SFUSD Assignment Survey Results

Here are the results of the school assignment survey I posted in August. Unfortunately, the tables won't post well on this site --if you'd like a Word document of the summary (or if you'd like the raw data), please email me at iamabby@comcast.net and I'll send it to you. The link for the summary of data results in Survey Monkey is:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=s4ZbdQi7kP2k9IQxNqn0YvwdubKgFSxgIhbNxTlmj2A_3d
__________________________________________________________
Parent Perspective of SFUSD Assignment Process in 2008

Introduction

In the middle of August, we put out an informal, 10 question survey on Survey Monkey to poll parents of elementary school students on their feelings about the school assignment process.
We acknowledge that a more formal survey would conduct focus groups prior to constructing a survey in order to ensure that survey topics are representative of the study population. This survey, however, was meant to be informal, a kind of pilot survey intended to get a sense of parents' experiences of the school assignment process this year, and also to gather opinions from all San Francisco parents about how the assignment system might be changed. The survey has no official purpose, but we hoped that it might provide a window into community feelings about the enrollment process, and perhaps provide a basis for revisiting flaws in the current lottery system or --at the very least-- for future, more comprehensive official surveys.

Data Source

Parents were invited to participate in this survey through an electronic message. The message was brief and explained that the survey was 1) informal and 2) aimed to gather information on the assignment process, and 3) was intended for parents living in San Francisco The survey was distributed and posted online --it was publicized through posting on various blogs and listservs (the SF K files, the SF schools blog and listserv, the PPS listserv) and sent out to email lists which also forwarded the survey. It was not translated into any other languages. There was no attempt to do outreach to other communities. Data was collected from 8-8-08 until 9-15-08

Study population, response rate, limitations

It is uncertain, but perhaps up to 1,000 parents received the email or posted message to participate in the survey and 169 responded and completed the survey (if this guess is correct, this would be a 17% response rate). We also did not ask reasons for not participating (such as: does not apply, refused, and why refused). In short, we acknowledge that this is a self-selected study population and that finding should be limited in generalization. We also acknowledge a weak survey design and low numbers in certain response categories. Because of the number of limitations of this study, we assume that all results may have low reliability and validly. The total sample size is n = 169.

Results

Of the 169 respondents, 99 (59%) were first time parents of (then soon-to-be) kindergarteners. 28 (16%) already had a child in SFUSD, 23 (14%) had children in preschool, 4 ( 2%) had children in private school, and the remaining did not respond. The survey did not collect data on income, economic indicators, or racial or ethnic background.

Of the 169 respondents, 109 (64%) answered the question: “If you participated in the kindergarten lottery this year, what was the outcome?” Forty eight percent of those did not get any of their Round I choices (all but 8 of those parents listed 7 choices) and sixty-seven percent of all respondents needed some kind of aftercare (the survey did not ask about before-care). Thirty-six percent needed full-time aftercare.

The one larger demographic question in the survey, “what is your zip code?”, revealed that only 25% (42 out of 169) of respondents came from more Eastern zip codes (94107, 94109, 94110, 94111, 94112), and that 48% came from zip codes roughly representing the Richmond, Sunset, Presidio, Marina, Noe Valley and Castro neighborhoods (94114, 94116, 94118, 94121, 94122, 94127). The remaining 26% of the sample were in neighborhoods that were difficult to classify or were mixed, such as the 94115 zip, which encompasses both parts of Pacific Heights and the Western Addition. These zip codes included: 94115, 94117, 94128, 94131, 94132, and 94133. It is fair to say that this is clearly not a sample representative of the SFUSD population.
___________
Zip code Percentage from this zip # from this zip
94107 3.6% 6
94109 0.6% 1
94110 12.4% 21
94111 0.6% 1
94112 6.5% 11
94114 7.1% 12
94115 0.6% 1
94116 7.1% 12
94117 8.3% 14
94118 5.3% 9
94121 9.5% 16
94122 10.7% 18
94123 0.6% 1
94124 1.2% 2
94127 7.1% 12
94128 0.6% 1
94129 0.6% 1
94131 14% 23
94132 0.6% 1
94133 2.4% 4
94134 1.2% 2
______________

Lastly, we acknowledge that the survey was a bit cumbersome to fill out and also somewhat hastily designed. For this reason, and since it was intended to be an informal survey, I have called the findings tentative.

