SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?

[Anonymous]

People need to stop opining on things they know nothing about. Specifically, by my count, there are currently less than 20 children in the newborn-7 year old age range in the proximity preference area and some of them are already happy in other schools (might not switch anyways).

Secondly, in talking with the immediate neighbors (those of us who are awakened by the sound of busses in the am at Prospect), we would much rather have 10 small busses at drop off than the unknown amount of cars a citywide school will create, particularly on rainy days,

[Anonymous]

It's not a question of how many proximity families there are today. If proximity is put into place, people are going to move in, effectively creating an IB school.

[Anonymous]

I can't disagree with all of the arguments proffered here that the families in proximity don't deserve preference at SWS, nor that the city-at-large should have to give up their rights to at least a chance at those seats. I also agree that proximity really = in bounds. That stated, I think it is in the best interest of the school and the future student body to have the immediate community invested in the success of this entire enterprise.

The community involvement truly does have a big part to play in the Reggio model, and SWS has that today, which I believe has lead to its historical success. That's not to say they can't and won't develop a sense of community with a citywide population, but there is a difference. One must admit there's an inherent value to having the people that live across the street personally invested in the success of any endeavor/program. I'm hard pressed to think of anyone else who may be more motivated in the success of this program than those families that live across the street - as long as their kids get to attend. It changes the discourse about many things, from traffic patterns to rec center use, and I think would have a big effect on how the school fits and how the attendees feel in this community.

Are there arguments against that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The community involvement truly does have a big part to play in the Reggio model, and SWS has that today, which I believe has lead to its historical success. That's not to say they can't and won't develop a sense of community with a citywide population, but there is a difference. One must admit there's an inherent value to having the people that live across the street personally invested in the success of any endeavor/program. I'm hard pressed to think of anyone else who may be more motivated in the success of this program than those families that live across the street - as long as their kids get to attend. It changes the discourse about many things, from traffic patterns to rec center use, and I think would have a big effect on how the school fits and how the attendees feel in this community.
Are there arguments against that?

Your definition of community is narrow. I live about as close as possible to another good es but kids attend sws and we feel every bit as integral to that community as families who live a block or awayWe feel no connection to the much closer es

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't disagree with all of the arguments proffered here that the families in proximity don't deserve preference at SWS, nor that the city-at-large should have to give up their rights to at least a chance at those seats. I also agree that proximity really = in bounds. That stated, I think it is in the best interest of the school and the future student body to have the immediate community invested in the success of this entire enterprise.

The community involvement truly does have a big part to play in the Reggio model, and SWS has that today, which I believe has lead to its historical success. That's not to say they can't and won't develop a sense of community with a citywide population, but there is a difference. One must admit there's an inherent value to having the people that live across the street personally invested in the success of any endeavor/program. I'm hard pressed to think of anyone else who may be more motivated in the success of this program than those families that live across the street - as long as their kids get to attend. It changes the discourse about many things, from traffic patterns to rec center use, and I think would have a big effect on how the school fits and how the attendees feel in this community.

Are there arguments against that?

There are many examples of schools with a strong sense of community that don't live within walking distance. All of the local private schools have very strong communities and some of them include families that don't even live in the District. Some charter schools (LAMB comes to mind) have very strong communities as well. It's simply not necessary to have buy-in from the immediate neighbors. It's not worth it in the price it extracts from students elsewhere in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think giving sws proximity would not affect more than roughly sixty kids in all four inbounds.

All the more reason not to make changes to the city-wide plan just to accommodate them. Of far greater and more important impact is giving some preference to the baby boom in Bloomingdale/LeDroit/Shaw who now have no neighborhood school anywhere near by. Since they'll have to travel for school anyway, now that there are no DCPS schools remotely near them, at least make it up to them by giving them preference at SWS.

This proposal is logically inconsistent. Either it is a local school or it is city-wide, but the solution isn't to give local preference to a random neighborhood far away. That is ridiculous. If that neighborhood needs as local school, open one there. If there is really a baby boom there, it will demand its own school soon enough.

You're missing the point. The solution isn't giving preference to random neighborhoods far away, it's offering preference to students whose IB school just got closed. All families whose IB just got closed should be offered the carrot of preference at another school to ease the pain of losing their neighborhood school (and make the closings less of a political headache).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's only a benefit to a few hill families who don't want to support their IB schools to give proximity preference. As previously stated, that's an undue benefit for a tiny few and an undue burden to the vast majority.

There's a very good reason DCPS and everyone else in the city is glad it's going to be a city-wide school with no neighborhood preference. You can't support the schools you have, you certainly don't need an advantage at any more.

What about a few Hill families who do want to support the IB schools but found the job unworkable? We toughed it out at L-T for two long years so spare us your holier than thou screed, PP. Supporting L-T is a mountain very few IB can climb because DCPS has stacked the deck against relative newcomers to the neighborhood (read most of the IB parents of 3-11 year olds). If Kaya cracked down on address cheating and installed at least semi-competent leadership at L-T, we'd have a chance of building a decent IB school, but they don't so we don't. With proximity at SWS, at least some L-T families would have an automatic out, rather than being at the mercy of the charter lotteries to stay in the neighborhood. The "advantage" you want to deny us would benefit the neighborhood and the school in a big way. How bad could it be?

