Ward 6 Focus Groups

[Anonymous]

DCPS is in a no-win situation - whatever it does there will be someone very organized group that is unhappy. The neighbors across the street will be angry to be across the street from a school where they have no preference. And if they grant preference, capitol hill families in other parts of the Hill will be angry because it will mean fewer slots for kids with no preference. And possibly families who were willing to commute to the Hill would feel that way too. These no-win situations typically lead to status quo.

[Anonymous]

What do the preference requirements for the lottery have to do with the yet to be decided middle school feeder patterns.

[Anonymous]

Zilch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SWS is a specialized program and should remain city-wide, to provide an equal chance of getting non-sibling spots.

Do you have ANY reasoning for this? It was a neighborhood school just a couple of years ago. It's no more "specialized" than Brent, which is now "Reggio-influenced" in the early years. It's the only DCPS school that was taken from a neighborhood school to a city-wide. It's one of only two city-wide DCPS elementary schools, both of which are on the Hill. If DCPS would consider a preference for Ward 6 or the Hill, I think that would be ideal.

Stop. The entire program changed. It went from a small supplemental early elementary program (not the ONLY program for IB children) to an entire school. It was never a DCPS school, only a program. That means the IB children still have a school in addition to SWS. It wasn't taken from anyone. It was expanded. When programs change, attendance change.

It went from a "program" with preference for kids in a defined neighborhood to a "program" with a city wide draw.

DCPS needs to decide what they are doing with it... is it a a city-wide draw and no feeder pattern or a public school, in which case it should be both tied to a neighborhood (like every other DCPS) and have a feeder pattern to a middle school. This neither-here-nor-there approach is not helpful to anyone.

Need to make some corrections on errors of terminology here:

A). Charter Schools are not just schools without a neighborhood boundary. They have autonomy from central office in many important ways. Maybe pp is thinking of a magnet school?

B). Charter Schools are most definitely also public schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SWS is a specialized program and should remain city-wide, to provide an equal chance of getting non-sibling spots.

Do you have ANY reasoning for this? It was a neighborhood school just a couple of years ago. It's no more "specialized" than Brent, which is now "Reggio-influenced" in the early years. It's the only DCPS school that was taken from a neighborhood school to a city-wide. It's one of only two city-wide DCPS elementary schools, both of which are on the Hill. If DCPS would consider a preference for Ward 6 or the Hill, I think that would be ideal.

Stop. The entire program changed. It went from a small supplemental early elementary program (not the ONLY program for IB children) to an entire school. It was never a DCPS school, only a program. That means the IB children still have a school in addition to SWS. It wasn't taken from anyone. It was expanded. When programs change, attendance change.

It went from a "program" with preference for kids in a defined neighborhood to a "program" with a city wide draw.

DCPS needs to decide what they are doing with it... is it a charter with a city-wide draw and no feeder pattern or a public school, in which case it should be both tied to a neighborhood (like every other DCPS) and have a feeder pattern to a middle school. This neither-here-nor-there approach is not helpful to anyone.

Need to make some corrections on errors of terminology here:

A). Charter Schools are not just schools without a neighborhood boundary. They have autonomy from central office in many important ways. Maybe pp is thinking of a magnet school?

B). Charter Schools are most definitely also public schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SWS is a specialized program and should remain city-wide, to provide an equal chance of getting non-sibling spots.

Do you have ANY reasoning for this? It was a neighborhood school just a couple of years ago. It's no more "specialized" than Brent, which is now "Reggio-influenced" in the early years. It's the only DCPS school that was taken from a neighborhood school to a city-wide. It's one of only two city-wide DCPS elementary schools, both of which are on the Hill. If DCPS would consider a preference for Ward 6 or the Hill, I think that would be ideal.

Stop. The entire program changed. It went from a small supplemental early elementary program (not the ONLY program for IB children) to an entire school. It was never a DCPS school, only a program. That means the IB children still have a school in addition to SWS. It wasn't taken from anyone. It was expanded. When programs change, attendance change.