Tentative Findings:

Assignment System Changes

Here are the most popular changes respondents wanted to see:

______________
Suggested change --Percentage of all respondents who would like to see this change

Knowing before Round I how many spots were not taken by siblings at each school (sibling admission run in advance) 73.6

Transparency about the assignment process: information given about how many spaces are available exactly at each school before Round II and before each wait pool run. 62.6

Some neighborhood component to school choice 62.6

More double-checking of coding and computer issues to avoid problems such as those that happened with sibling assignments, at McKinley, Alvarado and Flynn this year. 68.1

Quicker action when assignment errors are first detected 55.2%

Transparency about the assignment process: clearly communicate if our 1st choice school gets weighted more in Round I 54%

More transparency about the assignment process: no diversity index, straight lottery 50.9%

More community input into assignment process at all stages and when errors occur that need remediation 41.1%

Some way of being in more than one waitpool in the 10 day count 41.1%

Immersion programs to be run in advance of Round I in a separate lottery 34.4%

Waitpools extended past September 36.8%

The most popular schools/programs (Clarendon, Rooftop etc.) run first in a separate lottery 20.2%

Testing for home language (for immersion programs) 36.2%

Changing the ratio for immersion programs from a 50/50 split (native speaker of target language/native English speaker) to a 33/33/33 split (native speaker of target language/bilingual/native English speaker) 19.6 %
__________

The top 4 highest ranked choices for the most urgent changes parents want to see in the assignment process were:

(49% of respondents ranked as one of their top 4 priorities) Knowing before Round I how many spots were not taken by siblings at each school (sibling admission run in advance)
(49%) Some neighborhood component to school choice
(33%) No diversity index
(30%) Wanted information given about how many spaces are available exactly at each school before Round II and before each wait pool run.

Though the percentage of those wishing a neighborhood component to the assignment process seems high, we should remember that nearly 30% of respondents did NOT want this to be changed. Not surprisingly, this correlates highly with zip code. When separated into three groups --Western zip codes, Eastern zip codes, and mixed zip codes – where participants lived appeared related to how parents viewed incorporating neighborhood preference into the assignment system. Among respondents living in more western zip codes, 76.3% wanted the assignment system to be changed to take neighborhoods more into account. Among respondents living in more eastern zip codes, only 35.7% wanted neighborhood taken into account, and in the mixed neighborhoods, 65.1% wanted neighborhoods taken more into account.

The below tables capture what degree study participants want neighborhood to play in the assignment process. The majority (76%) of these parents want neighborhood schools, but only 40% of those want to be limited to their neighborhood schools. We understand that these response categories are not entirely exclusive and somewhat confusing –participants were also allowed to choose more than one answer, so the results add up to more than 100% in some cases, which complicates conclusions which may be drawn from these numbers.

______________
Take neighborhood into account? --% of all respondents % of 2008 K applicants with no sibling preference % of respondents who did not get a choice in Round I

Yes, but I wouldn't want to be forced to attend a school, I'd like to preserve some aspect of choice. 40.1% 44% 53.2%

Yes, and I'd like a guarantee of which school my child would attend. 8.9% 4.3% 4.3%

Yes, and I'd like a guarantee that my child would attend one of a limited number of schools close to my home. 31.8% 36.2% 38.3%

No, I want to be able to choose freely from all San Francisco schools, but I think the current system needs to be changed. 24.2% 20.2% 14.9%

No, I like the assignment system the way it is now. 7.0% 8.5% 2.1%
_____________________

From the responses to this item, we can see that choice is important to people. Only 9% of respondents (and only 4% of those that applied this year) wanted to be automatically assigned to their closest school with no choice (though confusingly, in a later question, 15% of respondents endorsed a similar option as their first choice).

It is also clear that few people (7%) are happy with the assignment system the way that it is now.

Here are the responses for a question which asked participants to rank their top 4 choices for a new assignment system.

