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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an issue that really isn't that complicated and should lend itself to an easy compromise if people would stop being so emotional about it.

I don't think anyone can honestly dispute that living in close proximity to a school involves negative externalities.

When you move-in next to a school, you can account for those costs when you buy.

When a school moves in next to you, you cannot.

If you have lived within 3 blocks of SWS since it got there, you get a preference.

If you moved there after, you knew what you were getting into---no preference + bad traffic.

What does this even mean? Just an FYI: the Goding school has been there for decades. When gentrifiers bought across the street in the last 10 years - it already WAS across the street from their houses and you can bet it wasn't a school they were lobbying to get their kids access to. I sincerely doubt they considered it in their decision to buy at all. What they did know when they bought their homes was that LUDLOW TATYLOR was their INBOUNDS elementary school. Now it seems a teeny group of people want special treatment at the cost of every other lottery player in the city because of where DCPS decided to plant the school. This whole "restore the neighborhood school of SWS" line is such a crock, the Goding neighbors never had any right to this school, if anyone is complaining it should be the cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Calling it "proximity preference" is such a joke. If there are no inbounds kids, then proximity preference is a de facto boundary. It's not a "compromise"-- if you give people around SWS proximity preference, you are CREATING A BOUNDARY. So let's just be honest about that, okay?

Fine. But "proximity" is actually very small compared to an "inbound boundary." I think the largest "proximity" they are considering is 3000 feet from the school, which is only roughly two blocks. This will still allow for others outside the "boundary" a chance to get in.

Not true. There were 7 non-sibling seats for PK3 this year. Those would be sucked up in a heartbeat by proximity families, leaving others outside the boundary SOL.

Because having a grand total of 7 seats for the entire city to divvy up in a lottery is a really critical thing? Sorry, the school isn't "citywide" if it's only offering 7 seats to the entire city. That's more like a private school or country club.

The point is there's a CHANCE for someone who doesn't live accross the street - if you give proximity to 30 people that chance goes away and then it really IS a country club.

And pp, as far as I can tell from the DME's proposals "they" aren't anyone!

Why should someone in NW get an equal chance at SWS than the neighbor living a block or two away? There are plenty of other city-wide schools - they're called charters.

Yes, and conveniently, you aren't too concerned about those not having proximity preference, are you?

No, I'm not. Because they are not DCPS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an issue that really isn't that complicated and should lend itself to an easy compromise if people would stop being so emotional about it.

I don't think anyone can honestly dispute that living in close proximity to a school involves negative externalities.

When you move-in next to a school, you can account for those costs when you buy.

When a school moves in next to you, you cannot.

If you have lived within 3 blocks of SWS since it got there, you get a preference.

If you moved there after, you knew what you were getting into---no preference + bad traffic.

What does this even mean? Just an FYI: the Goding school has been there for decades. When gentrifiers bought across the street in the last 10 years - it already WAS across the street from their houses and you can bet it wasn't a school they were lobbying to get their kids access to. I sincerely doubt they considered it in their decision to buy at all. What they did know when they bought their homes was that LUDLOW TATYLOR was their INBOUNDS elementary school. Now it seems a teeny group of people want special treatment at the cost of every other lottery player in the city because of where DCPS decided to plant the school. This whole "restore the neighborhood school of SWS" line is such a crock, the Goding neighbors never had any right to this school, if anyone is complaining it should be the cluster.

So I suppose all you naysayers will also rally against the promised Van Ness as a neighborhood school near stadium. Let's just make all new elementary schools city-wide so we don't offend anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Calling it "proximity preference" is such a joke. If there are no inbounds kids, then proximity preference is a de facto boundary. It's not a "compromise"-- if you give people around SWS proximity preference, you are CREATING A BOUNDARY. So let's just be honest about that, okay?

Fine. But "proximity" is actually very small compared to an "inbound boundary." I think the largest "proximity" they are considering is 3000 feet from the school, which is only roughly two blocks. This will still allow for others outside the "boundary" a chance to get in.

Not true. There were 7 non-sibling seats for PK3 this year. Those would be sucked up in a heartbeat by proximity families, leaving others outside the boundary SOL.

Because having a grand total of 7 seats for the entire city to divvy up in a lottery is a really critical thing? Sorry, the school isn't "citywide" if it's only offering 7 seats to the entire city. That's more like a private school or country club.

The point is there's a CHANCE for someone who doesn't live accross the street - if you give proximity to 30 people that chance goes away and then it really IS a country club.

And pp, as far as I can tell from the DME's proposals "they" aren't anyone!

