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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then the people who are complaining should be Cluster parents, right? They lost both programs. Instead it's a minority of people, who have not had ANYTHING "taken" from them (because they never had it), who are complaining.

[Anonymous]

Will oyster become citywide as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will oyster become citywide as well?

Why? Because it is Spanish Immersion? Would we do the same with all the Spanish Immersion programs? Tyler, Bancroft, Cleveland, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

SWS didn't offer any kind of proximity preference to those in the neighborhood of LT though, right? It was just the cluster. The issue is that with the exceptions of Brent and Maury, the schools on the Hill are all under-enrolled anyway, so much so that they're mostly filled up with OOB students. That makes it a little more difficult to justify proximity preference.

[Anonymous]

SWS didn't offer any kind of proximity preference to those in the neighborhood of LT though, right? It was just the cluster. The issue is that with the exceptions of Brent and Maury, the schools on the Hill are all under-enrolled anyway, so much so that they're mostly filled up with OOB students. That makes it a little more difficult to justify proximity preference.

And the seats "lost" by SWS moving out of the Cluster were absorbed by the expanded Peabody classrooms. Cluster families lost the option of 1 of 2 programs that had been housed in Peabody, but no one else lost available proximity seats when SWS moved to Goding. I think during the one year at Logan, Cluster in-bounds still applied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

SWS didn't offer any kind of proximity preference to those in the neighborhood of LT though, right? It was just the cluster. The issue is that with the exceptions of Brent and Maury, the schools on the Hill are all under-enrolled anyway, so much so that they're mostly filled up with OOB students. That makes it a little more difficult to justify proximity preference.

Correct. But there are people outside of those within immediate proximity who think that SWS should have some sort of neighborhood preference.

Only the upper grades at quality programs are under-enrolled or filled iwth OOB kids, and that's because we have no viable middle school option. There's a chicken-and-egg issue but I don't think it's fair to intimate that SWS should be city-wide because there aren't enough Hill kids to fill it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

SWS didn't offer any kind of proximity preference to those in the neighborhood of LT though, right? It was just the cluster. The issue is that with the exceptions of Brent and Maury, the schools on the Hill are all under-enrolled anyway, so much so that they're mostly filled up with OOB students. That makes it a little more difficult to justify proximity preference.

Correct. But there are people outside of those within immediate proximity who think that SWS should have some sort of neighborhood preference.

Only the upper grades at quality programs are under-enrolled or filled iwth OOB kids, and that's because we have no viable middle school option. There's a chicken-and-egg issue but I don't think it's fair to intimate that SWS should be city-wide because there aren't enough Hill kids to fill it.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't enough "Hill" kids to fill SWS. The "Hill" is pretty darn big and could easily fill one school.

The question is to whether people in the immediate area should have some kind of preference for SWS. They don't seem to have any particularly compelling reason other than "we want to go there."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

SWS didn't offer any kind of proximity preference to those in the neighborhood of LT though, right? It was just the cluster. The issue is that with the exceptions of Brent and Maury, the schools on the Hill are all under-enrolled anyway, so much so that they're mostly filled up with OOB students. That makes it a little more difficult to justify proximity preference.

Correct. But there are people outside of those within immediate proximity who think that SWS should have some sort of neighborhood preference.

Only the upper grades at quality programs are under-enrolled or filled iwth OOB kids, and that's because we have no viable middle school option. There's a chicken-and-egg issue but I don't think it's fair to intimate that SWS should be city-wide because there aren't enough Hill kids to fill it.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't enough "Hill" kids to fill SWS. The "Hill" is pretty darn big and could easily fill one school.

The question is to whether people in the immediate area should have some kind of preference for SWS. They don't seem to have any particularly compelling reason other than "we want to go there."

You're right. Let's make all our elementary schools citywide and eliminate sibling preference. I haven't heard any particularly compelling reason for them other than that people want to send their kids to school together near their homes.

[Anonymous]

The question is to whether people in the immediate area should have some kind of preference for SWS. They don't seem to have any particularly compelling reason other than "we want to go there."

You're right. Let's make all our elementary schools citywide and eliminate sibling preference. I haven't heard any particularly compelling reason for them other than that people want to send their kids to school together near their homes.

Gah! But you have a neighborhood school to which you are entitled to attend from K through 5th. Ludlow Taylor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The question is to whether people in the immediate area should have some kind of preference for SWS. They don't seem to have any particularly compelling reason other than "we want to go there."

You're right. Let's make all our elementary schools citywide and eliminate sibling preference. I haven't heard any particularly compelling reason for them other than that people want to send their kids to school together near their homes.

Gah! But you have a neighborhood school to which you are entitled to attend from K through 5th. Ludlow Taylor. Actually, both my children already attend a neighborhood school that runs through 5th grade in SWS, but thanks for the offer!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

SWS didn't offer any kind of proximity preference to those in the neighborhood of LT though, right? It was just the cluster. The issue is that with the exceptions of Brent and Maury, the schools on the Hill are all under-enrolled anyway, so much so that they're mostly filled up with OOB students. That makes it a little more difficult to justify proximity preference.

