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

[Anonymous]

I like the way it's phrased as "restoring" something to people that never had it.

[Anonymous]

I hate to say it, but while if my child was already at this school I would support it, I cannot since I would like the opportunity for my kids to go there in a couple of years. We live close...2500 feet, but not close enough for the 'walking distance preference' as I understand it, at 1500 feet from any side. I have to be selfish and not sign. Its hard enough to get in as it is, this would put the nail in our coffin. As for Ludlow Taylor, I will not be sending my kids there regardless unless there are major changes, which I do not expect to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like the way it's phrased as "restoring" something to people that never had it.

you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. there were funding commitments made by senior DCPS officials to the SWS community which were pushed to future years at the 11th hour in the Mayor's budget. SWS is working with the council on having budgeted funds restored for the move to Goding. some relate to immediate move related funding.

and the Annex is being taken over by CH Montessori, so it's not like last year's move expenses were for nothing.

[Anonymous]

It's not selfish to not sign. Really. It's selfish of them to try to grab a good thing and keep it all for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I wasnt talking about restoring the funding, I was talking about "restoring" preference to people that never had it. I actually signed the petition for the funding!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say it, but while if my child was already at this school I would support it, I cannot since I would like the opportunity for my kids to go there in a couple of years. We live close...2500 feet, but not close enough for the 'walking distance preference' as I understand it, at 1500 feet from any side. I have to be selfish and not sign. Its hard enough to get in as it is, this would put the nail in our coffin. As for Ludlow Taylor, I will not be sending my kids there regardless unless there are major changes, which I do not expect to see.

You make a valid point overlooked by anti LT / pro SWS proximity crowd. SWS has appeal to some Hill families and proximity only provides a lottery edge to a small subset for a relatively small school. You have a better chance in a citywide draw than with proximity if you live on the wrong side of that line. SWS proximity would further undermine LT prospects and make it even less attractive as a neighborhood option.

[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).

I'm not sure what your count reflects but I can tell you that in the three city blocks around us (and we would have proximity preference under the current measurements) there are far more than 20 children in the newborn to 7 year old age range. I know of 14 kids just on our block and at least two of the families are expecting additional siblings within the next six months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not sure what your count reflects but I can tell you that in the three city blocks around us (and we would have proximity preference under the current measurements) there are far more than 20 children in the newborn to 7 year old age range. I know of 14 kids just on our block and at least two of the families are expecting additional siblings within the next six months.

Yes, anyone who pretends that proximity is not going to suck up all the seats is absolutely fooling themselves. It's hard for me to understand why anyone would support this unless they were a direct beneficiary or an existing family who wants to fill the school with Hill residents and friends.

[Anonymous]

I don't really see it as an issue of giving a few families an unfair advantage at one school. The real issue is the precedent that is being set that DCPS runs city-wide lottery schools. If they can make this one school a city-wide lottery school then they can do it to any school at any time. We already have a whole system of city-wide lottery schools - the charter system - and I don't want DCPS to get into the habit of opening non-magnet city-wide lottery schools. I say keep all DCPS school neighborhood schools and let all charter schools stay city-side. Don't muddy the waters either by giving charters the right to grant neighborhood preference or giving DCPS schools the right to become city-wide without competitive admissions based on talent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not sure what your count reflects but I can tell you that in the three city blocks around us (and we would have proximity preference under the current measurements) there are far more than 20 children in the newborn to 7 year old age range. I know of 14 kids just on our block and at least two of the families are expecting additional siblings within the next six months.

Yes, anyone who pretends that proximity is not going to suck up all the seats is absolutely fooling themselves. It's hard for me to understand why anyone would support this unless they were a direct beneficiary or an existing family who wants to fill the school with Hill residents and friends.

I'm 16:06 and I posted at the same time as you. I won't benefit personally from proximity preference, but my post is one answer to your question. I support not making SWS a city-wide school because I don't think that it is good for the system as a whole to go in this direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not sure what your count reflects but I can tell you that in the three city blocks around us (and we would have proximity preference under the current measurements) there are far more than 20 children in the newborn to 7 year old age range. I know of 14 kids just on our block and at least two of the families are expecting additional siblings within the next six months.

Yes, anyone who pretends that proximity is not going to suck up all the seats is absolutely fooling themselves. It's hard for me to understand why anyone would support this unless they were a direct beneficiary or an existing family who wants to fill the school with Hill residents and friends.

I'm 16:06 and I posted at the same time as you. I won't benefit personally from proximity preference, but my post is one answer to your question. I support not making SWS a city-wide school because I don't think that it is good for the system as a whole to go in this direction.

Interesting point. I agree in principle, but DCPS has already shown that they are trying to embrace alternative models to the neighborhood school (see today's announcement about the hybrid charter at Malcom X).

But I definitely don't support DCPS plunking down new "neighborhood" schools in a way that I feel will be destabilizing to the neighborhood, both in terms of rising property values and the gut-punch to the Ludlow Taylor IB families who are working so hard to make it a decent neighborhood option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not sure what your count reflects but I can tell you that in the three city blocks around us (and we would have proximity preference under the current measurements) there are far more than 20 children in the newborn to 7 year old age range. I know of 14 kids just on our block and at least two of the families are expecting additional siblings within the next six months.