Why should someone in NW get an equal chance at SWS than the neighbor living a block or two away? There are plenty of other city-wide schools - they're called charters.

Yes, and conveniently, you aren't too concerned about those not having proximity preference, are you?

No, I'm not. Because they are not DCPS!

So, what this really comes down to is the greater city's school children are being penalized because SWS didn't go charter, when they COULD HAVE, and instead they opted to work with DCPS. I see. Lesson learned anyone or any group in DCPS who wants to do something unique that will lead to the growth of a great school: get writing that charter app ASAP! I guess we need to rule out magnets, test-ins, gifted and talented programs, STEM, bi-lingual programs, all of it! Because if you're still DCPS, that means the people that live closest have a right to you, and that means if you can't afford it, you're out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an issue that really isn't that complicated and should lend itself to an easy compromise if people would stop being so emotional about it.

I don't think anyone can honestly dispute that living in close proximity to a school involves negative externalities.

When you move-in next to a school, you can account for those costs when you buy.

When a school moves in next to you, you cannot.

If you have lived within 3 blocks of SWS since it got there, you get a preference.

If you moved there after, you knew what you were getting into---no preference + bad traffic.

What does this even mean? Just an FYI: the Goding school has been there for decades. When gentrifiers bought across the street in the last 10 years - it already WAS across the street from their houses and you can bet it wasn't a school they were lobbying to get their kids access to. I sincerely doubt they considered it in their decision to buy at all. What they did know when they bought their homes was that LUDLOW TATYLOR was their INBOUNDS elementary school. Now it seems a teeny group of people want special treatment at the cost of every other lottery player in the city because of where DCPS decided to plant the school. This whole "restore the neighborhood school of SWS" line is such a crock, the Goding neighbors never had any right to this school, if anyone is complaining it should be the cluster.

So I suppose all you naysayers will also rally against the promised Van Ness as a neighborhood school near stadium. Let's just make all new elementary schools city-wide so we don't offend
anyone.

One. more. time. L-T is the neighborhood school and it's A BLOCK AWAY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an issue that really isn't that complicated and should lend itself to an easy compromise if people would stop being so emotional about it.

I don't think anyone can honestly dispute that living in close proximity to a school involves negative externalities.

When you move-in next to a school, you can account for those costs when you buy.

When a school moves in next to you, you cannot.

If you have lived within 3 blocks of SWS since it got there, you get a preference.

If you moved there after, you knew what you were getting into---no preference + bad traffic.

What does this even mean? Just an FYI: the Goding school has been there for decades. When gentrifiers bought across the street in the last 10 years - it already WAS across the street from their houses and you can bet it wasn't a school they were lobbying to get their kids access to. I sincerely doubt they considered it in their decision to buy at all. What they did know when they bought their homes was that LUDLOW TATYLOR was their INBOUNDS elementary school. Now it seems a teeny group of people want special treatment at the cost of every other lottery player in the city because of where DCPS decided to plant the school. This whole "restore the neighborhood school of SWS" line is such a crock, the Goding neighbors never had any right to this school, if anyone is complaining it should be the cluster.

So I suppose all you naysayers will also rally against the promised Van Ness as a neighborhood school near stadium. Let's just make all new elementary schools city-wide so we don't offend
anyone.

One. more. time. L-T is the neighborhood school and it's A BLOCK AWAY.

No, actually LT is eight blocks away (you clearly don 'to live in the neighborhood). I'm not and have never said that seven blocks is terribly inconvenient. Would I rather go to a great school right outside my front door ? You betcha! Would SWS benefit from having neighbor kids attend their school? You betcha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Calling it "proximity preference" is such a joke. If there are no inbounds kids, then proximity preference is a de facto boundary. It's not a "compromise"-- if you give people around SWS proximity preference, you are CREATING A BOUNDARY. So let's just be honest about that, okay?

Fine. But "proximity" is actually very small compared to an "inbound boundary." I think the largest "proximity" they are considering is 3000 feet from the school, which is only roughly two blocks. This will still allow for others outside the "boundary" a chance to get in.

Not true. There were 7 non-sibling seats for PK3 this year. Those would be sucked up in a heartbeat by proximity families, leaving others outside the boundary SOL.

Because having a grand total of 7 seats for the entire city to divvy up in a lottery is a really critical thing? Sorry, the school isn't "citywide" if it's only offering 7 seats to the entire city. That's more like a private school or country club.

The point is there's a CHANCE for someone who doesn't live accross the street - if you give proximity to 30 people that chance goes away and then it really IS a country club.