It went from a "program" with preference for kids in a defined neighborhood to a "program" with a city wide draw.

DCPS needs to decide what they are doing with it... is it a charter with a city-wide draw and no feeder pattern or a public school, in which case it should be both tied to a neighborhood (like every other DCPS) and have a feeder pattern to a middle school. This neither-here-nor-there approach is not helpful to anyone.

Actually, if you know the history of SWS you would know that their preference typically put OOB siblings above IB children. They didn't even use the boundaries they did have. Only when they were included in the lottery system did that change. Just a few years ago (early 2000s) IB children didn't get spaces because they would do OOB siblings first. It seems they have gone back to their roots of being a city-wide draw and not having to follow boundary rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^. Fair enough, but why do they get to go to the front of the line rather than play the lottery like everyone else?

My point is that they don't get to the front of the line. They may be looking to get into the line somewhere in the middle, but that won't guarantee them a seat over the sibs at the front

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I definitely got the sense at the Ward 6 Focus groups that there were two groups of parents with clear agendas - those that are seeking preference for SWS and those that want Stuart Hobson to get more money. I don't have a strong view about either of those goals, but I do think that it really skews any hope of these being real focus groups. Don't know what I was expecting, but it seems like those two pieces will effect very small parts of Ward 6 (for the SWS preferences, literally only a few families) and for Stuart Hobson, basically only the cluster. What am I missing?

In this Ward 6 focus group, did they talk any about moving the Walker Jones/Thompson line from 6th street now that the neighborhood has changed so much? I know many Ward 6 families are interested in that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^. Fair enough, but why do they get to go to the front of the line rather than play the lottery like everyone else?

My point is that they don't get to the front of the line. They may be looking to get into the line somewhere in the middle, but that won't guarantee them a seat over the sibs at the front

PP and I was resonding to the "why cant it be my top choice?" statemebt. Yes, sibs are going to take up a chunk of spots but if your reasoning for them to get ahead of everyone else is - "everyone's chances are next to nothing anyway!" I'm not biting.

[Anonymous]

I realize that people try to get the focus group I their neighborhood if possible but I do not think they are ward specific. I went to the focus group in Columbia heights and it was not focused on that ward (not sure, is that ward 4?). It was a much broader discussion and there were people from all over NW it seemed.

[Anonymous]

You trying to change the subject pp?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^. Fair enough, but why do they get to go to the front of the line rather than play the lottery like everyone else?

My point is that they don't get to the front of the line. They may be looking to get into the line somewhere in the middle, but that won't guarantee them a seat over the sibs at the front

Let's get real, here. After sibs, if there is a proximity preference there will be NO spots left for anyone else. Zippy. Who are you trying to kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The real question is who do you want to anger the least? The folks against proximity for SWS don't really care about getting into the school, they're generally just bitter about the prospect of well-to-do Hill families having preferred access. And the Hill families who want preference will be angry if they don't get it, but they're resourceful enough to figure something out. The funny thing is that the bitter folks rant and rant about this being an issue of fairness when they know well that a citywide draw will only mean a handful of spots for non-siblings -- a drop in the bucket.

This is just complete and utter bullshit. You honestly think that no one outside of a few block radius wants their kids to attend SWS?

[Anonymous]

At my focus group no one mentioned Walker Jones/Thompson. And I'm not so familiar with that debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^. Fair enough, but why do they get to go to the front of the line rather than play the lottery like everyone else?

My point is that they don't get to the front of the line. They may be looking to get into the line somewhere in the middle, but that won't guarantee them a seat over the sibs at the front

Let's get real, here. After sibs, if there is a proximity preference there will be NO spots left for anyone else. Zippy. Who are you trying to kid?

They're not trying to kid - they're trying to get a rule that says if there's a SINGLE spot, it's theirs...