Yes, anyone who pretends that proximity is not going to suck up all the seats is absolutely fooling themselves. It's hard for me to understand why anyone would support this unless they were a direct beneficiary or an existing family who wants to fill the school with Hill residents and friends.

I'm 16:06 and I posted at the same time as you. I won't benefit personally from proximity preference, but my post is one answer to your question. I support not making SWS a city-wide school because I don't think that it is good for the system as a whole to go in this direction.

Interesting point. I agree in principle, but DCPS has already shown that they are trying to embrace alternative models to the neighborhood school (see today's announcement about the hybrid charter at Malcom X).

But I definitely don't support DCPS plunking down new "neighborhood" schools in a way that I feel will be destabilizing to the neighborhood, both in terms of rising property values and the gut-punch to the Ludlow Taylor IB families who are working so hard to make it a decent neighborhood option.

If DCPS is going to embrace real alternative models for school organization, that's great. But a school like what is being structured at the new location of SWS, which is a very nice but standard elementary school in every way except its unusual admissions pattern, is not what we should be advocating for as parents in this city. It doesn't do anything to push the whole system toward new and better school models.

By letting this debate become about one neighborhood and a desire not to disrupt one particular school's catchment area, especially when school catchment areas in this city are constantly changing and the challenges of today will be totally different for each school in five years, distracts from the more important broader view of how DCPS is going to respond to the reality of charter school competition. Copying the charter school model without improving on it or using the legal differences between what DCPS is allowed to do and what the charters are allowed to do is short-sighted and fairly lazy as a response to the current school environment. Don't get so caught in the weeds that you miss the forest on this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not sure what your count reflects but I can tell you that in the three city blocks around us (and we would have proximity preference under the current measurements) there are far more than 20 children in the newborn to 7 year old age range. I know of 14 kids just on our block and at least two of the families are expecting additional siblings within the next six months.

Yes, anyone who pretends that proximity is not going to suck up all the seats is absolutely fooling themselves. It's hard for me to understand why anyone would support this unless they were a direct beneficiary or an existing family who wants to fill the school with Hill residents and friends.

I'm 16:06 and I posted at the same time as you. I won't benefit personally from proximity preference, but my post is one answer to your question. I support not making SWS a city-wide school because I don't think that it is good for the system as a whole to go in this direction.

Interesting point. I agree in principle, but DCPS has already shown that they are trying to embrace alternative models to the neighborhood school (see today's announcement about the hybrid charter at Malcom X).

But I definitely don't support DCPS plunking down new "neighborhood" schools in a way that I feel will be destabilizing to the neighborhood, both in terms of rising property values and the gut-punch to the Ludlow Taylor IB families who are working so hard to make it a decent neighborhood option.

If DCPS is going to embrace real alternative models for school organization, that's great. But a school like what is being structured at the new location of SWS, which is a very nice but standard elementary school in every way except its unusual admissions pattern, is not what we should be advocating for as parents in this city. It doesn't do anything to push the whole system toward new and better school models.

By letting this debate become about one neighborhood and a desire not to disrupt one particular school's catchment area, especially when school catchment areas in this city are constantly changing and the challenges of today will be totally different for each school in five years, distracts from the more important broader view of how DCPS is going to respond to the reality of charter school competition. Copying the charter school model without improving on it or using the legal differences between what DCPS is allowed to do and what the charters are allowed to do is short-sighted and fairly lazy as a response to the current school environment. Don't get so caught in the weeds that you miss the forest on this one.

Well, sorry, but I live in the weeds, so I need to advocate for what I think is best for my neighborhood. This debate is about one neighborhood, and the proposed proximity model would also reflect a new and unusual admissions pattern: proximity preference for a school with no in-bounds population. Admissions criteria vary for citywide programs, from lotteries like Logan to selective admissions like SWW and Banneker, but I don't believe any of those programs have proximity preference.

[Anonymous]

I also think it is disingenuous to suggest that the school catchments in DC are "constantly changing," since boundaries and feeder patterns haven't been revised since the 70s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If DCPS is going to embrace real alternative models for school organization, that's great. But a school like what is being structured at the new location of SWS, which is a very nice but standard elementary school in every way except its unusual admissions pattern, is not what we should be advocating for as parents in this city. It doesn't do anything to push the whole system toward new and better school models.

Except SWS and its Reggio inspired approach is not a "standard elementary school".It's educational philosophy and approach is different than most DCPS offerings, even compared with other programs which claim to be "Reggio inspired". Academically it probably alligns academically with Expeditionary Learning schools like Cap City and Two Rivers.

And Reggio is not a good fit for every family and/or child. The idea of SWS as a straight up boundary school is really strange to me. It worked with a shared boundary along with Peabody because no one was forced into it as their only IB option. which is why it's strange that Oyster is a boundary school. What if I don't prefer language immersion?