DME Meeting at SWS June 5th

[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.

this is not true. My son started at SWS 13 years ago and it was about 50/50 black/white, and in the years prior to that it was majority black, and there were very few white kids in the traditional program. When my daughter started about 10 year ago? Yes--by then it had become majority white, and more white kids were joining the traditional program.

Now? Many white kids in the whole school. Don't know about percentages, but judging from the recent music concert it's a good mix!

Former SWS/WAtkins/SH parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1. Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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."

Exclusively? That's a huge stretch even if it's majority white. FYI -- it's 2/3 white, and 1/5 AA and the remainer is mixed. It's roughly the same as Brent's demographics.

You also assume that it's a preferred lottery option across demographics. It's a specialized program not a good fit for every kid (of any color or degree of affluence) Obviously 20% of the school communit disagrees that it's "exclusively white" and if you knew the school community you'd understand the other 80% feels the same way. The demographics reflect some degree of self-selection and nothingcreated by the school community itself.

[Anonymous]

Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!

I really appreciate that they showed up and gave their perspective. It's likely difficult to hear that thenfolks in the neghborhood are spening so much time and energynin an effort not to send their kids tot he school youre doing your best to make work for the neighborhood. Thanks LT parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!

Recap of the meeting please!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!

I really appreciate that they showed up and gave their perspective. It's likely difficult to hear that thenfolks in the neghborhood are spening so much time and energynin an effort not to send their kids tot he school youre doing your best to make work for the neighborhood. Thanks LT parents.

The best thing that these LT parents can do is to either push their principal to change her image - yes, reach out and act like she wants neighborhood families to attend - or push to replace her. I am sorry but Cobbs is the only thing holding back that school. I know it may just be image, she may indeed be a great principal, but as the leader of the school, she should be an image of welcoming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the person who said the "agitator" was ridiculous and it was my only comment on the forum until now. I also wanted to add, as a person who lives very near the school but has no direct stake since my kids are older, that the whole proximity-preference debate is not helping SWS's reputation as the whitest school in town -- even if (as is my understanding) it's less current families who are demanding it than people who happen to live nearby. I was at a party where a mom of a younger kid mentioned it and said, "Oh, yeah, those people just don't want to send their kids to school with black people," and about 5 people nodded in agreement. I understand that the majority of the SWS community doesn't feel that way, but the people clamoring for proximity preference aren't doing the school any favors in this respect.

OH come on. This is absurd.
IF I lived across the street from SWS (and I don't), I'd rather send my kid there than to Ludlow Taylor. That's all this is. Parents who want the best possible school for their kids. I can't really blame them.

I am a current SWS parent, and I initially felt strongly that there should be some sort of proximity preference. I have somewhat modified my stance, but I do think it is important for schools to be neighborhood-based. I think it makes a stronger school community, is healthier for the kids, and is good for the neighborhood. However, SWS is sort of a by-default Hill school now, so I am not sure a preference is necessary.

And if you lived across the street from Walls or the Cathedral schools you might feel the same way. It doesn't mean you have a right to them.

[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.

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.

Yes. It really is that hard to get - that you think you're entitled to exclusive access to a public good. It belongs to everyone, you don't have or deserve a special claim. Your sense of entitlement is pretty horrifying, lady.

[Anonymous]

Did the DME indicate anything about next week's policy proposal? Hard to discuss this issue without knowing that, i.e. if SWS is part of a choice set, the issue of proximity preference or citywide is moot.

[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.

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.

Yes. It really is that hard to get - that you think you're entitled to exclusive access to a public good. It belongs to everyone, you don't have or deserve a special claim. Your sense of entitlement is pretty horrifying, lady.

You horrify pretty easily and may not be cut out for this city. I will repeat that my opinion does not come from a sense of entitlement ( my kid is already at SWS ) , nor from racism ( it make absolutely no difference to me at all what race my kids classmates and friends are ) but from a sense of what is best for the stability of a fledgling school program. And I repeat: SWS was not destined to be a citywide program when it broke off from the cluster. It was, rather, most likely to become a neighborhood school with a boundary, like other Reggio programs around the city.

