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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2106.7 The Chancellor may designate a given school, program, or academy, including an early childhood school or program, as a specialized school, program, or academy due to the unique academic character of the school, program, or academy and the importance of matching children's needs and strengths to the mission of a school, program, or academy. When applicable, the Chancellor shall determine admission criteria for any approved specialized school, program, or academy for adoption by the Board.

This and more about proximity and out-of-boundary at:
http://www.dcregs.org/Gateway/FinalAdoptionHome.aspx?RuleVersionID=3879338

Interesting document.

This section is followed by the following one:

Students applying to specialized schools, programs, or academies must meet the specific criteria established for the schools, programs, or academies to which they are applying. Eligibility requirements and selection criteria shall be published and made available upon request to parents. When there are more students than there are available vacancies, students who are ranked equally on the selection criteria shall be selected by lottery.

As a lawyer, what I would point to is that this refers to "specialized schools, programs, or academies" for which students "must meet specific criteria established for the schools, programs, or academies to which they are applying." I would interpret this as schools that have entrance tests, language fluency tests, artistic performance auditions, etc. None of these apply to SWS, which is, right now, a strict lottery school and not actually a specialty school with special entrance requirements.

Again, the outcome of a lawsuit is not clear, but if this is the section of the law that DCPS were to try to use in a court case, there is plenty of legal maneuvering room here.

Is this M.F.? Love how you always mention that you are a lawyer!

No. Sorry, I'm not her/him. But, this is one of the most interesting exchanges I have ever had on DCUM. It makes me less sad for my maternity leave to be over and to go back to my job. The law is full of interesting intricacies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure all the proximity and other preferences are a matter of law. Proximity families are legally entitled to a school of right, and that is protected even if SWS is a citywide program. Are you suggesting that proximity families should sue?

I don't understand how you are using this language. Can you clarify?

Sorry, all families are entitled to an in-bounds school, and that is your school of right. I'm not sure that the secondary preferences (sibling, proximity) are protected by law or if this just a DCPS policy. I'm sure someone is researching it.

Whether or not the other preferences are protected by law is an interesting legal question. However, there is a legal requirement that government entities, like DCPS, treat all residents equally under standard rules and regulations. Since DCPS has standard rules and regulations for how students are admitted to elementary schools, then a legal challenge based on violating these procedures would not be without legal merit (which is different from saying that the case would win, since legal outcomes are very dependent on the vagaries of the lawyers, judges, etc.).

I am certainly not saying that people who would get proximity preference to this school SHOULD sue. It is wildly premature for considering such an action and, since the boundary and preference details have not been released yet, it may be moot if DCPS changes this on its own. What I am saying is that this group of residents COULD sue and, if they did, they would have a pretty good legal leg to stand on.

School boundary redrawing is the kind of thing that spins off multiple lawsuits in almost every jurisdiction in which it is undertaken. That is an inevitability in the process and I would suspect that DC sees (conservatively) at least a dozen or so challenges as the process goes forward. We will have to wait and see if this becomes one of those challenges.


No, they wouldn't. Not even close, I hardly know where to begin. Let's start with your adamant assertion vis-a-vis boundaries: No boundaries are being redrawn. They were always inbounds for LT and they remain inbounds for LT.

DCPS has already established various kinds of city-wide schools, be they application/test-in HSs, or Oyster as a magnet (now for the Spanish dominant side), or Logan Montessori. This is just one more different kind of city-wide program which actually expands the number of quality seats to students all over the city. You're not going to find a sympathetic judge, but you could probably spin your wheels and waste some of your time and money for quite a while.

[Anonymous]

Totally MF. Like when another MOTH is recognizable over here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In truth, the number of quality early childhood spots is basically the same given that Peabody was able to expand. And the cluster never really had claim to SWS elementary - the Cluster elementary is Watkins. What is odd to me is that there is no proximity preference for SWS and Logan. I'm not saying it has to be a huge area, but the idea that the neighbors should deal with the downsides of colocation next to the school without any upside is not a good one. One point of correction - Prospect was a school for persons with disabilities. The fact that Prospect was citywide is not a real comparison - students were placed there based on their IEP. The only other citywide elementary school is Logan.

+1. Prospect is a school that requires a student to qualify for services by having a qualifying IEP. It is not a city-wide school in the sense that anyone can go there through a lottery. If SWS was becoming a magnet test-in school or some other kind of school that required the students to show they had a special skill or a special need, that would be different. The fact is that it is just a regular elementary school and DCPS policy is that there is a hierarchy that determines who gets preference at non-specialty schools: IB w/sibling, IB, OOB w/sibling, OOB w/proximity, no preference. All that is being claimed here is that DCPS should not violate its own preference order, not that DCPS provide anything special to the people who live in this community. If it chooses to not give an IB area to this school then the list still should go OOB w/sibling, OOB w/proximity, no preference. That is not special treatment. That is equal treatment.

