DME Meeting at SWS June 5th

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1. Also an SWS parent who thinks proximity preference is a good idea for the health of the school---but not boundaries since it is a specialized school. This is basically how it ran as part of the cluster: families could opt in or take their default neighborhood school ( Peabody ).

I say this not caring one iota what race the households around the school are. And those of you who think my opinion hinges on some kind of race hang up can go take a flying leap and drop your own hang ups as you go. What a crock.

Pp, can you clarify why you think it's healthier again? I personally have gone back-and-forth on the matte, I see benefits AND detractors to proximity preference. I also think it's an important question to ask where the lottery winners this year came from. I've heard that most of the lotteryn" winners" this year were from the immediate neighborhood anyway, because people in the area ranked it high on their lottery applications. Can anyone from the school confirm that? If the school remains a "city-wide" school and we find that through the common lottery it mostly remains a neighborhood school anyway is it fair to argue against the minimal number of families who gain access to it,fromoutside of the neighborhood? If those families are particularly invested and interested in the model, shouldn't they be welcome?

Sounds like win-win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There were no IB rights to Prospect LC, which is SWS's new home.

Actually, SWS's new home is the Goding Elementary building, which educated neighborhood children until it was closed about a decade ago.

Doesn't that mean the same result in the end? We're talking about a building that wasn't in use, and that didn't have a boundary. Nobody had anything taken away from them.

Actually, all of families who were sending their children to Goding had the school taken away from them when it was closed.

Are you planning to tell the Van Ness families that they shouldn't be able to go to school at Van Ness too since it wasn't "taken away from them?" I somewhat imagine decisions about how to set up schools and to draw boundaries for them being made on a more principled level than that. Until a couple years ago, every DCPS elementary school admitted the students who lived near them. Lots of us think that's how they should continue to operate.

Yes, of course. But they don't always get the option to attend EVERY school that is near them. Plenty of families live close to one school but are zoned for a different nearby school. If you somehow don't have a neighborhood school at all, that would be cause for concern.

Actually, people do get proximity preference for every school that they live within 1500 feet of in DC. I am inbound for Miner, but I have proximity preference at Maury. While proximity preference doesn't get me a seat at Maury right now because it fills up with IB kids, it does get me at the top of the list for OOB kids without sibling preference. This is essentially what is being asked for at SWS by the neighbors. Since there isn't an IB population, there is only sibling preference at SWS and, since the preferences in DC go IB, sibling, proximity, I don't see why proximity preference at SWS is looked at so harshly by some people. Giving it is just treating the school like others in DC. No boundary does not have to mean that the other two preference categories must be discarded. If you take away proximity preference at SWS, should you also take away sibling preference?

Sigh. But in the absence of an in-boundary population, proximity becomes a de facto boundary. Then you have a citywide school that accepts nobody but siblings and immediate neighbors. And is almost entirely white, which frankly looks bad in a city where we're trying to at least look like we're trying to bridge the achievement gap.

If it is truly a citywide school, why is it almost exclusively white? Shouldn't it be mostly black if it takes kids at random in the common lottery? If only white people from Capitol Hill are picking it in the lottery anyway, then giving preference to the white people who happen to live close by really isn't going to harm its non-existent "diversity."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1. Also an SWS parent who thinks proximity preference is a good idea for the health of the school---but not boundaries since it is a specialized school. This is basically how it ran as part of the cluster: families could opt in or take their default neighborhood school ( Peabody ).

I say this not caring one iota what race the households around the school are. And those of you who think my opinion hinges on some kind of race hang up can go take a flying leap and drop your own hang ups as you go. What a crock.

Pp, can you clarify why you think it's healthier again? I personally have gone back-and-forth on the matte, I see benefits AND detractors to proximity preference. I also think it's an important question to ask where the lottery winners this year came from. I've heard that most of the lotteryn" winners" this year were from the immediate neighborhood anyway, because people in the area ranked it high on their lottery applications. Can anyone from the school confirm that? If the school remains a "city-wide" school and we find that through the common lottery it mostly remains a neighborhood school anyway is it fair to argue against the minimal number of families who gain access to it,fromoutside of the neighborhood? If those families are particularly invested and interested in the model, shouldn't they be welcome?