And pp, as far as I can tell from the DME's proposals "they" aren't anyone!

Why should someone in NW get an equal chance at SWS than the neighbor living a block or two away? There are plenty of other city-wide schools - they're called charters.

Yes, and conveniently, you aren't too concerned about those not having proximity preference, are you?

No, I'm not. Because they are not DCPS!

So, what this really comes down to is the greater city's school children are being penalized because SWS didn't go charter, when they COULD HAVE, and instead they opted to work with DCPS. I see. Lesson learned anyone or any group in DCPS who wants to do something unique that will lead to the growth of a great school: get writing that charter app ASAP! I guess we need to rule out magnets, test-ins, gifted and talented programs, STEM, bi-lingual programs, all of it! Because if you're still DCPS, that means the people that live closest have a right to you, and that means if you can't afford it, you're out.

I get that you're angry, but did you even read this?

The greater city's school children are not being penalized because SWS didn't go charter. You surely understand that the admissions process (city-wide lottery) would be exactly the same with a charter as it is today with a city-wide school.

SWS has been designated a city-wide school, with a lottery to entry. Given that, I'm not surprised they decided to stay with DCPS: the funding is better, charters are always short-changed on funding. (The good ones do more with less in spite of the fact, but that's a topic for a different thread.)

The people who believe they are being penalized are those who are within close distance to SWS, and would like "proximity preference" and at issue is that unlike traditional neighborhood schools, city-wide schools don't grant proximity preference. The entry process for a city-wide high school (SWW, Ellington, etc.) is application-based. The entry process for a city-wide elementary school (Logan Montessori I believe, but I can count on DCUM to correct me if I'm wrong) is lottery-based. Living on the 2500 block of Eye St. NW doesn't give someone a leg up on admissions to SWW: because it is a city-wide school. Similarly, living within an x-block radius of SWS shouldn't give one a leg up on admissions: because it is a city-wide school.

The harsh political reality is that DCPS is not even remotely interested in facilitating the ongoing existence of high-quality schools which rely on the high SES of their neighborhoods for said quality. There is negative interest in creating/re-inventing a high-quality school which would or could do the same. This is the era of "we'll kick you out of your high-quality neighborhood school so that an OOB family can take your place." It's a pipe-dream (an opium-pipe dream) that a high-quality school which has been designated city-wide, would in any way, shape, or form be allowed to offer proximity preference in one of the more expensive neighborhoods of the city.

DCPS is interested in sharing and spreading the wealth. You are interested in concentrating it. You are at odds with the powers that be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an issue that really isn't that complicated and should lend itself to an easy compromise if people would stop being so emotional about it.

I don't think anyone can honestly dispute that living in close proximity to a school involves negative externalities.

When you move-in next to a school, you can account for those costs when you buy.

When a school moves in next to you, you cannot.

If you have lived within 3 blocks of SWS since it got there, you get a preference.

If you moved there after, you knew what you were getting into---no preference + bad traffic.

What does this even mean? Just an FYI: the Goding school has been there for decades. When gentrifiers bought across the street in the last 10 years - it already WAS across the street from their houses and you can bet it wasn't a school they were lobbying to get their kids access to. I sincerely doubt they considered it in their decision to buy at all. What they did know when they bought their homes was that LUDLOW TATYLOR was their INBOUNDS elementary school. Now it seems a teeny group of people want special treatment at the cost of every other lottery player in the city because of where DCPS decided to plant the school. This whole "restore the neighborhood school of SWS" line is such a crock, the Goding neighbors never had any right to this school, if anyone is complaining it should be the cluster.

You are full of half-truths. The Goding school was empty 10 years ago, in the middle of an on-again off-again rehab project that finally finished. The school was never in play for the neighbors from that time period because it was for learning disabled students, who were bussed in from other parts of town and there were few children in the neighborhood. Until 2005 or 2006, the immediate neighborhood had preference for the Cluster due to Stuart Hobson. This changed when the feeder patterns were expanded/changed for SH.

All that to say, I think it's nice to have children go to the public school they can see out their front door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an issue that really isn't that complicated and should lend itself to an easy compromise if people would stop being so emotional about it.

I don't think anyone can honestly dispute that living in close proximity to a school involves negative externalities.

When you move-in next to a school, you can account for those costs when you buy.

When a school moves in next to you, you cannot.

If you have lived within 3 blocks of SWS since it got there, you get a preference.

If you moved there after, you knew what you were getting into---no preference + bad traffic.

