I read the article. I was wondering about other matters.
beetnemesis Send a noteboard - 21/09/2011 04:16:06 AM
Then they had a lottery to get into the better schools. Yes the good schools suddenly had a much larger rooster but even so the kids who were able to transfer into the good schools out performed the kids who tried to get into the good school but couldn't even thought the good school would now be full to capacity.
I read about the lottery, I was wondering how the rosters compared before and after this happened.
Presumably, everyone who was in a "good school" would stay put. So, how many slots were open to new students? Were the good schools not anywhere near full capacity, and that let them take in many other students? How much bigger did the schools get? (A school going from 100 per grade to 150 per grade is going to have some major changes in place)
Also, how much smaller did the bad schools get?
I don't expect you to have the information, I'm just wondering. There's big difference in taking in 5 or 10 new students, and taking in 50.
I amuse myself.
School choice works
- 20/09/2011 10:25:16 PM
596 Views
The word "duh" comes to mind.
- 20/09/2011 11:01:26 PM
316 Views
Regardless, you don't refuse to save some just because you can't save all. *NM*
- 20/09/2011 11:43:04 PM
129 Views
When saving some comes at the cost of dooming others, you might. 
- 20/09/2011 11:50:05 PM
283 Views
- 20/09/2011 11:50:05 PM
283 Views
I would assume they kids were taking the extra spots the schools hadm.n
- 21/09/2011 12:41:20 AM
306 Views
Yes, well, they might be performing better exactly because they run below maximum capacity.
- 21/09/2011 08:53:58 PM
271 Views
Cool cool. I'm confused, though- won't pretty much everyone try to get into the "better" schools?
- 20/09/2011 11:47:45 PM
284 Views
If you read the aritcle it tells you the good schools were full to capacity
- 21/09/2011 12:17:15 AM
288 Views
I read the article. I was wondering about other matters.
- 21/09/2011 04:16:06 AM
291 Views