Anything which further disadvantages our already most vulnerable students can't be a good thing.

If the school had a history as a neighborhood school, that would be one thing. However, the Hill is riddled with schools that it can't fill IB. Until it can, there's just no justification for another one. Sorry.

JKLM are bursting at the seams with IB students, and are still being told they need OOB set-asides. There's no justification for a few blocks in the LT boundary to gobble up a city-wide alternative. Use your neighborhood preference at Watkins and help shore it up. SWS doesn't belong to an angry selfish few. Sorry, but seriously - no way in hell. It isn't going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1. Also an SWS parent who thinks proximity preference is a good idea for the health of the school---but not boundaries since it is a specialized school. This is basically how it ran as part of the cluster: families could opt in or take their default neighborhood school ( Peabody ).

I say this not caring one iota what race the households around the school are. And those of you who think my opinion hinges on some kind of race hang up can go take a flying leap and drop your own hang ups as you go. What a crock.

Pp, can you clarify why you think it's healthier again? I personally have gone back-and-forth on the matte, I see benefits AND detractors to proximity preference. I also think it's an important question to ask where the lottery winners this year came from. I've heard that most of the lotteryn" winners" this year were from the immediate neighborhood anyway, because people in the area ranked it high on their lottery applications. Can anyone from the school confirm that? If the school remains a "city-wide" school and we find that through the common lottery it mostly remains a neighborhood school anyway is it fair to argue against the minimal number of families who gain access to it,fromoutside of the neighborhood? If those families are particularly invested and interested in the model, shouldn't they be welcome?

Anything which further disadvantages our already most vulnerable students can't be a good thing.

If the school had a history as a neighborhood school, that would be one thing. However, the Hill is riddled with schools that it can't fill IB. Until it can, there's just no justification for another one. Sorry.

JKLM are bursting at the seams with IB students, and are still being told they need OOB set-asides. There's no justification for a few blocks in the LT boundary to gobble up a city-wide alternative. Use your neighborhood preference at Watkins and help shore it up. SWS doesn't belong to an angry selfish few. Sorry, but seriously - no way in hell. It isn't going to happen.

But, these kids can get the seats at LT opened up by the kids who leave for SWS. Since LT is, according to people on this forum, a great school that anyone should be happy to send their kids to, it doesn't really take anything away from anyone. There are still the same number of seats citywide available for students to fill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1. Also an SWS parent who thinks proximity preference is a good idea for the health of the school---but not boundaries since it is a specialized school. This is basically how it ran as part of the cluster: families could opt in or take their default neighborhood school ( Peabody ).

I say this not caring one iota what race the households around the school are. And those of you who think my opinion hinges on some kind of race hang up can go take a flying leap and drop your own hang ups as you go. What a crock.

Pp, can you clarify why you think it's healthier again? I personally have gone back-and-forth on the matte, I see benefits AND detractors to proximity preference. I also think it's an important question to ask where the lottery winners this year came from. I've heard that most of the lotteryn" winners" this year were from the immediate neighborhood anyway, because people in the area ranked it high on their lottery applications. Can anyone from the school confirm that? If the school remains a "city-wide" school and we find that through the common lottery it mostly remains a neighborhood school anyway is it fair to argue against the minimal number of families who gain access to it,fromoutside of the neighborhood? If those families are particularly invested and interested in the model, shouldn't they be welcome?

Anything which further disadvantages our already most vulnerable students can't be a good thing.

If the school had a history as a neighborhood school, that would be one thing. However, the Hill is riddled with schools that it can't fill IB. Until it can, there's just no justification for another one. Sorry.

JKLM are bursting at the seams with IB students, and are still being told they need OOB set-asides. There's no justification for a few blocks in the LT boundary to gobble up a city-wide alternative. Use your neighborhood preference at Watkins and help shore it up. SWS doesn't belong to an angry selfish few. Sorry, but seriously - no way in hell. It isn't going to happen.