______________________________________
Assignment idea -----% who ranked this first (n=157)

Assigns you to your neighborhood school in a way that is predictable based on where you live (your address determines your school). 15%

Gives you a choice of 3-5 schools around you in a zone 4%

Gives you a choice of 3-5 schools around you in a zone and you are guaranteed one of these, and allows you also to request a school outside your zone (language/cultural programs, schools in other neighborhoods) in a lottery system. 38%

Gives you a choice of 7 or so schools within a certain distance from you (not a zone, but geographically based on your individual coordinates) and you are guaranteed one 5%

Gives you a choice of 7 or so schools within a certain distance from you (not a zone, but geographically based on your individual coordinates) and you are guaranteed one, also allows you to enter a lottery for schools outside this area. 17%

School-wide choice system with 7 ranked choices (no guarantees) with more efficient mechanisms for diversity. 8%

School-wide choice system with 7 ranked choices but no guarantees, and no diversity index (straight lottery). 5%

I would like to rank my idea (detailed below) 4%
__________

The most popular assignment system ideas involved some kind of neighborhood zone or geographical distance from home, PLUS a lottery for schools with a special focus (immersion, cultural programs) or for schools in another part of the city (55% of respondents rated such a combination as their first choice). Sixty-four percent of respondents wanted some kind of neighborhood zone or geographically-determined way of allowing families to choose from nearby schools (with and without a district-wide lottery combo) as their first choice. Only 13% ranked a school-wide 7 choices system as their first choice, and only 15% wanted a pure and predictable assignment to a neighborhood school as their first choice.

There are many other possibilities for designing a new assignment system. I only listed ones I could think of the day I wrote the survey (not particularly scientific or exhaustive). The survey invited participants to suggest their own ideas for a new assignment system, and many gave this quite a lot of thought. I have included these ideas in an appendix.

Tentative Interpretations of results

Four themes emerged in the results for this survey:

1. Choice
2. Transparency (clear communication of information that allows parents to make reasonable choices or choices which have a greater chance of success) and community participation
3. Accountability of the district (preventing, catching and fixing errors)
4. The question of neighborhood preference

1. Choice:

When thinking about an assignment system, the great majority of parents wanted to change the current system, but also ensure that they were given a choice in determining their child’s school.

The idea of choice was central as much to parents who wished to be able to send their child to a school anywhere in San Francisco as to parents who wanted their child to attend a school close to home. Only 15% of respondents said that they wanted their address to determine their school assignment in a predictable way (though predictability can also related to the idea of choice, as a family is then able to prepare for and feel more in control of where their child will go).

The vast majority (93%) of respondents were unhappy with the current system the way it is now. It is possible that much of this also has to do with choice. This year, only slightly more than half of all first-time kindergarten parents got any of their 7 Round I choices. The district touts parent choice as a central feature of its assignment system. For many families of 3 and 4 year olds looking towards planning school tours, having to see enough schools to be able to narrow the choice down to 7 good fits is a daunting idea, and seven seems like a very large number at that point. Many families take off multiple days of work and/or find extra child-care to accommodate a daunting schedule of school tours (67.5% of our respondents did 8 or more tours, 47% did more than 11 tours and 17% did more than 15 tours --these numbers include families who had sibling preference, and also those who applied to private schools as well), and for nearly half of those families, all of that hard work and weighing choices resulted in only an illusion of choice when they were assigned to a school not on their list.

The idea of choice was most apparent when looking at the most popular assignment options. Most popular options involved some kind of preferential neighborhood zone or geographical distance from home plus a lottery for schools with a special focus or for schools in another part of the city (55% of respondents rated different variations on this combination as their first choice).


2. Transparency:

Many families felt that there are ways the district and the EPC could communicate with families that would greatly help the assignment process. Most parents in our sample wanted the district to let families know how many spaces were actually available in each school/program before parents made a choice about listing it. This included letting families know how many spots were taken by siblings before Round I applications were due. This is the change that most participants wanted (74%) and that most felt strongly about. Most parents also wanted to know at each stage of the application process how many spots were available at each school/program before submitting Round II or waitpool lists. It can be exceedingly frustrating to submit a list of 8 Round II choices, only to find out that there was space only at one or two of those schools after Round I, or to choose a waitpool school which appears more likely to have openings over a school which would be a better fit, but already has a huge waitpool, only to find out that there were no openings during that Run in the waitpool school, but that multiple spaces had been available in the more preferred (but seemingly more unlikely) one (41% of participants and 52% of those who did not get a choice in Round I also felt it would be important to let families be in more than one waitpool in the 10 day count, which would mitigate this somewhat).

