Petition to keep School-Within-School (SWS) a true neighborhood school!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am curious - anyone have an explanation for why SWS was predominantly white? Odd, given the equal opportunity to enroll (back in the day). Same question for Tyler Si. What's up?

I don't know that either Tyler SI/SWS were *predominantly* white -- rather, they were significantly whiter than Peabody and Tyler-non SI. And I think that was not b/c of a lack of black families applying to SWS/Tyler SI, but b/c of a lack of white families applying to Peabody/Tyler non-SI.

The reason the Hill schools are full of OOB kids is b/c there are spaces for them that aren't filled by IB kids. If you don't want OOB kids there, fill those spaces with your kids.

(FWIW, I am an OOB parent at a Hill school -- though I do live on the Hill, just not IB for the specific school my kid attends.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am curious - anyone have an explanation for why SWS was predominantly white? Odd, given the equal opportunity to enroll (back in the day). Same question for Tyler Si. What's up?

I don't know that either Tyler SI/SWS were *predominantly* white -- rather, they were significantly whiter than Peabody and Tyler-non SI. And I think that was not b/c of a lack of black families applying to SWS/Tyler SI, but b/c of a lack of white families applying to Peabody/Tyler non-SI.

The reason the Hill schools are full of OOB kids is b/c there are spaces for them that aren't filled by IB kids. If you don't want OOB kids there, fill those spaces with your kids.

(FWIW, I am an OOB parent at a Hill school -- though I do live on the Hill, just not IB for the specific school my kid attends.)

I agree with the bolded. And I am also an OOB parent at two Hill schools, however I do not live on the hill, I live in Ward 8.

[Anonymous]

It bugs me to no end when IB families bemoan OOB families without acknowledging that OOB are what carried a school when IB families were ignoring that school in favor or some other OOB, charter or private school because their IB wasn't perceived as good enough. But after OOB families do the hard work to support and raise up a school those IB want to send the OOB away. Typical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It bugs me to no end when IB families bemoan OOB families without acknowledging that OOB are what carried a school when IB families were ignoring that school in favor or some other OOB, charter or private school because their IB wasn't perceived as good enough. But after OOB families do the hard work to support and raise up a school those IB want to send the OOB away. Typical.

Or more realistically those current IB families 1) did not reside within that boundary at that time, 2) did not have children at that time, or 3) some combination or 1) & 2)

By the time a school experiences this kind of turnaround (ie 3-5 years depending on the school, level of the parent involvement, etc) it's often an entirely new crop of families getting on board.

I suspect a lot of the angst on these boards come from parents with young children who are concerned about future PS3 seats for their young children. The crowd clamoring for SWS proximity is not parents with school aged children. That ship has pretty much sailed. This is future turf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Now, if the school system would have went with notion of using Capitol Hill neighborhoods (10 neighborhood blocks) to populate a school then we wouldn't need Eastern now would we?

I don't understand this quote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I don't know that either Tyler SI/SWS were *predominantly* white -- rather, they were significantly whiter than Peabody and Tyler-non SI. And I think that was not b/c of a lack of black families applying to SWS/Tyler SI, but b/c of a lack of white families applying to Peabody/Tyler non-SI.

SWS is pretty white - not exclusively, but mostly. And it is driven I think in part by who in the neighborhood wants a specialized reggio program and who doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It bugs me to no end when IB families bemoan OOB families without acknowledging that OOB are what carried a school when IB families were ignoring that school in favor or some other OOB, charter or private school because their IB wasn't perceived as good enough. But after OOB families do the hard work to support and raise up a school those IB want to send the OOB away. Typical.

Or more realistically those current IB families 1) did not reside within that boundary at that time, 2) did not have children at that time, or 3) some combination or 1) & 2)

By the time a school experiences this kind of turnaround (ie 3-5 years depending on the school, level of the parent involvement, etc) it's often an entirely new crop of families getting on board.

I suspect a lot of the angst on these boards come from parents with young children who are concerned about future PS3 seats for their young children. The crowd clamoring for SWS proximity is not parents with school aged children. That ship has pretty much sailed. This is future turf.