Correct. But there are people outside of those within immediate proximity who think that SWS should have some sort of neighborhood preference.

Only the upper grades at quality programs are under-enrolled or filled iwth OOB kids, and that's because we have no viable middle school option. There's a chicken-and-egg issue but I don't think it's fair to intimate that SWS should be city-wide because there aren't enough Hill kids to fill it.

If I recall correctly, the DCPS logic for making SWS city-wide is that any new specialty programs should be available to the whole city. When they're concentrated in just one neighborhood, it denies the rest of the city access to such opportunities. If a new specialty program were plopped down on Connecticut Ave at Porter St., it too would need to be city-wide instead of serving only Cleveland Park.

If that raises the question of "well then why are the SI programs all in neighborhood schools which offer neighborhood preference?" it's a good one. I suppose (and when you suppose you make an ass out of u and me) it may be partly due to the fact that most DCPS SI programs are SI more by default than by design. They're generally concentrated in the part of the city with a high ELL population, and it has proven to be a popular tool for drawing higher SES families in to the mix.

At the end of the day, it's about strategies that expand the pie (the pie being desirable seats). If an SI program moving into Bruce Monroe or Powell or Marie Reed serves to help the considerable ELL Spanish-speaking population (which tends to be low SES) mingle with the higher SES newcomers, and thus improve the diversity, test scores, parental involvement, etc., then it is perceived as a winning strategy. If designating Logan Montessori and SWS as city-wide thus allows more lower SES families access to higher quality programs, it too is perceived as a winning strategy. However, anything that concentrates higher SES families together and walls them off from the rest of the population, is in opposition to the prevailing trend.

That, for example, is why making Hardy a test-in school, or re-opening Western are political lead balloons. It allows the higher SES families WotP to dig a moat around their neighborhoods by creating small, exclusive schools which will quickly fill up with high SES families. It would do nothing about the larger problem of improving the quality of education across the board. Yes, there are higher SES families all over the city, however there aren't any lower SES children WotP. I suspect DCPS is desperate for creative ideas (thus the proposals A, B, and C) and if you have some, you might be taken seriously. However if it's taking a desirable, specialty, high-quality program in an expensive neighborhood, thus allowing families to "buy" their way in via real estate then you are fighting a losing battle.

I completely understand your frustration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

SWS didn't offer any kind of proximity preference to those in the neighborhood of LT though, right? It was just the cluster. The issue is that with the exceptions of Brent and Maury, the schools on the Hill are all under-enrolled anyway, so much so that they're mostly filled up with OOB students. That makes it a little more difficult to justify proximity preference.

Correct. But there are people outside of those within immediate proximity who think that SWS should have some sort of neighborhood preference.

Only the upper grades at quality programs are under-enrolled or filled iwth OOB kids, and that's because we have no viable middle school option. There's a chicken-and-egg issue but I don't think it's fair to intimate that SWS should be city-wide because there aren't enough Hill kids to fill it.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't enough "Hill" kids to fill SWS. The "Hill" is pretty darn big and could easily fill one school.

The question is to whether people in the immediate area should have some kind of preference for SWS. They don't seem to have any particularly compelling reason other than "we want to go there."

You're right. Let's make all our elementary schools citywide and eliminate sibling preference. I haven't heard any particularly compelling reason for them other than that people want to send their kids to school together near their homes.

::headdesk::

[Anonymous]

Just wanted to correct a few facts about SWS enrollment before the move to the Goding building.

*Many of the LT neighbors were inbound for the Cluster by virtue of being inbound for Stuart Hobson. That path into the cluster changed after we bought our house.
*But many of those same neighbors (including my family) ended up at SWS because the same walking distance proximity preference that applies to schools around the city applied to SWS when it was housed at Peabody. So though not technically in the Cluster, many could be admitted through walking distance preference.

[Anonymous]

Thanks 19:48, but I'm not sure how either of these facts has an effect on whether or not it should be possible to buy in to the school moving forward. We can talk all day about who lost what and why it was done but the bottom line is proximity now would benefit a mere handful of families and hurt every other student in the city, especially those on the hill interested in the unique aspects of the program, and who can still walk there even though they can't "see it from their front door."

Yeah, its tough, but it's tough for all of us to know there's such a variance in everyone's public schoolong experience in this city. Giving proximity to SWS would be setting a precedent that is a slippery slope. It's good for you, your immediate neighbors, and your property values but it is not the right move for DCPS as they try to reach their stated goals or for the long-term health of the surrounding schools. (Nor is it the right move for you existing neighborhood school.)

[Anonymous]

I am happy at my inbounds elementary, so have no dog in this fight, but I think it is more than a little ridiculous to say that giving a proximity preference would "hurt every other student in the city." There are very few nonsibling spaces. SWS is not a meaningful resource to "the city" as a whole. As an aside, I also don't buy the idea that Reggio is such a unique program that a citywide lottery is appropriate. My daughter went to a Reggio preschool, and it was perfectly pleasant, but I honestly do not see is as so different from the other early childhood methods around that it merits a citywide draw.