Participants felt strongly about other issues involving a perceived lack of transparency by the District and the EPC. Fifty-four percent of respondents (and 65% of those who did not get any choices in Round I) wanted the district to clearly communicate if the first choice on the Round I application is weighted more than other choices. In all promotional materials, enrollment workshops and counseling sessions, the District and the EPC clearly explain that, unless a school receives fewer 1st choice applications than spaces, there is no privileging of an applicants 1st choice over any other choice. The idea, as I understand it, is that a separate lottery is run for every school. Each school considers each family based on the diversity index, and irrespective of what ranking the family gave the school. A family has an equal chance of getting any of their 7 choices in the lottery. In the case that an applicant gets chosen in more than one school lottery, the computer will assign the family to the school they have ranked highest.

But many parents have noticed that, unless a family meets one or more of the diversity index criteria (language other than English spoken at home, no preschool, economic factors), the vast majority of families seem to get assigned either their first choice in the lottery, or nothing. How can this be, if every choice is truly weighted equally? So there are rumors that the first choice must be somehow weighted more. This has important implications for families filling out Round I applications. Say a family likes 3 schools almost equally well: the first two are a neighborhood school and an immersion program which are both popular, but not overwhelmingly so, and one is one of the most popular schools in the District, receiving around a thousand requests for 13 spots (after siblings were placed). If all Round I choices are equally weighted, the parents, feeling that if they were given the choice of any of the three schools, might slightly prefer the most popular one, would list that program first (even though their chances at getting a spot are almost non-existent, it does not matter much since they have an equal chance at getting choice 2 or 3, which they also love). But, if the first choice is really weighted much more, they have essentially thrown away any chance at getting a Round I pick, unless they happen to have listed schools which were under-enrolled after Round I (which were not always the same schools as were enrolled the year before). Not surprisingly, lack of transparency in general contributes to speculation around this and other issues, which can lead parents to imagine that they are not only not getting all of the information they could, but that they are possibly being deliberately misled in a way which has led them to forfeit any chance at choosing their child’s school.

Stories often circulate about people being told one thing by the EPC, only to have it contradicted or later exposed as something that was never true. These kinds of experiences only foster a sense of frustration at any lack of transparency, and a feeling that the District is not helping parents make the best choices or come up with the best strategy for finding the best match of school for their child.

Many respondents feel frustrated by the lack of transparency of the diversity index and difficulty understanding how assignments are actually made. This, combined with recent findings that the diversity index has not substantially served to diversify schools, may have contributed to the 51% of respondents who wanted the diversity index abolished in favor of a straight (and more straightforward) lottery.

3. Accountability:

Participants felt that the District and EPC needed to be more accountable for preventing assignment errors and for fixing them quickly when they did occur, with more community input about solutions. Sixty-eight percent of respondents wanted the district to provide more double-checking of coding and computer issues to avoid problems such as those that happened with sibling assignments, and the assignment errors at McKinley, Alvarado and Flynn this year), and 55% of respondents wanted the District to take quicker action when assignment errors were detected. Forty one percent of respondents wanted the District to take make a greater effort to get more community input into assignment process at all stages and when errors occur that need remediation

4. The question of neighborhood preference:

Opinion about whether people should be given some kind of preference for a school nearby is split. A sizable number want this, and a somewhat smaller but still sizable number don’t. When we divided the sample into three groups of zip codes, the western zip codes had a much higher percentage in favor of neighborhood preference than did the eastern zip codes (76% vs. 36%).

My suspicion is that with a more demographically balanced survey the zip-code discrepancy might not be so large, but the significance of this difference suggests that: among parents active on the internet, those who live in neighborhoods where schools are perceived to be higher quality are more likely to want neighborhood preference, where those who live in neighborhoods where there are fewer schools perceived to be higher quality wish to preserve their right to choose city-wide.

