Anyone NOT taking their SWS PK spot?

[Anonymous]

That is the problem with charters and citywide schools -- parents are desperate to flee their horrible neighborhood schools (if not truly, at least in their minds) and will go anywhere else, regardless of the program. "Reggio without community?" No problem! "Hebrew immersion?" No problem!

[Anonymous]

Let's be clear - neighborhood is not part of reggio. A sense of community is. And there's the rub I suppose - how people define community does vary. Some people see it very geographically - sharing a common boundary; others see it more philosophically - sharing a common mindset.

I'm a current SWS parent, and I don't think proximity is beneficial for the school. We're not a Ward 6 boundary school so we don't have Wells championing us and with proximity preference, it dilutes our city-wide argument and thus ability to get other council members invested in us - and thus the school gets lost politically speaking.

[Anonymous]

Probably silly question: Why would you care if other council members are "invested" in you? It is a successful school with a desirable program. Are you worried that without them being invested they would close it down?
And why don't you have Tommy W. championing you?
Sorry, but without the background info you seem to have, it sounds rather in-comprehensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is the problem with charters and citywide schools -- parents are desperate to flee their horrible neighborhood schools (if not truly, at least in their minds) and will go anywhere else, regardless of the program. "Reggio without community?" No problem! "Hebrew immersion?" No problem!

that's an awfully narrow view of community. You speak of these options like they're taken solely out of desperation. Plenty of families actively seek out specific language immersion, or specialized curricula that meets their philosophic preferences. I wouldn't assume to know the motives of every family or the basis for their school decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is the problem with charters and citywide schools -- parents are desperate to flee their horrible neighborhood schools (if not truly, at least in their minds) and will go anywhere else, regardless of the program. "Reggio without community?" No problem! "Hebrew immersion?" No problem!

that's an awfully narrow view of community. You speak of these options like they're taken solely out of desperation. Plenty of families actively seek out specific language immersion, or specialized curricula that meets their philosophic preferences. I wouldn't assume to know the motives of every family or the basis for their school decisions.

That may be true, but with the lottery system, you don't really get to choose. So I know many families that have applied to as many schools as possible and to see what comes up, even though they would rather just go to a specific school.

And I think it is important for Reggio to be able to engage with the surrounding neighborhood/community, which I'm sure SWS will continue, but I'm thinking more about the children and how they view their personal geography.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear - neighborhood is not part of reggio. A sense of community is. And there's the rub I suppose - how people define community does vary. Some people see it very geographically - sharing a common boundary; others see it more philosophically - sharing a common mindset.

I'm a current SWS parent, and I don't think proximity is beneficial for the school. We're not a Ward 6 boundary school so we don't have Wells championing us and with proximity preference, it dilutes our city-wide argument and thus ability to get other council members invested in us - and thus the school gets lost politically speaking.

Are you a current SWS parent who got in because of boundary preference with the Cluster boundaries? If so, how nice for you to take advantage of the chance to get in with proximity preference, but to champion a citywide school for others who have to get lucky in the lottery.

[Anonymous]

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear - neighborhood is not part of reggio. A sense of community is. And there's the rub I suppose - how people define community does vary. Some people see it very geographically - sharing a common boundary; others see it more philosophically - sharing a common mindset.

I'm a current SWS parent, and I don't think proximity is beneficial for the school. We're not a Ward 6 boundary school so we don't have Wells championing us and with proximity preference, it dilutes our city-wide argument and thus ability to get other council members invested in us - and thus the school gets lost politically speaking.

Are you a current SWS parent who got in because of boundary preference with the Cluster boundaries? If so, how nice for you to take advantage of the chance to get in with proximity preference, but to champion a citywide school for others who have to get lucky in the lottery.

Are you a parent who bought in bounds for Ludlow Taylor but are angling for a proximity preference for a new citywide school, championing a preference that will essentially deny access to the program to anyone but you and a tiny fraction of the city? See how it looks different to other people?

[Anonymous]

does SWS have a permanent location identify already?

[Anonymous]

identified

[Anonymous]

Yes, it will be located at the Goding School (currently Prospect) at 9th and F NE.

[Anonymous]

Two recurring themes on here that don't make sense:

(1) The animosity that non-Ludlow Taylor Hill families have toward LT families who want something better. Don't you understand that people have tried with LT and it's not working? And don't you understand that, by helping either make LT better or get rid of it altogether, you're helping yourself by making the Hill better?

(2) The animosity that everyone has toward people living around the new SWS who are agitating for proximity. The mood seems to be, "well, you're doing well enough financially -- why should you get a nice neighborhood school?" I have a feeling that if a citywide school (like SWS) was placed in the middle of the poorest neighborhood in Ward 8, but kids from those neighborhoods were only allowed in through the lottery, then people on DCUM would be singing a different tune about what's fair with regard to proximity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two recurring themes on here that don't make sense:

(1) The animosity that non-Ludlow Taylor Hill families have toward LT families who want something better. Don't you understand that people have tried with LT and it's not working? And don't you understand that, by helping either make LT better or get rid of it altogether, you're helping yourself by making the Hill better?

(2) The animosity that everyone has toward people living around the new SWS who are agitating for proximity. The mood seems to be, "well, you're doing well enough financially -- why should you get a nice neighborhood school?" I have a feeling that if a citywide school (like SWS) was placed in the middle of the poorest neighborhood in Ward 8, but kids from those neighborhoods were only allowed in through the lottery, then people on DCUM would be singing a different tune about what's fair with regard to proximity.

Really, why doesn't it make sense? There are thousands of families in DC who have a crappy IB school who would love to have SWS land on their corner and suddenly be their neighborhood school. What makes these particular families different? What about the L-T families who don't have proximity to SWS? I certainly don't think that giving proximity preference to SWS helps "make LT better," as you claim above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

(2) The animosity that everyone has toward people living around the new SWS who are agitating for proximity. The mood seems to be, "well, you're doing well enough financially -- why should you get a nice neighborhood school?" I have a feeling that if a citywide school (like SWS) was placed in the middle of the poorest neighborhood in Ward 8, but kids from those neighborhoods were only allowed in through the lottery, then people on DCUM would be singing a different tune about what's fair with regard to proximity.

And yeah, I would be in FULL support of an awesome neighborhood school landing in the poorest neighborhood in Ward 8, because I'm not an asshole. Citywide preference in an affluent part of the Hill at least makes it possible for kids to be pulled from all wards in the city.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous
(2) The animosity that everyone has toward people living around the new SWS who are agitating for proximity. The mood seems to be, "well, you're doing well enough financially -- why should you get a nice neighborhood school?" I have a feeling that if a citywide school (like SWS) was placed in the middle of the poorest neighborhood in Ward 8, but kids from those neighborhoods were only allowed in through the lottery, then people on DCUM would be singing a different tune about what's fair with regard to proximity.

City-wide preference for SWS obviously won't help the hapless LT crowd, but it also won't help SWS. The program has been strong as much because it has the lowest percentage of FARMs kids EotP as anything else. LT will only turn around once the building is renovated, the principal goes, and Tommy Wells, who doesn't give a damn, also goes. It will start to turn eventually, maybe in 5 years. In the meantime, SWS will slip, because it won't be as high-SES in a few years and will lose some PTA cohesion and momentum/fund-raising capacity as a result. The principal and teachers want neighborhood preference, won't get it, and may go themselves as a result. Great. Kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, or at least make it ill.