To be fair, the OOB families of today aren't the same ones who "carried" the school in the past either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now, if the school system would have went with notion of using Capitol Hill neighborhoods (10 neighborhood blocks) to populate a school then we wouldn't need Eastern now would we?

I don't understand this quote.

Word salad lady?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It bugs me to no end when IB families bemoan OOB families without acknowledging that OOB are what carried a school when IB families were ignoring that school in favor or some other OOB, charter or private school because their IB wasn't perceived as good enough. But after OOB families do the hard work to support and raise up a school those IB want to send the OOB away. Typical.

Or more realistically those current IB families 1) did not reside within that boundary at that time, 2) did not have children at that time, or 3) some combination or 1) & 2)

By the time a school experiences this kind of turnaround (ie 3-5 years depending on the school, level of the parent involvement, etc) it's often an entirely new crop of families getting on board.

I suspect a lot of the angst on these boards come from parents with young children who are concerned about future PS3 seats for their young children. The crowd clamoring for SWS proximity is not parents with school aged children. That ship has pretty much sailed. This is future turf.

To be fair, the OOB families of today aren't the same ones who "carried" the school in the past either.

If it's OOB kids who have spots that IB families say they wanted, then yes, they likely are. The only way OOB families get spots at "desirable" schools is if IB families say "I'll pass."With the exception of Bancroft (which gives siblings of OOB students preference before IB kids) IB always get preference. So you'll find that many OOB kids at good schools are families that have been there a long time via older siblings. At most good schools it's become very rare that a straight up OOB student without some sort of preference gets in.

[Anonymous]

Back to the original point of the thread...I don't see SWS being made a neighborhood school. Children from other areas are facing closing schools...taking away yet another choice is something Henderson isn't willing to do politically, even if it makes a small pocket of families happy. I mean, we're a couple days into this petition and it hasn't even gotten its 300 signatures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reason the Hill schools are full of OOB kids is b/c there are spaces for them that aren't filled by IB kids. If you don't want OOB kids there, fill those spaces with your kids.

(FWIW, I am an OOB parent at a Hill school -- though I do live on the Hill, just not IB for the specific school my kid attends.)

If only it were that simple, just fill those spaces with your kids. The problem with this recommendation is that it's made to individuals when Hill gentrifiers have a herd mentality. What happened at Brent and Maury in the early 2000s is that yuppies with toddlers who were getting to know one another at local playgrounds (at Turtle and Lincoln Parks) decided to band together to change school cultures to the point that they would be comfortable sending their own children to their IB schools. They have succeeded in spades to the point that, to some extent, their schools have become victims of their own success. Brent's FARMS percentage is now in the teens, and dropping with every passing year. You're not getting that sort of group cohension or momentum with the Stanton Park crowd. If you were, you wouldn't simply see a petition to keep SWS a neighborhood school, you would have seen one to oust Principal Cobbs at Ludlow-Taylor. Maybe that petition is coming. I'm looking forward to seeing L-T fixed up at any rate - maybe new windows will inspire new thinking. A shiny renovation hasn't hurt JO Wilson - you hear about a neighborhood-supported PTA coming together there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to the original point of the thread...I don't see SWS being made a neighborhood school. Children from other areas are facing closing schools...taking away yet another choice is something Henderson isn't willing to do politically, even if it makes a small pocket of families happy. I mean, we're a couple days into this petition and it hasn't even gotten its 300 signatures.

+1. I'm sure you're right. The petition seems hopeless. The school boundaries battle is bogged down as Henderson and Catania duke it out. SWS would need boundaries, if just in the form of a proximity preference with the proximity square (3000 feet per side) providing de facto boundaries, to serve the neighborhood. No boundaries, no preference, even if the political will were there, which it isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the original point of the thread...I don't see SWS being made a neighborhood school. Children from other areas are facing closing schools...taking away yet another choice is something Henderson isn't willing to do politically, even if it makes a small pocket of families happy. I mean, we're a couple days into this petition and it hasn't even gotten its 300 signatures.