However, there are indications that the issue of neighborhood preference is complicated and charged. When respondents were first asked about neighborhood preference, a full 34% stated that they did not want it, and wanted to choose freely from all San Francisco schools. However, when asked to rank their choices of an assignment system, only 13% chose a city-wide system with no provision for neighborhood or geographical location. What can this result mean? Perhaps that the aspect of preserving choice is key. It may be that, if the choice still remains to be able to attend any school in San Francisco, a system which combines neighborhood and other factors, and which allows city-wide choice may be more attractive.

There was also some disagreement amongst survey respondents (as captured in written comments submitted with the survey) about the degree that neighborhood is currently weighted in the assignment system. My understanding of this when I wrote the survey was that an applicant family has a slight advantage in receiving their assignment area school (which may or may not be the school closest to them) only if they add diversity in one or more diversity factors to the already existing school population (siblings already in the cohort, plus each entering child as names are drawn by the computer). If a family does not differ substantially from the majority of the families that already attend the school in diversity index criteria, my understanding is that there is no assignment area preference whatsoever. However, several respondents disagreed with this, stating in their comments that neighborhood is clearly already taken into account in applications. To me, this says something about the lack of transparency of the assignment system: people often do vehemently disagree about what is actually currently weighed or not, and how the process of assigning occurs.

Summary:

The tentative findings suggest that most families would support changing the neighborhood assignment system to one that incorporated some kind of zone or geographic area where a family would have preference, with an ability to enter a lottery for schools outside this area. The key element in such a system would be to safeguard parents’ abilities to get an assignment of their choice.

However, the more serious finding of this survey is the lack of trust among parents for the way the District/EPC runs the assignment process.

The image of the District and the EPC that emerges from the survey is one where the District is not procuring or is actively withholding information (about available seats) or deliberately concealing or misleading parents (about weight of first choice, or covering up assignment errors). There is a lack of trust that the computer system will not make errors, that the coding is not being sufficiently checked so that assignment errors will occur, and –perhaps most seriously – a feeling that when errors do occur, that the District will do nothing to reveal this fact, or to take any action until forced. When trying to remediate a problem or error, there is a sense that the District will act in an unpredictable way, without taking community input into account.

This lack of trust may also be exacerbated by the high number of first time kindergarten families who got none of their Round I choices this year (around 45%). This has implications when designing a new assignment process –as parents may not trust that any new system will have room for their needs and not lower their chances of getting a school that is a good fit for their family.

Suggestions of how to make use of these tentative findings:

1. Solve the easy-to-fix problems quickly: in the lottery for the 2008 year, run the siblings first. Let people know the spaces available in each school before Round II and subsequent runs. If possible, come up with a system that lets families be on more than one (say, 3?) waitpools in the 10 day count.

2. Strive for more accountability: double-check coding (especially, but not only, in the areas where there were error problems this year). When there is a problem (whether it is a mistake in coding, or a failure to anticipate an extra 300 kindergarten applications than planed for), reveal it quickly and go about fixing it (with community input) right away. Keep promises made to schools and community groups.

3. Strive for more transparency: In addition to the easy-to-fix measures above, make sure District and EPC representatives are giving accurate and consistent information (about weighting first choice schools in Round I, about sibling preference for twins, about whether the diversity index is used in the waitpool runs, about whether students are being tested for language proficiency etc. etc.). Then release information to the public that will prove that the District is being entirely open and forthcoming (computer formulas for assignment, internal written policy on placement issues etc.).

4. Strive for ways of maximizing families’ effective choice. Come up with an assignment system that lets families who want a choice between schools close to home do that, and those who want to have a city-wide choice do that. And take steps to maximize each family’s chance of getting one of the schools they most want. The emphasis on closing the achievement gap and improving schools in all neighborhoods should help.

5. Strive for more community input: in the process of coming up with a new assignment system, or indeed with any issue, cast your net wide. Solicit ideas from parents of present and future students, from community-based organizations like Parents for Public Schools and the SFAME. Run your top ideas past people to see what the unanticipated impact might be, what the holes in the ideas might be. Solicit community input for making those ideas better. Put out more surveys (hopefully a bit more well-designed and thorough than this one, and with more outreach to all SF families)! Work with community and parent groups to implement recommendations, such as those gained from the thorough SERR report.


