school and this program. Note that the Magnet programs are meshed into RE and not made distinct at all in this summary.

    SP Capacity: Special Education. Unit 4 does immersion, so these kids occupy “seats” along side everyone else.

    (Skipping some obvious columns….)

    Low and Non Low Assigned: SES (Socio-economic Status); Dr. Alves uses a relatively complex formula based on all the parameters provided by the parent during registration (ie, Household income, number of family members, educational attainment, etc).

    Available Seats: Basically, “Total Capacity” – “Total Assigned”. If Available seats is 0, that means, most likely, that there is a waiting list for anyone that chose this school as their #1 and spilled down to their next choice.

    In this example, Barkstall has seats for 69 incoming Kindergartners, and of those 69 seats, 69 were assigned leaving 0 left. 24 of those 69 were put into the “Low SES” bucket, while 45 were put in the “Non Low SES” bucket.

    Example 2: Stratton
    Example 2

    Stratton has two programs, RE and ESL. If you did not specify a requirement for the ESL (or BL) program, you were dumped into RE. The Stratton RE program has a capacity of 59 students, of which 42 were filled leaving 17 empty spots. The ESL program was filled, 7 to Low SES and 3 to Non Low SES applicants.

    Example 3: Summary of the Summary
    Example 3

    This is the one that the NG usually highlights. I think for the most part it is pretty self-explanatory. Of the 693 parents that submitted applications for their child, 592 were placed into their first choice. This ratio is quite consistent with previous years. However, since this year changed the model to 5 choices (from 3), I am very surprised that 32 were still unassigned. In the past, this was because a parent did not fill out all the choices, or in some cases, chose all “over chosen” schools. If you read that carefully, you will realize the chicken-and-egg dilemma facing parents. But why 32 this year? That is quite bizarre.

    [edit: blasted wordpress has a messed up "quick comment" dialog - images were mucked up, I think they are fixed now]

  7. unassigned Says:
    21 April 2011 12:47 pm at 12:47 pm

    Hi Charles. Interesting results. Fewer unassigned than last year, but unless they all chose the same maxed-out schools you listed above, then there should have been capacity for them. This clearly shows that many people are only happy with a few schools in town, and are not willing to write down the underselected schools on their selection forms.

    85% got their first choice. I’d love to see Unit 4 try to maximize that figure. I wonder what the SES distribution would have been like if they try to maximize CHOICE rather than desegregation goals. It would be an interesting exercise.

    Can they get to 100% having their first choice? Of course not, but they are not even getting 100% using the current top 5 choices because of the lack of availability of seats at the overselected schools. This overselection is exacerbated by the SES goals that apparently require at least 35% low SES students this year (see Barkstall and Bottenfield low SES percentages).

    Who should get those seats in the overselected schools and why? That is the conversation that needs to happen. At present, the decision is made behind the scenes. Let’s bring it out in the open and let the public have input on the methodology. If CHOICE is the method now, and the consent decree is over, I say let’s maximize CHOICE. Proximity, siblings, and other factors should be in the mix, perhaps as tiebreakers, because not everyone can get into Barkstall (for example).

    Perhaps even SES can be in the mix, but we need to come to a community-wide agreement on a percentage rather than an arbitrary value set using a proxy methodology that tries to replicate racial quotas that are currently illegal. Unfortunately, this is a zero-sum game at the overselected schools. More seats for SES means fewer seats for proximity kids, and the effects are being seen in the number of unassigned kids and the number of people who do not get their first choices. It is truly that simple. Community buy-in is needed for this important decision.

  8. charlesdschultz Says:
    21 April 2011 1:00 pm at 1:00 pm

    @unassigned: Yup, I hear ya. Unfortunately, parental choice has never been the first priority. The socialist in me is not too worried about that, but the way the lottery is sold sure makes it seem that parental choice is indeed the numero uno priority.

    “Community buy-in” – yes, I have been harping on that a while. I am just now trying to set up some community forums for us to get talking and get things in the open. Keep your eyes open.