+1. I'm sure you're right. The petition seems hopeless. The school boundaries battle is bogged down as Henderson and Catania duke it out. SWS would need boundaries, if just in the form of a proximity preference with the proximity square (3000 feet per side) providing de facto boundaries, to serve the neighborhood. No boundaries, no preference, even if the political will were there, which it isn't.

Actually the petition has been circulating for WEEKS now, and doesn't have 300 signatures. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It bugs me to no end when IB families bemoan OOB families without acknowledging that OOB are what carried a school when IB families were ignoring that school in favor or some other OOB, charter or private school because their IB wasn't perceived as good enough. But after OOB families do the hard work to support and raise up a school those IB want to send the OOB away. Typical.

Or more realistically those current IB families 1) did not reside within that boundary at that time, 2) did not have children at that time, or 3) some combination or 1) & 2)

By the time a school experiences this kind of turnaround (ie 3-5 years depending on the school, level of the parent involvement, etc) it's often an entirely new crop of families getting on board.

I suspect a lot of the angst on these boards come from parents with young children who are concerned about future PS3 seats for their young children. The crowd clamoring for SWS proximity is not parents with school aged children. That ship has pretty much sailed. This is future turf.

To be fair, the OOB families of today aren't the same ones who "carried" the school in the past either.

If it's OOB kids who have spots that IB families say they wanted, then yes, they likely are. The only way OOB families get spots at "desirable" schools is if IB families say "I'll pass."With the exception of Bancroft (which gives siblings of OOB students preference before IB kids) IB always get preference. So you'll find that many OOB kids at good schools are families that have been there a long time via older siblings. At most good schools it's become very rare that a straight up OOB student without some sort of preference gets in.

Or - the OOB folks who lament a lack of spots at "desirable" schools should be raising holy hell about their own IB choice, getting involved and demanding change at their own school - which is how the "desirable" schools became "desirable" in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It bugs me to no end when IB families bemoan OOB families without acknowledging that OOB are what carried a school when IB families were ignoring that school in favor or some other OOB, charter or private school because their IB wasn't perceived as good enough. But after OOB families do the hard work to support and raise up a school those IB want to send the OOB away. Typical.

Or more realistically those current IB families 1) did not reside within that boundary at that time, 2) did not have children at that time, or 3) some combination or 1) & 2)

By the time a school experiences this kind of turnaround (ie 3-5 years depending on the school, level of the parent involvement, etc) it's often an entirely new crop of families getting on board.

I suspect a lot of the angst on these boards come from parents with young children who are concerned about future PS3 seats for their young children. The crowd clamoring for SWS proximity is not parents with school aged children. That ship has pretty much sailed. This is future turf.

To be fair, the OOB families of today aren't the same ones who "carried" the school in the past either.

If it's OOB kids who have spots that IB families say they wanted, then yes, they likely are. The only way OOB families get spots at "desirable" schools is if IB families say "I'll pass."With the exception of Bancroft (which gives siblings of OOB students preference before IB kids) IB always get preference. So you'll find that many OOB kids at good schools are families that have been there a long time via older siblings. At most good schools it's become very rare that a straight up OOB student without some sort of preference gets in.

Or - the OOB folks who lament a lack of spots at "desirable" schools should be raising holy hell about their own IB choice, getting involved and demanding change at their own school - which is how the "desirable" schools became "desirable" in the first place.

Blah, blah, blah. When your children are school age that is NOT the time to get involved to turn around a bad school in order to serve those kids. Nope. Parents will sent their kids to schools that are already good or on the cusp of being good. Who is going to waste/risk their child's only shot at their education on a failing school? Parents with no other choices or parents who just dont care, that's who. This PP's argument while it sounds reasonable it actually ridiculous. Now if parents who are parents of an infant or who are trying to get pregnant would get involved and do the "demanding"!then that MIGHT provide enough time for a turnaround. Schools don't become good overnight.