Thank you for reading this summary. If you have any questions, or would like a copy of the raw data, please email me at iamabby@comcast.net.

I would especially like to acknowledge the help of Chris Tonner in helping edit the statistical reporting sections of this report!

Abigail Marks, Ph.D.

___________________________________________________________
Appendix: Submitted ideas from participants for a new assignment system:

1. Since good schools are obviously tied to good neighborhoods, the top 7 schools should share resources with the bottom 7 schools, thus the entire system would improve. It would be like a sister schools porgram where parents help parents, shared fundraisers, etc.

2. Immersion/Excellent schools should be given a new designation preventing them from being in the neighborhood pools. Then a lottery for your top 7 schools (within these Immersion/Excellent Schools). Then you are guaranteed the school closest to you by distance first (walking), as well as given a choice of 3-5 within a certain distance.

3. insofar that honoring neighborhood preference needs to be factored in, consider: Give neighborhood preference to parents who feel that at least 1 and up to 3 of their neighborhood schools meet their criteria of acceptability, but don't penalize parents whose neighborhood schools may not meet not aceptable criteria. That is, parents can choose to "opt-in" for neighborhood preference, but limit their top choices to maybe 3 schools within a certain radius as preference schools, or parents can choose to "opt-out" and express 7 ranked preference schools in the citywide lottery. Have the "opt-in" group lottery applications, lottery, and assignments first then, publicize the number of still available sports at each school to the "opt-out" population and allow this population to change up to their top 3 assignments based on the remaining available spots, but if the "opt-out" parents change one or more of their top 3 because the remaining available spots at these schools has fallen below 50% after the opt-in lottery assignments, then use some formula to give the opt-out parents some additional priority for their 1 to 3 top choices, where the schools they originally selected are ones with a significant decrease in availability after the opt-in neighborhood preference round. Sounds complicated to program and administer, but it really is not. And it actually opens up more opportunities for a true informed choice by separating populations where neighborhood preference is a desirable choice and populations where a city-wide distribution is more desirable because of unsatisfactory neighborhood schools.

4. Use the first choice each family lists for the first run. Then, if space remains available, move to choice 2, 3, and so on. This would allow families who really do prefer a school that is not crazily over-subscribed like Clarendon, say Miraloma or Grattan, or the like, to have a much better chance of getting their first choice.

5. School vouchers

6. "Close" to home may not work for everyone which is why I like the choice of 7. For example, some schools may be close to work or closer to who will be helping with aftercare (eg: a relative, etc.). Geography should be considered, but it should not be the sole factor. My "neighborhood" school was not one of my 7 choices. The SFUSD's "zone" is arbitrary -- what if you live at the border? The idea of 3 or so "neighborhood" schools is better -- it gives you some choice while still having geography taken into consideration.