  9. unassigned Says:
    21 April 2011 1:07 pm at 1:07 pm

    Hi Charles. What if you set the minimum low SES population at 30% instead of 35% at the overselected schools? It would free up 36 seats at the overselected schools, which is more than the number of unassigned children this year, many of whom may have had proximity to one of the overselected schools. And having at least 30% low SES children at each school would provide ample CHOICE and not diminish the desegregation effects one bit.

    This type of sensitivity analysis is not what Dr. Alves is interested in. Too bad for us.

  10. charlesdschultz Says:
    22 April 2011 7:50 am at 7:50 am

    This made me think back to a memo that Dr. Alves responded to. Since the original was a PDF of a scanned faxed, I finally took the time to convert it to something web-friendly and started a new folder for like documents:
    http://champaignunit4.wordpress.com/controlled-choice-documents/

    While these do not directly answer your questions, they do provide some background. I will make it a point to ask some questions about the 30% limit vs the 35% limit. However, I have a feeling that is just addressing the symptoms – in terms of the 32 unassigned this year, I was fully expecting zero (0).

  11. 85% Happy, 6% Unhappy, 9% Ehhh? | Champaign County Real Estate Blog Says:
    22 April 2011 8:19 pm at 8:19 pm

    [...] for all things “School of Choice” can be found at Charles Schultz’ “A citizen’s blog about Champaign Unit 4“.  If you’re not afraid of lots of data on the subject check out Charles’s [...]

  12. charlesdschultz Says:
    23 April 2011 6:24 pm at 6:24 pm

    Everyone received their results by now, right?

  13. Celeste Rojano Says:
    24 April 2011 8:19 pm at 8:19 pm

    I am in totally shocked!!!!! Can’t believe how in awe I feel when I opened my letter from the unit 4 saying that my child is (one out of the 32) UNASSIGNED… but how can that be? that is not suppose to happen right? How can that be? As you can imagine I choose 3 of the “over chosen” schools Barkstall, Bottenfield and Robeson, in which for the last one I live like less than a mil away I can literally walk in 5 min. And I still didn’t get in??? But why is it a way or ‘punishment b/c I didn’t use my 5 options or b/c they wanted me to apply for another school that “suits” best my child according to them.
    I am a Latin parent and have an MBA, my husband is Latin too and has a J.D. We are from Mexico and as you may know when we went to apply for the school they had to test our daughter for English and told us that she was “almost” proficient in the language, but all the time since applying for the schools and going to the community forums made me feel as if I had to apply where the offer the ESL program, and that is not what we want for our daughter, she speaks Spanish perfect but so does English, but looking at the way they are doing things about the language and the testing is like they want to “control your choice”, is as if I don’t have a saying when it comes to “choosing the school” b/c I want my daughter to be bilingual it was wrong of me to teach her another language other than English? What I can’t wrap my head around is that my 3RD choice was Robeson and she didn’t even make it in there? How so?
    I just feel what they are doing is wrong and know looking at the numbers all the schools are maxed out, so what options are left for us? Kenwood?, BTW? is that really school of choice method? I don’t think so.
    But I guess I have to wait until Tuesday

  14. charlesdschultz Says:
    25 April 2011 5:16 am at 5:16 am

    Celeste,

    Thank you for sharing your story. I hear the “awe”, frustration, annoyance and disappointment in your words, and I feel for you. Unfortunately, you hit the nail on the head when you say “they want to ‘control your choice’”. That is exactly what Controlled Choice is. But Unit 4 does not spell it out very well.

    Just so you know, you are not alone. Many parents chose the three same schools you chose last year and ended up unassigned, just as you did. It would be my guess that a few parents did the same thing this year. You are not being directly punished – I think this is just sloppy PR by the school district. I know this will not help you feel better, I am just trying to put a warm face on a rotten situation.

    What in particular did you like about the three schools you chose? Based on the parents I have talked with over the past few years, I have heard many favorable reports about all the schools. Each school has its own quirks, however, I think that the features you like at your top three may be evident in some of the other schools.