Isn't it a Reggio program? Ergo, NOT a regular elementary school?

As pointed out above, it does not qualify as a "specialized school, program, or academy" since it doesn't have special entrance requirements. A number of other elementary schools, including several on Capitol Hill, use the Reggio program. While an interesting pedagogical difference, it doesn't make it unique under the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In truth, the number of quality early childhood spots is basically the same given that Peabody was able to expand. And the cluster never really had claim to SWS elementary - the Cluster elementary is Watkins. What is odd to me is that there is no proximity preference for SWS and Logan. I'm not saying it has to be a huge area, but the idea that the neighbors should deal with the downsides of colocation next to the school without any upside is not a good one. One point of correction - Prospect was a school for persons with disabilities. The fact that Prospect was citywide is not a real comparison - students were placed there based on their IEP. The only other citywide elementary school is Logan.

+1. Prospect is a school that requires a student to qualify for services by having a qualifying IEP. It is not a city-wide school in the sense that anyone can go there through a lottery. If SWS was becoming a magnet test-in school or some other kind of school that required the students to show they had a special skill or a special need, that would be different. The fact is that it is just a regular elementary school and DCPS policy is that there is a hierarchy that determines who gets preference at non-specialty schools: IB w/sibling, IB, OOB w/sibling, OOB w/proximity, no preference. All that is being claimed here is that DCPS should not violate its own preference order, not that DCPS provide anything special to the people who live in this community. If it chooses to not give an IB area to this school then the list still should go OOB w/sibling, OOB w/proximity, no preference. That is not special treatment. That is equal treatment.

Isn't it a Reggio program? Ergo, NOT a regular elementary school?

As pointed out above, it does not qualify as a "specialized school, program, or academy" since it doesn't have special entrance requirements. A number of other elementary schools, including several on Capitol Hill, use the Reggio program. While an interesting pedagogical difference, it doesn't make it unique under the law.

At the pre-school level, yes indeed you can have a specialized program without a test-in requirement. I can't believe you can look in the mirror and take yourself seriously.

[Anonymous]

Is there a legally accepted definition of a "specialized school" with a bright line to determine qualification as such? Please point me there.

[Anonymous]

I'm not a lawyer, but I bet the Chancellor could just say, we'd like to create a specialized Reggio-Emilia program open to students from the entire District. Done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure all the proximity and other preferences are a matter of law. Proximity families are legally entitled to a school of right, and that is protected even if SWS is a citywide program. Are you suggesting that proximity families should sue?

I don't understand how you are using this language. Can you clarify?

Sorry, all families are entitled to an in-bounds school, and that is your school of right. I'm not sure that the secondary preferences (sibling, proximity) are protected by law or if this just a DCPS policy. I'm sure someone is researching it.

Whether or not the other preferences are protected by law is an interesting legal question. However, there is a legal requirement that government entities, like DCPS, treat all residents equally under standard rules and regulations. Since DCPS has standard rules and regulations for how students are admitted to elementary schools, then a legal challenge based on violating these procedures would not be without legal merit (which is different from saying that the case would win, since legal outcomes are very dependent on the vagaries of the lawyers, judges, etc.).

I am certainly not saying that people who would get proximity preference to this school SHOULD sue. It is wildly premature for considering such an action and, since the boundary and preference details have not been released yet, it may be moot if DCPS changes this on its own. What I am saying is that this group of residents COULD sue and, if they did, they would have a pretty good legal leg to stand on.

School boundary redrawing is the kind of thing that spins off multiple lawsuits in almost every jurisdiction in which it is undertaken. That is an inevitability in the process and I would suspect that DC sees (conservatively) at least a dozen or so challenges as the process goes forward. We will have to wait and see if this becomes one of those challenges.

No, they wouldn't. Not even close, I hardly know where to begin. Let's start with your adamant assertion vis-a-vis boundaries: No boundaries are being redrawn. They were always inbounds for LT and they remain inbounds for LT.

DCPS has already established various kinds of city-wide schools, be they application/test-in HSs, or Oyster as a magnet (now for the Spanish dominant side), or Logan Montessori. This is just one more different kind of city-wide program which actually expands the number of quality seats to students all over the city. You're not going to find a sympathetic judge, but you could probably spin your wheels and waste some of your time and money for quite a while.