7. A four-stage process (sounds worse than it is) EARLY ASSIGNMENT Before tour season, do Early Assignments for 3 categories: Priority 1: Special Needs Priority 2: ESL families to bilingual upon request Priority 3: Siblings Announce available space in each strand of each class after Early Assignments. That way people can make better use of their tour time and not waste their choices on a school that appears to have 40 kindergarten seats but really only has 13 due to sibling preferences. Do LOTS of outreach to historically less-engaged communities to educate them about the process. ROUND 1 Tours: Set a 3 week tour season. Have schools coordinate to maximize parent opportunities to tour without disrupting the academic day. Enrollment: Give each family ONE priority choice. They can list one immersion, one other magnet program, or one school within one mile of home as their priority choice. If there are too many priority choices per class, assign those requests at random until the classes are full, with school-established home language split for immersion, until each priority choice class fills. A family can also waive the priority choice. Give each family six other choices to list in order of preference (or 7 if they don't want to make a priority choice). Fill the available spaces in those classes by pure random lottery if there are too many requests per class. Create a randomly-generated wait list for any participating family that did not get assigned to a requested school in Round 1. Allow enrollment at Round 1 assignments for 10 days. Anybody who does not enroll gives up their spot and it will be offered to someone on the wait list. The wait list will be open for 7 days. Any family who gets a wait list offer and does not accept it by the 7-day deadline gives up their spot. Do NOT assign people to schools they did not request after Round 1. AFTER ROUND 1 If a family participated in Round 1 by listing 7 schools and got no choices and no wait list offer, they can participate in Round 2. If a family did not participate in Round 1, if they listed fewer than 7 choices in Round 1, or if they participated in Round 1 and did not enroll in a school of their choice that was offered to them, they cannot participate in Round 2. ROUND 2 Announce spaces remaining in each class. Open a two-week "Round 2 tour season." Round 2 families get to list 7 more schools. Schools without openings cannot be listed and if a family lists one that will be deemed a non-choice. Again, let them have one priority choice of either one immersion program, one other magnet program, or one school within one mile of their home. After doing the priority preferences by random lottery (assuming they are over-requested), assign them to their remaining choices by random lottery. Follow the same 17-day enrollment plus wait list process as for Round 1. POST-LOTTERY Active participants first: Anyone who listed 7 choices in both Round 1 and Round 2 but was not offered a place in a requested school from the lottery or the post-lottery wait list will have 10 days to enroll in any school with openings and will be given a priority wait list spot on one school of their choice. (If more than one active participant requests the wait list at the same school, list positions will be assigned by random drawing.) Others later: The following would be "Others": Anyone who got a Round 1 or Round 2 requested school but chose not to enroll Anyone who did not list 7 choices for both Round 1 and Round 2 Anyone who qualified for Post Round 2 "active participant" enrollment but did not enroll Assign the "others" randomly to the school with openings closest to their home. They can wait list one school but will have lower priority than the active participant families. AFTER/OTHER Keep collecting the data and see how it goes in these areas: educational performance, cost-effectiveness of the lottery, parent satisfaction and engagement, and diversity. Communicate with families. The immersion and other magnet programs, if they are perceived to be of good quality, have been proven to attract a more diverse population to struggling schools. Find out what families want. ADVANTAGES Families can still set their own priorities in their choices: proximity, language immersion, etc. Families are rewarded for active participation in the process. Process is more transparent. Parents are aware of available space at each step of the process and can make more rational use of their time and lottery choices.


8. college enrollment style online admissions -- assign everyone an enrollment time (or appointment with EPC for those without online access.) Choose your school in real time from those available. "Lottery" would be run to determine enrollment time. Siblings and other priority cohort pre-assigned.
9. Gives you a neighborhood zone, and you have three choices: 1. rank schools within that zone and you're given preference 2. rank schools within a different neighborhood's zone you like better and you're given preference and 3. rank schools city-wide and you're given preference for all schools.

10. If you leave lottery as is, run ONLY the people who rank a school in 1st place first. Then if that school is full, so be it. Thus the people who put less desired schools first will essentially be guaranteed a spot and the people who put high demand schools will truly be subject to a lottery and will have to go into a wait pool after losing the lottery. Then the "hidden gem" schools will be filled with people who truly want to be there and are excited to be there. Even the high demand schools will be filled with people who want to be there. Why on earth should someone who puts Clarendon 4th on their list get that assignment?! (that currently does happen).

11. Guaranteed my neighborhood school, but if I want to choose outside of that, straight lottery. We need to eliminate the lying. Also, I don't think it's fair that parents who don't get one of their choices when they put down less than 7 schools should be higher-ranked in the pool than the parents who got one of their choices but still want to be in the waiting pool. This totally ticks me off, because so many parents just put down the Clarendon, the Rooftop. They're not really serious about public school. These are not the parents who end up putting their kids in public school. They're hedging their bets. That also rewards them for not putting down 7. Why are they given an advantage over a parent who puts down 7?

12. special needs kids placed outside of lottery--with choice of any school

13. Guarantee of 1 neighborhood school plus lottery for special programs (language immersion, arts, etc.). Obviously the special programs need to be in undersubscribed schools for this to work.

14. WHY DO WE HAVE TO LIMIT OUR LIST TO SEVEN? I'D LIKE TO LIST MORE