But, these kids can get the seats at LT opened up by the kids who leave for SWS. Since LT is, according to people on this forum, a great school that anyone should be happy to send their kids to, it doesn't really take anything away from anyone. There are still the same number of seats citywide available for students to fill.

A bunch of us at SWS made this joke when we moved: they really should have made LT citywide & made us the neighborhood school since reality, that's how it is now and LT is where the OOB families want to go. LT remains really popular with legacy families who used to live here while we draw nothing but families from the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1. Also an SWS parent who thinks proximity preference is a good idea for the health of the school---but not boundaries since it is a specialized school. This is basically how it ran as part of the cluster: families could opt in or take their default neighborhood school ( Peabody ).

I say this not caring one iota what race the households around the school are. And those of you who think my opinion hinges on some kind of race hang up can go take a flying leap and drop your own hang ups as you go. What a crock.

Pp, can you clarify why you think it's healthier again? I personally have gone back-and-forth on the matte, I see benefits AND detractors to proximity preference. I also think it's an important question to ask where the lottery winners this year came from. I've heard that most of the lotteryn" winners" this year were from the immediate neighborhood anyway, because people in the area ranked it high on their lottery applications. Can anyone from the school confirm that? If the school remains a "city-wide" school and we find that through the common lottery it mostly remains a neighborhood school anyway is it fair to argue against the minimal number of families who gain access to it,fromoutside of the neighborhood? If those families are particularly invested and interested in the model, shouldn't they be welcome?

Anything which further disadvantages our already most vulnerable students can't be a good thing.

If the school had a history as a neighborhood school, that would be one thing. However, the Hill is riddled with schools that it can't fill IB. Until it can, there's just no justification for another one. Sorry.

JKLM are bursting at the seams with IB students, and are still being told they need OOB set-asides. There's no justification for a few blocks in the LT boundary to gobble up a city-wide alternative. Use your neighborhood preference at Watkins and help shore it up. SWS doesn't belong to an angry selfish few. Sorry, but seriously - no way in hell. It isn't going to happen.

But, these kids can get the seats at LT opened up by the kids who leave for SWS. Since LT is, according to people on this forum, a great school that anyone should be happy to send their kids to, it doesn't really take anything away from anyone. There are still the same number of seats citywide available for students to fill.

Shorter PP: Since poor black people like LT, they should be grateful to me for wanting to send my kid to SWS and making more room for them at LT.

[Anonymous]

This is exactly why I would never send my kids to SWS. So gross.

[Anonymous]

SWS has been majority white for 15 years (don't know what it was at its inception). As part of the cluster, black families self-selected to go to Peabody. The color of the students should not play a role in the discussion of proximity, nor should SWS be punished for its student body.

There are not so many homes nearby that the entire school would be filled by proximity preference. There is Sherwood Rec and an elderly apartment building that would take up one fourth of this proximity area. Also a women's shelter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SWS has been majority white for 15 years (don't know what it was at its inception). As part of the cluster, black families self-selected to go to Peabody. The color of the students should not play a role in the discussion of proximity, nor should SWS be punished for its student body.

There are not so many homes nearby that the entire school would be filled by proximity preference. There is Sherwood Rec and an elderly apartment building that would take up one fourth of this proximity area. Also a women's shelter.

How is drawing students from elsewhere in the city "punishing" SWS? It's been stated above that SWS still draws strongest interest from Hill and nearby families.

SWS has been designated as a citywide school, so its primary purpose should be to serve citywide kids. It's not the same as a neighborhood school, which has as its primary purpose serving kids within the boundary. If there is room in the school after serving neighborhood kids, the neighborhood school accepts kids with proximity preference. A citywide school will never serve all the citywide kids who wish to attend, so proximity shouldn't come into play.

You're better off advocating for a true boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1. Also an SWS parent who thinks proximity preference is a good idea for the health of the school---but not boundaries since it is a specialized school. This is basically how it ran as part of the cluster: families could opt in or take their default neighborhood school ( Peabody ).

I say this not caring one iota what race the households around the school are. And those of you who think my opinion hinges on some kind of race hang up can go take a flying leap and drop your own hang ups as you go. What a crock.