I'm not sure that what I said was terribly controversial. I said that lawsuits will arise out of the DCPS redistricting process. The boundaries in this part of the city may be redrawn, we don't know that yet since the process has not yet opened to public comment. There will definitely be lawsuits coming from boundary changes across the city if the experiences of other cities that have gone through this process are a predictor. I said that it isn't clear what will happen in this case because the details are not known yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but I bet the Chancellor could just say, we'd like to create a specialized Reggio-Emilia program open to students from the entire District. Done.

Of course she could. That isn't the point. The question is could she do this and not make the system vulnerable to legal challenges. That is what is interesting about this question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but I bet the Chancellor could just say, we'd like to create a specialized Reggio-Emilia program open to students from the entire District. Done.

Of course she could. That isn't the point. The question is could she do this and not make the system vulnerable to legal challenges. That is what is interesting about this question.

I don't understand on what basis one would challenge? The chancellor has the right to create a specialized program and determine the admission criteria. The other protections relate to equal access, which a citywide lottery would certainly provide. I'm not seeing the vulnerability in this case.

[Anonymous]

I would live to know what precedent was set by the Montessori when it was at Watkins. It was a city wide program with no special requirements of the children. Did do they have any preference for capitol hill families? Or is it straight lottery? I remember hearing years ago that they did some kind of zip code quota thing to be sure people from all over were admitted. I imagine if someone could get to the bottom of this it would be fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In truth, the number of quality early childhood spots is basically the same given that Peabody was able to expand. And the cluster never really had claim to SWS elementary - the Cluster elementary is Watkins. What is odd to me is that there is no proximity preference for SWS and Logan. I'm not saying it has to be a huge area, but the idea that the neighbors should deal with the downsides of colocation next to the school without any upside is not a good one. One point of correction - Prospect was a school for persons with disabilities. The fact that Prospect was citywide is not a real comparison - students were placed there based on their IEP. The only other citywide elementary school is Logan.

+1. Prospect is a school that requires a student to qualify for services by having a qualifying IEP. It is not a city-wide school in the sense that anyone can go there through a lottery. If SWS was becoming a magnet test-in school or some other kind of school that required the students to show they had a special skill or a special need, that would be different. The fact is that it is just a regular elementary school and DCPS policy is that there is a hierarchy that determines who gets preference at non-specialty schools: IB w/sibling, IB, OOB w/sibling, OOB w/proximity, no preference. All that is being claimed here is that DCPS should not violate its own preference order, not that DCPS provide anything special to the people who live in this community. If it chooses to not give an IB area to this school then the list still should go OOB w/sibling, OOB w/proximity, no preference. That is not special treatment. That is equal treatment.

Isn't it a Reggio program? Ergo, NOT a regular elementary school?

As pointed out above, it does not qualify as a "specialized school, program, or academy" since it doesn't have special entrance requirements. A number of other elementary schools, including several on Capitol Hill, use the Reggio program. While an interesting pedagogical difference, it doesn't make it unique under the law.

At the pre-school level, yes indeed you can have a specialized program without a test-in requirement. I can't believe you can look in the mirror and take yourself seriously.

Someone posted a section of DC law and I responded to it. Under this one section of the law, there is a valid legal interpretation that SWS does not qualify as a "specialized school, program, or academy." That is what I was responding to. There may very well be, to quote a previous poster, a "bright line" definition for what qualifies as such a program, but this section of the law isn't it. Without some way to determine that certain students "need" to go to a special program and, therefore, should get preference over other students outside of regular procedures would require something more than a desire on the part of the Chancellor to make this something that isn't vulnerable to challenges.

Don't shoot the messenger. I am not advocating that anyone take legal action. I am simply pointing out that the legal questions involved in these kind of redistricting fights are not simple or straightforward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would live to know what precedent was set by the Montessori when it was at Watkins. It was a city wide program with no special requirements of the children. Did do they have any preference for capitol hill families? Or is it straight lottery? I remember hearing years ago that they did some kind of zip code quota thing to be sure people from all over were admitted. I imagine if someone could get to the bottom of this it would be fascinating.

I am pretty sure that when Cap Hill Montessori started at Watkins, they interviewed families and selected who got in since not all kids are a good fit. Now, it is straight lottery and I assume has been for a while.

[Anonymous]

Setting aside the "specialized school" aspect, is it possible to argue that the neighborhood could demographically support another IB school with a tweaking of the lines? Is LT underenrolled? Looking at that Ps3 wait list at Maury, LT and even JO, it sure seems like there would be no problem finding kids to fill all of them in the immediate vicinity?

[Anonymous]

LT is not underenrolled, I don't think, but there are virtually no IB kids there after K. Most LT elementary kids are from other wards or Maryland.