  15. AmyP Says:
    25 April 2011 8:20 am at 8:20 am

    It would be interesting to learn how many of the unassigned families listed only 3 preferences on their form, even though 5 were allowed. I know of 2 families that did this.

    My husband wondered why we couldn’t rank all the schools 1-11 just in case a placement had to occur below the 5th choice.

  16. charlesdschultz Says:
    25 April 2011 8:26 am at 8:26 am

    Ironically, this is exactly what I have argued for! Or, as a variation, have the school district rank order all the schools and have the parent place a preference if desired. This eliminates the “Choice” vernacular. And it helps everyone get assigned in a school with the option to be wait-listed elsewhere. Dr. Alves did briefly mention this and state that the Administration/Board voted against this approach. But that was many Boards ago.

  17. AmyP Says:
    25 April 2011 8:30 am at 8:30 am

    Exactly! I’ve felt from the start that if the district used the word “preference” rather than “choice” it would give families more realistic expectations.

    Charles, if you are able to set up some community forums, I would be very interested in participating. While I’m not crazy about the entire system, I do see the value of what the district wants to accomplish and would like to help the district achieve the goal of all schools recognized as good schools by all families in the community.

  18. unassigned Says:
    25 April 2011 3:28 pm at 3:28 pm

    Hi Celeste. My child was unassigned last year, and I was mad enough to spit nails ( I even selected a proximity school for my first choice).

    I fully understand where your head is. You are wondering how much you can sacrifice to put your child in private school, whether to move to another town, or similar drastic things. Please know that many children on waiting lists get into their school, but I worry about your chances if you wait at Barkstall or other overselected school. Not too many seats available, I suspect. Number 3 on the waiting list in my local overselected school did not get in last year.

    This is the true tragedy of the lottery process. It is a “game” (all too serious) with rules that they know and don’t publicize well. They don’t want to tell you publicly that you likely will not get into an overselected school without proximity if you have “non-low SES”. This would let the cat out of the bag that “choice” is a zero-sum game whereby every seat dedicated to choice at overselected schools takes away from a neighborhood child. Parents need to be told the truth about this! Don’t go for an overselected school without proximity or “low SES” status.

    More evidence that we need a public conversation about who gets the seats in what schools, and why. They rigged the game so that their choice and desegregation goals get in line first, and local children get in line second. I don’t think that is fair or cost effective.

    I also think proximity preferences should be given to children assigned in every round, not just the first, but the education PhD calls that unnecessary because he doesn’t have the same priorities as parents. It might free up parents to go for a better school in the first round, even if they don’t have proximity or low SES status, and THEY don’t want you to exercise your choice unless it helps their goals.

  19. unassigned Says:
    25 April 2011 3:44 pm at 3:44 pm

    Dear future lottery parents:

    No one will tell you how to select schools for the lottery, especially if you are not in the “low SES” (socioeconomic) status. Based on experiences from participating in the lottery and watching for another, my strategy would be as follows:

    1) Your first choice must be a proximity school. If you have a choice, choose a larger school rather than a smaller one, because there may be few seats for the lottery after siblings are assigned.

    2) None of the overselected schools will be available after the first round. Don’t waste your second selection on them. Choose the best backup school you can that didn’t fill on the first round last year.

    3) Choose an ultimate backup as your third school, the “worst” you can handle. Most assignments are done by the third round, so any further listing is at your option.

    If you don’t like these options, work for change in how the lottery is run. Like giving more seats to proximity children. Giving proximity to children in all rounds, not just the first. And adding more seats in the better schools.

    And good luck getting those changes, because they want “non low SES” children to move to schools north of University to attain their desegregation and achievement goals, which trump thing like parental choice.

    We should be able to demand action on this subject, because their lottery depends on your honesty when filling out the lottery forms. Just remember that, too! When playing a rigged game, perhaps the only way to win is not to play by the rules.

  20. Unassigned in Savoy Says:
    26 April 2011 9:41 pm at 9:41 pm

    We are one of the 32 unassigned parents. We used all five of our choices based on our school visits, discussion with principals and parents of current students. We are appalled at this antiquated and inequitable system and how Unit4 is self-congratulatory for giving so many parents their first choice.