I don't understand how someone can be in favor of proximity but not a boundary and think that there is not the appearance (if not the intention) of trying to gerrymander a situation where you get both small class sizes and a white, high-SES student body from Capitol Hill. If you think proximity is good for the health of the school, then it seems like you should be in favor of a boundary and take your lumps just like all the other neighborhood schools in terms of unpredictable class sizes and population driven by whoever lives in your boundary.

It's about maintaining an opt-in specialized program ( no one forced to go there) but the opportunity existing for immediate neighbors. Is that really so hard to get? And once again, I don't care who the neighbors are. It is a principle I would argue no matter where the school is --as long as it is elementary level. I have different thoughts for middle and high school. See if you can keep up with nuanced thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SWS has been majority white for 15 years (don't know what it was at its inception). As part of the cluster, black families self-selected to go to Peabody. The color of the students should not play a role in the discussion of proximity, nor should SWS be punished for its student body.

There are not so many homes nearby that the entire school would be filled by proximity preference. There is Sherwood Rec and an elderly apartment building that would take up one fourth of this proximity area. Also a women's shelter.

I completely agree. Race should not even be brought up. And I find it disgusting and ignorant that people assign racism as a motive for people's opinions on this. Demographics in DC have changed. The children living in the city are increasing not African American. And there are many many exclusively African American elementary schools and I don't hear a peep about that being an outrage.

[Anonymous]

Seems far SE and far NE can have all black schools and upper NW can have all white schools, but somehow the Hill has to have social engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1. Also an SWS parent who thinks proximity preference is a good idea for the health of the school---but not boundaries since it is a specialized school. This is basically how it ran as part of the cluster: families could opt in or take their default neighborhood school ( Peabody ).

I say this not caring one iota what race the households around the school are. And those of you who think my opinion hinges on some kind of race hang up can go take a flying leap and drop your own hang ups as you go. What a crock.

I don't understand how someone can be in favor of proximity but not a boundary and think that there is not the appearance (if not the intention) of trying to gerrymander a situation where you get both small class sizes and a white, high-SES student body from Capitol Hill. If you think proximity is good for the health of the school, then it seems like you should be in favor of a boundary and take your lumps just like all the other neighborhood schools in terms of unpredictable class sizes and population driven by whoever lives in your boundary.

Easily -- there's a HUGE difference between boundary and proximity. Proximity is a a preference but no guarantee, but a a boundary is a guarantee of a slot. If a finite sized class is filled with sibs, the proximity would never come into play, but a boundary would require accepting all enrollees within the boundary zone.

The anti-proximity argument recognizes the limited number of seats, and after sibs and proximity, there would be virtually no seats left for anyone else wishing to enroll whether from other parts of Cap Hill, Ward 6 or beyond

[Anonymous]

Well, whether you agree with it or not, diversity is a topic that has been brought up over and over again when talking about boundary reassignments. Calling the proximity question "social engineering" is overly dramatic. The fact is that there are very few non-sibling seats available at SWS. Should those automatically go to a handful of neighbors? Who happen to be overwhelmingly wealthy and white? Or should they be available to children from all over the city?

The arguments for proximity preference for a CITYWIDE program are, in my opinion, pretty flimsy. For this same reason, I am 100 percent against neighborhood preference for charter schools. People can already buy their way into good school boundaries; let's leave the citywide programs as true lotteries in which every District child, not just the ones who can afford to live on a certain street, has a shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't understand how someone can be in favor of proximity but not a boundary and think that there is not the appearance (if not the intention) of trying to gerrymander a situation where you get both small class sizes and a white, high-SES student body from Capitol Hill. If you think proximity is good for the health of the school, then it seems like you should be in favor of a boundary and take your lumps just like all the other neighborhood schools in terms of unpredictable class sizes and population driven by whoever lives in your boundary.

You make a false assumption that the class sizes are limited to restrict access. You do not sound remotely knowledgablle about the school and its guiding principles. Do you also cry over the finite number of charter seats at some in demand schools? that's a public resource too.