The tilt toward citywide came only as a result of the building that became available first. So your public good argument is pretty spurious. It's a fluke that SWS doesn't have boundaries and that's why a boundary/proximity is even being discussed.

Happy to go back and forth on valid reasoning behind a difference of opinion but posters throwing around "racism!" , "entitlement!" Is annoying and unhelpful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!

I really appreciate that they showed up and gave their perspective. It's likely difficult to hear that thenfolks in the neghborhood are spening so much time and energynin an effort not to send their kids tot he school youre doing your best to make work for the neighborhood. Thanks LT parents.

The best thing that these LT parents can do is to either push their principal to change her image - yes, reach out and act like she wants neighborhood families to attend - or push to replace her. I am sorry but Cobbs is the only thing holding back that school. I know it may just be image, she may indeed be a great principal, but as the leader of the school, she should be an image of welcoming.

+1 i'm glad to hear that she is a great teacher-hirer and administrator, but a little friendliness goes a long way and keeps the svhool from feeling like a fortress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Yes. It really is that hard to get - that you think you're entitled to exclusive access to a public good. It belongs to everyone, you don't have or deserve a special claim. Your sense of entitlement is pretty horrifying, lady.

You horrify pretty easily and may not be cut out for this city. I will repeat that my opinion does not come from a sense of entitlement ( my kid is already at SWS ) , nor from racism ( it make absolutely no difference to me at all what race my kids classmates and friends are ) but from a sense of what is best for the stability of a fledgling school program. And I repeat: SWS was not destined to be a citywide program when it broke off from the cluster. It was, rather, most likely to become a neighborhood school with a boundary, like other Reggio programs around the city.

The tilt toward citywide came only as a result of the building that became available first. So your public good argument is pretty spurious. It's a fluke that SWS doesn't have boundaries and that's why a boundary/proximity is even being discussed.

Happy to go back and forth on valid reasoning behind a difference of opinion but posters throwing around "racism!" , "entitlement!" Is annoying and unhelpful

LOL-- "nuanced thinking"? Oooookay.

Honestly, if you are a typical parent at SWS you can keep your school. You're not exactly doing them any favors.

[Anonymous]

On the other topic that wasn't discussed much at the meeting . . . the L-T parents' claims to be in it for the long haul would be much more believable if they would push for SWS to also feed to SH. This would raise the numbers of IB and bring more fundraising experience to SH.

The proximity preference concern from the LT newbies is amusing. The cluster has always siphoned off families from LT -- either by Peabody proximity preference or from the old Stuart Hobson boundary preference. The Cluster boundaries are due for a major overhaul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the person who said the "agitator" was ridiculous and it was my only comment on the forum until now. I also wanted to add, as a person who lives very near the school but has no direct stake since my kids are older, that the whole proximity-preference debate is not helping SWS's reputation as the whitest school in town -- even if (as is my understanding) it's less current families who are demanding it than people who happen to live nearby. I was at a party where a mom of a younger kid mentioned it and said, "Oh, yeah, those people just don't want to send their kids to school with black people," and about 5 people nodded in agreement. I understand that the majority of the SWS community doesn't feel that way, but the people clamoring for proximity preference aren't doing the school any favors in this respect.

OH come on. This is absurd.
IF I lived across the street from SWS (and I don't), I'd rather send my kid there than to Ludlow Taylor. That's all this is. Parents who want the best possible school for their kids. I can't really blame them.

I am a current SWS parent, and I initially felt strongly that there should be some sort of proximity preference. I have somewhat modified my stance, but I do think it is important for schools to be neighborhood-based. I think it makes a stronger school community, is healthier for the kids, and is good for the neighborhood. However, SWS is sort of a by-default Hill school now, so I am not sure a preference is necessary.

And if you lived across the street from Walls or the Cathedral schools you might feel the same way. It doesn't mean you have a right to them.

My comment was only to refute the point that neighbors' motives are racist. But, to your point, at almost every other NON-CHARTER DCPS, if you live across the street from an elementary school, you DO have the right to attend it. Thanks for the eyeroll, though.