Petition to keep School-Within-School (SWS) a true neighborhood school!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the school punching for it as well?

No. The school leadership has officially communicated to current SWS families that it will remain neutral on the subject and not weigh in on the matter pro or con.

[Anonymous]

10:27, the city looks at gentrifiers with these phrase in mind "everyone is replaceable" so with that each time a gentrifier moves and another moves in at a higher-rate then the city is happy!!! They [politicians] know they [gentrifiers] will fight and they don't shy away from it either and they welcome that your money will off-set the cost as it will benefit the other demographic as well. The city politician see the color of money when it is in regards to the gentrifiers but they seek the other race when it is time to vote. There's not one white politician who's seeking the mayor's office that knows he will have to suck-up to the race that is 51% of the city and 95% of the school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if so many of you want to keep this "gem" citywide, why not make all DCPS citywide? If you schlep your kids across town from NW to go to this gem, why shouldn't the same opportunity be offered to Hill parents? Let's get rid of IB completely. That would be fair.

+1 (mom now bordered by the only two citywide DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if so many of you want to keep this "gem" citywide, why not make all DCPS citywide? If you schlep your kids across town from NW to go to this gem, why shouldn't the same opportunity be offered to Hill parents? Let's get rid of IB completely. That would be fair.

+1 (mom now bordered by the only two citywide DCPS.

Wow, does that include McKinley, Phelps, Ellington, School without Walls, Banneker? I get that you're pissed, but the "only two citywide programs" is tired and untrue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if so many of you want to keep this "gem" citywide, why not make all DCPS citywide? If you schlep your kids across town from NW to go to this gem, why shouldn't the same opportunity be offered to Hill parents? Let's get rid of IB completely. That would be fair.

+1 (mom now bordered by the only two citywide DCPS.

Wow, does that include McKinley, Phelps, Ellington, School without Walls, Banneker? I get that you're pissed, but the "only two citywide programs" is tired and untrue.

Its not untrue in the sense that there are only two current city-wide elementary schools and these are the only schools of any level that do not have any sort of admissions criteria other than the lottery. If SWS and Logan are to become true magnet schools in the sense that they have selective admissions criteria and serve a specific, differentiated population, then I would welcome them as city-wide programs. As lottery schools, I don't see why we need them when we have so many charter schools already.

[Anonymous]

Rember when SWS made up their own admittance rules? Like OOB siblings could reserve spots then the IB kids got to fight for the left overs?

Those were the days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if so many of you want to keep this "gem" citywide, why not make all DCPS citywide? If you schlep your kids across town from NW to go to this gem, why shouldn't the same opportunity be offered to Hill parents? Let's get rid of IB completely. That would be fair.

Sure, knock yourself out. And in the meantime, keeping SWS in the citywide gem category is a good first step.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rember when SWS made up their own admittance rules? Like OOB siblings could reserve spots then the IB kids got to fight for the left overs?

Those were the days.

+1 though I stll think there should ne some kind of neighborhood preference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rember when SWS made up their own admittance rules? Like OOB siblings could reserve spots then the IB kids got to fight for the left overs?

Those were the days.

Remember when SWS shared a building with the rest of Peabody, and you had 3 floors of black and brown children and then a penthouse full of white children where even the walls were pale?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing I don't get is all the vitriol that is directed toward the Hill. A lot of people seem to have the attitude that the Hill doesn't "deserve" more good schools because we already have some. Guess what folks? It's not a zero-sum game. Bitching about the (relatively high) quality of schools on the Hill will not improve the (relatively low) quality of schools elsewhere. Ten years ago, there was one decent school option on the Hill (Cluster). Now there are 4-6, depending on who you ask and their standards. That is the result of a lot of sweat equity and money by parents on the Hill, and it is absolutely replicable elsewhere.

I guess that's DCUM for you though... Better to bitch anonymously on the internet than to get off your ass and fix the problem...

It's not vitriol to make a cogent argument. You're simply calling it vitriol because you have no other response. We're supposed to be diverted by you trying to derail the line of debate which you cannot refute.

Again, the Hill has an abundance of IB schools which it cannot fill with IB students, therefore there is no logical justification for creating another.

[Anonymous]

^ This. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Kaya has absolutley no motivation to gant proximity, and that's the only person who matters.