    Charles, we appreciate your blog and dedication to educating the community. We read the response from Dr. Alves to your FOIA request with great interest, and were incredulous at how he minimized your concern about how significant proximity A was in getting one’s first choice by his citing how many non-proximity parents got their first choice. BUT then he did not acknowledge in citing his figures that sibling preference and SES both trump proximity in getting one’s first choice. We are not advocating that sibling preference or SES be eliminated, however, we prefer Unit4 be more transparent in that their goal is not a true 82/18 split between prox A & B. For example, at our first choice (Barkstall) 37 seats were filled by sibling preference (with 1 retained seat). So there were 31 seats available from the lottery which were then put into the 82/18 percent formula; leaving only 5 seats for proximity B (which we are) – a mere 7% of total seats NOT 18%.

    The proximity A/B system is antiquated, giving some parents the opportunity to chose from among 2-5 proximity schools in naming their first choice based on their living close to where schools were built 20-40 years ago when the population was distributed very differently. According to one of the Unit 4 reports, over 1200 new households were added in Savoy between 2000 and 2007 (not to mention SW Champaign). This skewed system is evident in how prox A to Dr. Howard overlaps with Westview–another of our choices. Parents who did not want to send their child to Dr. Howard (evidently quite a few since Dr. Howard had 26 open seats) could still use their proximity A to Westview as a first choice; this a product of how proximity continues to be defined based on where the schools are and not the people.

    The addition of two extra choices was supposed to eliminate the “Unassigned” limbo that came with the three choices of the past. However, it seems counterintuitive to increase choices and then take away a strand from Robeson, one of our five choices and traditionally not an overchosen school, this eliminating 20-23 seats in the southern part of town.

    Sadly, through its failure to truly address its structural flaws (which are not just about making choices but what choices are presented to all), this inequitable system works to motivate those parents (who can) to remove their children from the public school system.

    Waiting by the phone in Savoy.

  21. charlesdschultz Says:
    27 April 2011 5:35 am at 5:35 am

    Unassigned in Savoy,

    I am sorry to hear about your story. I do agree that I think it would be much more beneficial if Unit 4 were to open up the doors (a LOT!) and spell things out in a more lucid and congeial fashion.

    So, allow me to briefly turn the tables a little bit. If you had the power, how would you rewrite the entire thing? Would you aim for maximum “fairness” for everyone? Would you aim for equity? What would be your priority?

    Here is an interesting statistic. Of the 32 that were unassigned, two were low SES. The entire system is geared towards giving a leg up to those in low SES, yet somehow two managed to fall through. How did that happen? Both of them chose Barkstall and Bottenfield as their top two choices, but the low SES quota had already filled up, so by the time they spilled down to their 3rd choices, those had already filled up as well. One them did not make any other choices, the other filled out the other two but they had miraculously already filled as well. Crazy, eh?

    Know that there are several efforts underfoot to do something about this. I am in a rush now, but I’ll get back to this topic. And I am serious about your thoughts on how you would change it. I want to know.

  22. Also in Savoy Says:
    3 May 2011 9:39 pm at 9:39 pm

    Charles, I am wondering if you will receive the wait list information that you received in the past. For those of you parents who are looking at this information for 2012 picks, you will want to look at the wait list numbers to see in which round the schools filled up.

    For example, in 2010 lottery, Robeson started a wait list in round 3, so it was a viable choice for 2 rounds. You will want to see when the wait lists started. I expect that “Unassigned in Savoy” picked all choices after they were filled.

    Having studied your blog Charles, I felt prepared and educated with this year’s lottery. Thank you for all of your work.

  23. The Lottery: A case study « A citizen’s blog about Champaign Unit 4 Says:
    5 January 2012 4:47 pm at 4:47 pm

    [...] a while ago, but am not finding evidence I did. I did something similar, but it only covers the summary worksheet. The following is using an example from the 2010 Kindergarten Lottery, and helps to show the inner [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

«

»
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.