No difference between them and any other families at any other EOP schools. None at all. Ergo, no undue advantages/privileges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1. Seriously unfair to blame the L-T parents for their own misfortunes.

-1. Again, could be said of any other EOP school and its misfortunes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, don't immediately buy into the premise of the L-T booster on here. In many ways, these issues are separate. Even if L-T was one of the highest performing schools on the Hill, I would still want preference at SWS because it is significantly closer to my house. I walk by it four to five times a day as I go about my daily life. If I lived that close to J.O. Wilson but was districted into L-T, I would want preference at Wilson - because that is how the system works and that is the benefit afforded to other parents in other neighborhoods in the city. None of us controls where DCPS opens or closes schools. We all must live with the decisions of the school board. But, once they have made their decisions, we have always had the right to send our kids to the open public schools in our area. There are people who seem to think that it is unfair that this area is where the school board chose to locate this new school. Maybe that was a mistake and they should have chosen an area of the city that already had fewer schools. But, they didn't. That is not the fault of the people who live in the school's new neighborhood. Don't blame them for wanting to be treated like every other parent in DC who lives within 1500 ft of a public school building.

Nobody's blaming them for anything, just pointing out that it's not a regular DCPS and they're not entitled to be treated in a manner more special than every other family that lives within 1500 ft of a public school building.

#1 People all over the city live near schools where they don't have preference. Some of them are charters with great reputations (i.e., EL Haynes). Some of them are city-wide (McKinley or CHM). Nonetheless, there's no "in" There's nothing special about a few blocks around Prospect that entitles a few families to skip to the head of the line.

#2 As has been previously observed, "they" (DCPS) had to choose a facility that was A) available in the first place, and B) reasonable for the families already in the school. Prospect fits the bill, simple as that. End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there were a crackdown on Maryland residents using LT, local parents turning around the school and making it into a neighborhood school would be possible, and IB families would feel comfortable staying past PS3. As an IB LT resident I find it particularly galling that I am physically so close to very decent options that I can't get my kid into.

Sounds like lots of other DCPS schools. Lobby Kaya to crack down. If everyone who lived IB for a lousy school were entitled to special treatment, then over half the city would all-of-a-sudden merit special consideration as well. No reason to single out LT for snowflake status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Until DCPS decides to clean house at LT (principal, non-DC kids) and give that school a fighting chance or just close it, I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to give IB families a potential alternative. LT has made it very clear they don't want IB families so let those families invest in another neighborhood school that actually wants them.

Sounds like lots of other DCPS schools. Lobby Kaya to clean house. If everyone who lived IB for a lousy school were entitled to potential alternatives, then over half the city would all-of-a-sudden merit special consideration as well. No reason to single out LT for snowflake status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People need to stop opining on things they know nothing about. Specifically, by my count, there are currently less than 20 children in the newborn-7 year old age range in the proximity preference area and some of them are already happy in other schools (might not switch anyways).

Secondly, in talking with the immediate neighbors (those of us who are awakened by the sound of busses in the am at Prospect), we would much rather have 10 small busses at drop off than the unknown amount of cars a citywide school will create, particularly on rainy days,

Immaterial. 1st of all, if there's proximity preference, then more families will be drawn to that area for the preference effectively creating an IB school. It's insufficient to think about what and who is there right now, strategic planning requires thinking through the ramifications, and the ramifications would create an IB school where the system and city benefit from a city-wide one.

Regarding the buses, that's doubtful. They linger longer, are louder, and smell worse, but it doesn't matter because you'll make up any excuse to try to shove your way to the front of the line. Your credibility is low.

[Anonymous]

^ are you an SWS parent, or are you someone who lost IB preference with the move. In other words, why do you give a crap about defending 8 citywide seats so passionately?

[Anonymous]

To 13:38 -- i was reponding to the pp who said that there were 60 children in proximity of Prospect, which is not a credible number. And the busses used to linger, but stopped idling and lingering about 3 years ago when some of us spoke to the school about it. The busses are better than the chaos of a dropoff ith small children when the parents have to park to bring them into the school.

I agree with 14:27 -- you are fishy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 13:38 -- i was reponding to the pp who said that there were 60 children in proximity of Prospect, which is not a credible number. And the busses used to linger, but stopped idling and lingering about 3 years ago when some of us spoke to the school about it. The busses are better than the chaos of a dropoff ith small children when the parents have to park to bring them into the school.

I agree with 14:27 -- you are fishy.

Current parents will also drop their kids in cars, whether they're citywide kids or the Peabody families. It's going to have an impact on the neighborhood for sure. If you don't like people dropping kids off at school, you shouldn't have bought a house across the street from one.