I think this one has been hashed out, unless the school is going to push for it, you're over before you start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I don't get is all the vitriol that is directed toward the Hill. A lot of people seem to have the attitude that the Hill doesn't "deserve" more good schools because we already have some. Guess what folks? It's not a zero-sum game. Bitching about the (relatively high) quality of schools on the Hill will not improve the (relatively low) quality of schools elsewhere. Ten years ago, there was one decent school option on the Hill (Cluster). Now there are 4-6, depending on who you ask and their standards. That is the result of a lot of sweat equity and money by parents on the Hill, and it is absolutely replicable elsewhere.

I guess that's DCUM for you though... Better to bitch anonymously on the internet than to get off your ass and fix the problem...

Is this mean to be ironic, or just unintentionally hilarious? The whole point of this conversation is that there is a small slice of Hill families who absolutely do not want to put their sweat equity and money into their in-bounds school and claim that the relative success enjoyed by other Hill schools is absolutely NOT replicable at Ludlow Taylor. So, yes, I agree with you that this talk of proximity preference is pure nonsense.

You are ignorant of the history of SWS. It WAS a neighborhood school and it was built by families on the Hill. Almost every kid who is there currently is an inbounds Hill kid. It hasn't even experienced one class of students from a citywide draw yet. It is an historically neighborhood school; the petition seeks to return it to a school that serves the neighborhood in which it is located, just like every other DCPS school (except the Montessori one).

No, you are choosing to ignore the Peabody expansion. Not a single seat was taken from the neighborhood when SWS moved, because Peabody expanded to fill and offer them. Net loss = ZERO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon now how long can young gentrifiers stay young? This has been going on for atleast 10 years and not a single nary budge. Really, how hard is it to have Eliot-Hine retooled but what has DCPS done but ignore the gentrifiers outcry and kept it the same.

Sure you buy a house in Ward 6 but theres a family moving into the projects of Ward 6 everyday. The gentrifiers move in and have a baby and there is the project family moving with 3 to 4 school age children.

So who does DCPS turn to at the moment, it is not rocket science, people? A school system that has a majority of AA will be the primary focus for the future because the past has shown that our gentrifiers will never catch-up.

It is not that the city doesn't cares but they are not concern because gentrifiers are replacing gentrifiers.

I think the city cares deeply about gentrifiers. They may have fewer kids, but they provide lots more tax revenue!

The city also knows that gentrifiers will literally go out of their way (while staying in DC) to improve their kids' education. They will trek to a distant OB school or charter they get into or even move closer once they get in!

So knowing that the city supports more charters (see today's Emma Brown article), why would the city do anything right now to make neighborhood schools more attractive to parents?

The city sure does care about gentrifiers, and no they are not just replacing other gentrifiers. It wasn't too long ago that Adams Morgan was considered a bad neighborhood for families, edgy for young people moving to DC for internships. Fast forward 10 or 12 years and now there are gentrifiers in places no gentrifier had previously even heard of: Shaw, Bloomingdale, Brookland, Petworth, Eckington, Navy Yards... Dog parks, and bike lanes, and streetcars, oh my!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:10:27, the city looks at gentrifiers with these phrase in mind "everyone is replaceable" so with that each time a gentrifier moves and another moves in at a higher-rate then the city is happy!!! They [politicians] know they [gentrifiers] will fight and they don't shy away from it either and they welcome that your money will off-set the cost as it will benefit the other demographic as well. The city politician see the color of money when it is in regards to the gentrifiers but they seek the other race when it is time to vote. There's not one white politician who's seeking the mayor's office that knows he will have to suck-up to the race that is 51% of the city and 95% of the school system.

Your numbers are out-dated. AA plurality, not majority. Now 49% of DC population and 69% of DCPS.

http://dcist.com/2012/05/dc_chocolate_city_no_more.php

http://dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/Who+We+Are/Facts+and+Statistics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rember when SWS made up their own admittance rules? Like OOB siblings could reserve spots then the IB kids got to fight for the left overs?

Those were the days.

Remember when SWS shared a building with the rest of Peabody, and you had 3 floors of black and brown children and then a penthouse full of white children where even the walls were pale?

You mean like Tyler SI now? And please explain to this board what prevented anyone of color from enrolling in SWS (or Tyler SI today). Is/was there race based admission? You really seem to have a nuanced perspective on this. Please share your many insights.

Or is this is the kind of pointless snide and passive aggressive banter synomous with DCUM