What does this even mean? Just an FYI: the Goding school has been there for decades. When gentrifiers bought across the street in the last 10 years - it already WAS across the street from their houses and you can bet it wasn't a school they were lobbying to get their kids access to. I sincerely doubt they considered it in their decision to buy at all. What they did know when they bought their homes was that LUDLOW TATYLOR was their INBOUNDS elementary school. Now it seems a teeny group of people want special treatment at the cost of every other lottery player in the city because of where DCPS decided to plant the school. This whole "restore the neighborhood school of SWS" line is such a crock, the Goding neighbors never had any right to this school, if anyone is complaining it should be the cluster.

You are full of half-truths. The Goding school was empty 10 years ago, in the middle of an on-again off-again rehab project that finally finished. The school was never in play for the neighbors from that time period because it was for learning disabled students, who were bussed in from other parts of town and there were few children in the neighborhood. Until 2005 or 2006, the immediate neighborhood had preference for the Cluster due to Stuart Hobson. This changed when the feeder patterns were expanded/changed for SH.

All that to say, I think it's nice to have children go to the public school they can see out their front door.

Move a little further down on G and they will be able to see Ludlow Taylor out the front door. It's probably easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an issue that really isn't that complicated and should lend itself to an easy compromise if people would stop being so emotional about it.

I don't think anyone can honestly dispute that living in close proximity to a school involves negative externalities.

When you move-in next to a school, you can account for those costs when you buy.

When a school moves in next to you, you cannot.

If you have lived within 3 blocks of SWS since it got there, you get a preference.

If you moved there after, you knew what you were getting into---no preference + bad traffic.

What does this even mean? Just an FYI: the Goding school has been there for decades. When gentrifiers bought across the street in the last 10 years - it already WAS across the street from their houses and you can bet it wasn't a school they were lobbying to get their kids access to. I sincerely doubt they considered it in their decision to buy at all. What they did know when they bought their homes was that LUDLOW TATYLOR was their INBOUNDS elementary school. Now it seems a teeny group of people want special treatment at the cost of every other lottery player in the city because of where DCPS decided to plant the school. This whole "restore the neighborhood school of SWS" line is such a crock, the Goding neighbors never had any right to this school, if anyone is complaining it should be the cluster.

So I suppose all you naysayers will also rally against the promised Van Ness as a neighborhood school near stadium. Let's just make all new elementary schools city-wide so we don't offend
anyone.

One. more. time. L-T is the neighborhood school and it's A BLOCK AWAY.

No, actually LT is eight blocks away (you clearly don 'to live in the neighborhood). I'm not and have never said that seven blocks is terribly inconvenient. Would I rather go to a great school right outside my front door ? You betcha! Would SWS benefit from having neighbor kids attend their school? You betcha!

LT is at 7th and G, and SWS is at 9th and F. How does this calculate to 8 blocks?

[Anonymous]

^^ they must be counting Pickford as a block. . .

[Anonymous]

Question: In the proposal, will the 10-20% of lower income students apply to the available spots (e.g. 7 due to sibling preference) OR to the total spots available in a grade (e.g. PS3).

Because if it's the total grade, then it's likely that the majority of available 7 or so spots will go to lower income students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question: In the proposal, will the 10-20% of lower income students apply to the available spots (e.g. 7 due to sibling preference) OR to the total spots available in a grade (e.g. PS3).

Because if it's the total grade, then it's likely that the majority of available 7 or so spots will go to lower income students.

Which school are you asking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question: In the proposal, will the 10-20% of lower income students apply to the available spots (e.g. 7 due to sibling preference) OR to the total spots available in a grade (e.g. PS3).

Because if it's the total grade, then it's likely that the majority of available 7 or so spots will go to lower income students.

That's correct -- it would be either a percentage of the total number of slots at the school or a percentage of the total number of slots in each grade. The latter seems to be more likely otherwise you might just end up with OOB kids all in 5th grade and not in the earlier years.

[Anonymous]

I think part of what people overlook is that SWS, when it was an early-childhood-program ONLY, did have neighborhood preference. I understand it was ONLY for PK4 and K, but to have it taken from a neighborhood school to a city-wide school FEELS to people on the Hill like something was taken for them. To boot, the Hill hosts the only other city-wide DCPS at Logan Montessori. It also seems unfair that the only two city-wide DCPS elementary schools are on the Hill. So it feels like the Hill has the inconveniences of hosting these schools, but not the benefits. I think to compare to charters is a bad analogy - they are not charter schools and never have been. They have traditionally part of the neighborhood.