SWS Open House Impressions & Info, 1/31
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Thanks PP - perhaps I'm looking at the wrong thread, started recently? Don't see anything there?
|
Anonymous
| Ward 6 is gentrified but Ward 6 has the most housing projects. So why you might see the stroller brigade but it doesn't compare with the extended family living in the projects. We are an inner-city and we will not become a diverse school system for decades to come. |
Anonymous
Sorry, it was a thread started by a parent interested in Tyler, but no Tyler in the subject line. Thread addresses how the new lottery works http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/288023.page |
Anonymous
| Does anyone understand the intricacies of the sibling preference definition vis-a-vis SWS? I see it says that a student that graduated 2 years after the terminal year for a school can give their sib preference. If SWS is eventually going to be 5th grade, is that its terminal year? If it was part of the Cluster last year, is 8th grade it's terminal year? Or is it 1st grade like this year? Or is the terminal year when the sib attended (so K)? Thanks. |
Anonymous
|
Not sure i completely understand the question. I would think that if you had a child that graduated the program as it existed within Peabody, within the last 2 years (2011 or 2012), you should get sibling preference for the 13-14 school year. So, if you have a 2nd grader at Watkins who did the SWS program, their younger sibling would be eligible.
Eventually, the terminal year will be 5th grade, not sure how 8th plays into it? Best to call school directly. |
Anonymous
| ^^ its a unique situation with them expanding seats upward, but my understanding is that the terminal year would still be K. So, under the pps scenario above, if you have a 3rd grader at Watkins, you receive no preference. (And, having a 5th grader at a charter with a 3-year-old sibling shopping the lottery would not a preference situation either, if that's what we're getting at...) |
Anonymous
This would be ROUGHLY within a square bounded by 6th St NE and 13th St NE, C St NE and I St NE. |
Anonymous
This could very well be true, but it makes little sense to me. If an SWS at Peabody student rose to 1st elsewhere prior to the option of moving to SWS at Logan for 1st they would currently be in 2nd grade (ie one year removed from terminating grade at the time). The prior year (2 years from terminating grade would be currently in 3rd grade. Last year's K didn't terminate -- it expanded to SWS Logan 1st grade. It should include siblings of current 2nd and 3rd graders from Watkins who rose from SWS at Peabody. It wouldn't make sense to extend this sibling priority to Watkins 1st graders who rose from SWS Peabody K, as they had the opportunity to remain at SWS Logan for 1st. I'm not sure about the charter analogy. I know of cases where much younger sibs got priority for EC at charters where the elder child had a seat, regardless of grade. |
Anonymous
| The boundary square identified by the PP would disrupt the LT, Maury, and JO Wilson boundaries, and a sliver of Peabody. But interestingly, it would still leave a lot of inbound students for each of the schools. Perhaps DCPS wanted to wait until the broader boundary review this spring before providing a disruption for all of these schools. |
Anonymous
| Last year (and of course all previous years), SWS sibling preference included all Cluster students, through 8th grade at Stuart-Hobson. But I guess even though those rules were within the past two years, it doesn't really make any difference? I'm sure not. |
Anonymous
| This may still be the case. If there's room for interpretation in this scenario, I don't get the impression they want to turn down any siblings. |