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

[Anonymous]

"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah,, that's the ticket. Brent parents are fighting tooth and nail to get into an excellent school such as SH where reading proficiency is at 60 percent!

You're right. They'd be sad to lose that coveted Eliot-Hine feed.

Current Brent parents will not be immediately affected by the upcoming boundary fight, the ones who have the most to lose are those on the edges who are waitlisted for PS3 and may not be make it into K before any boundary changes. But everybody will be affected by trailers and the loss of playground space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about if we give SWS back to the Cluster? That would satisfy those who claim that it needs neighborhood inputs, "restore" it to its real roots, and alleviate crowding at Peabody. Bonus if you carve off the northern portion of Brent for the Peabody-SWS catchment--those families would probably be satisfied with a SWS-Stuart-Hobson path, and Brent families could avoid the trailers or the dreaded trek across Virginia Ave. to Van Ness. Sure, it's a wee bit farther for Cluster families than Logan was, but I'm sure some would be more than willing to come to Prospect.

Interesting. Why did SWS leave the Cluster to begin with? I don't know the backstory there.

It already competed with Peabody for IB families for PK/K. Was it supposed to expand to and continue to compete for IB families with Watkins for 1-5? Why would the Cluster need to expand when, Peabody aside, the Cluster has already become largely the non-Capitol Hill Cluster for 1-8?

The Brent boundaries are just not that much of a factor for SWS right now. SWS citywide enrollment places it in the charter camp for enrollment more than neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.

Not true. Siblings would still rank first, and don't underestimate how many spaces will get occupied this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.

Shhhh, if you point this out, they will call you "delusional" or "bitter." (Actually, sibling preference would trump proximity, but it still would be a de facto IB school for the proximity folks.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.

Not true. Siblings would still rank first, and don't underestimate how many spaces will get occupied this way.

OK. So all the students there now are Cluster families, and spaces would then be taken by Cluster families and LT families (or rather, "proximity preference" famlilies).

Again, why would DCPS do this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.

Shhhh, if you point this out, they will call you "delusional" or "bitter." (Actually, sibling preference would trump proximity, but it still would be a de facto IB school for the proximity folks.)

No, it's not delusional or bitter to suggest that "proximity" and "in-bounds" are one in the same (although I'm not sure that that's true), but it is delusional or bitter to suggest, with a straight face, that the citywide draw is a good or significantly beneficial process by which to populate a school, especially when there are so few open spots relative to the number of applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.

Shhhh, if you point this out, they will call you "delusional" or "bitter." (Actually, sibling preference would trump proximity, but it still would be a de facto IB school for the proximity folks.)

No, it's not delusional or bitter to suggest that "proximity" and "in-bounds" are one in the same (although I'm not sure that that's true), but it is delusional or bitter to suggest, with a straight face, that the citywide draw is a good or significantly beneficial process by which to populate a school, especially when there are so few open spots relative to the number of applicants.

But it is not delusional to suggest with a straight face that populating a school almost exclusively with wealthy families within a few block radius *is* beneficial to the city as a whole?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Think for a second why DCPS favors a citywide draw. Appearances. This is all political posturing. A few (literally a few) seats at SWS available to kids through a lottery process isn't going to do anything to combat inequality, de facto segregation, or any of this city's other educational problems. Anyone arguing otherwise is either delusional or just bitter at the prospect of Hill families getting some sort of preference.

+1 it is a nice argument for them to make while going their own chances of getting in. No thought of what is actually healthy for the school and in keeping with its philosophy.

[Anonymous]

This is a pointless discussion. There's no way that Kaya is turning SWS back over to the neighborhood after making it citywide. She wants authority to create charters, but until she gets that she will make citywide schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.

Not true. Siblings would still rank first, and don't underestimate how many spaces will get occupied this way.

Yes. Including siblings of children who get in with the city wide lottery, providing a nice balance of city wide draw and immediate neighbors. What is wrong with the middle road here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.

Not true. Siblings would still rank first, and don't underestimate how many spaces will get occupied this way.

OK. So all the students there now are Cluster families, and spaces would then be taken by Cluster families and LT families (or rather, "proximity preference" famlilies).

Again, why would DCPS do this?

Nope. City wide lottery already conducted for next year. Those families and their siblings are in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.

Shhhh, if you point this out, they will call you "delusional" or "bitter." (Actually, sibling preference would trump proximity, but it still would be a de facto IB school for the proximity folks.)

No, it's not delusional or bitter to suggest that "proximity" and "in-bounds" are one in the same (although I'm not sure that that's true), but it is delusional or bitter to suggest, with a straight face, that the citywide draw is a good or significantly beneficial process by which to populate a school, especially when there are so few open spots relative to the number of applicants.

But it is not delusional to suggest with a straight face that populating a school almost exclusively with wealthy families within a few block radius *is* beneficial to the city as a whole?

It is clearly better for the school and its culture and educational approach. Are you suggesting that the good of the school should be sacrifices for the ( mythical ) good of the city ? Well, that would be in line with DCPS policy decision making that has so far had some miserable results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about if we give SWS back to the Cluster? That would satisfy those who claim that it needs neighborhood inputs, "restore" it to its real roots, and alleviate crowding at Peabody. Bonus if you carve off the northern portion of Brent for the Peabody-SWS catchment--those families would probably be satisfied with a SWS-Stuart-Hobson path, and Brent families could avoid the trailers or the dreaded trek across Virginia Ave. to Van Ness. Sure, it's a wee bit farther for Cluster families than Logan was, but I'm sure some would be more than willing to come to Prospect.

Yeah,, that's the ticket. Brent parents are fighting tooth and nail to get into an excellent school such as SH where reading proficiency is at 60 percent!

I would prefer that over the Jefferson
Eliot hine feed we have now. SH is like the
3rd best middle school in DCPS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.

Shhhh, if you point this out, they will call you "delusional" or "bitter." (Actually, sibling preference would trump proximity, but it still would be a de facto IB school for the proximity folks.)

No, it's not delusional or bitter to suggest that "proximity" and "in-bounds" are one in the same (although I'm not sure that that's true), but it is delusional or bitter to suggest, with a straight face, that the citywide draw is a good or significantly beneficial process by which to populate a school, especially when there are so few open spots relative to the number of applicants.

But it is not delusional to suggest with a straight face that populating a school almost exclusively with wealthy families within a few block radius *is* beneficial to the city as a whole?

It is clearly better for the school and its culture and educational approach. Are you suggesting that the good of the school should be sacrifices for the ( mythical ) good of the city ? Well, that would be in line with DCPS policy decision making that has so far had some miserable results

So, we're back to your discussion point that the school will be a failure if it has a citywide draw, and only the most excellent proximity families can sustain the culture and educational approach. It's so fortunate that this truth aligns neatly with your needs.

I sincerely hope that if you do not get into SWS that you consider your neighborhood school of Ludlow Taylor. Your hard-working neighbors who are trying against odds to make L-T an option for everyone in the catchment could certainly use your persistence and energy.