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

[Anonymous]

How big is SWS supposed to become? Is it two classes at each grade? Or three? If its two, we are talking about 48ish kids of each grade level drawn from parts of five school zones, and that doesn't count any siblings of students who get in OOB who make that number lower. I can't quite see the hysteria about undermining these other schools. Unless SWS is going to be a lot bigger than it has been described, it just isn't taking enough students to really make a difference. The whole point of it is that it is a tiny school that almost nobody OOB w/proximity or OOB will get into anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WHERE is the information on SWS and CHS "published"? Certainly not on the DCPS website...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How big is SWS supposed to become? Is it two classes at each grade? Or three? If its two, we are talking about 48ish kids of each grade level drawn from parts of five school zones, and that doesn't count any siblings of students who get in OOB who make that number lower. I can't quite see the hysteria about undermining these other schools. Unless SWS is going to be a lot bigger than it has been described, it just isn't taking enough students to really make a difference. The whole point of it is that it is a tiny school that almost nobody OOB w/proximity or OOB will get into anyway.

Which is why there isn't going to be proximity preference. That would eliminate it from being a city-wide school, and DCPS wants to be able to offer it as a city-wide school in order to support their claim that they are expanding opportunities and quality seats throughout the system.

Fundamentally DCPS does not want SWS to be a Hill school, they want it to draw city-wide like a charter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Making SWS a neighborhood school is not the answer. There are too many elementary schools on the Hill. That's the issue. The reason you see such large numbers of OOB is because (as in the case of L-T) the school has space for them. With fewer schools, the nucleus of IB families would grow and sustain itself. As of now the IB nucleus at a school like L-T just can't get up to the tipping point.

To play devil's advocate - Why not make L-T a city-wide school? It basically is already since it has so many OOB students. Although given the discussion earlier, it seems like any city-wide school option without proximity preference might be a violation of the law.

How would DCPS gain by making LT city-wide? All schools that aren't full with IB students already are effectively city-wide anyway, without DCPS having to create any new categories, regulations, etc. There's absolutely no benefit to this proposal.

I agree. That's why I said I was playing devil's advocate. There is no reason to make any school city-wide because the seats at underenrolled schools are filled city-wide through the OOB process anyway. This is true for seats at L-T and it is true for seats at SWS. Why be against proximity preference at SWS when we have a system for filling seats at schools already that can be applied equally to all schools? Why is it a better outcome to have students from other neighborhoods filling seats at SWS than at L-T? Why should DCPS create "new categories, regulations, etc" to fill seats at SWS, to use your language?

[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.

Sorry, but you are not the arbiter of what makes a "specialized school" - the school can certainly be specialized without having "special entrance requirements." And to clarify, the other reggio schools are "reggio inspired", and at least one of them (LT?) is half-assing it at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How big is SWS supposed to become? Is it two classes at each grade? Or three? If its two, we are talking about 48ish kids of each grade level drawn from parts of five school zones, and that doesn't count any siblings of students who get in OOB who make that number lower. I can't quite see the hysteria about undermining these other schools. Unless SWS is going to be a lot bigger than it has been described, it just isn't taking enough students to really make a difference. The whole point of it is that it is a tiny school that almost nobody OOB w/proximity or OOB will get into anyway.

Which is why there isn't going to be proximity preference. That would eliminate it from being a city-wide school, and DCPS wants to be able to offer it as a city-wide school in order to support their claim that they are expanding opportunities and quality seats throughout the system.

Fundamentally DCPS does not want SWS to be a Hill school, they want it to draw city-wide like a charter.

Why didn't they just move it to a part of the city where they are trying to create more seats then? DCPS doesn't run charter schools. That isn't its mission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Making SWS a neighborhood school is not the answer. There are too many elementary schools on the Hill. That's the issue. The reason you see such large numbers of OOB is because (as in the case of L-T) the school has space for them. With fewer schools, the nucleus of IB families would grow and sustain itself. As of now the IB nucleus at a school like L-T just can't get up to the tipping point.

To play devil's advocate - Why not make L-T a city-wide school? It basically is already since it has so many OOB students. Although given the discussion earlier, it seems like any city-wide school option without proximity preference might be a violation of the law.

How would DCPS gain by making LT city-wide? All schools that aren't full with IB students already are effectively city-wide anyway, without DCPS having to create any new categories, regulations, etc. There's absolutely no benefit to this proposal.

I agree. That's why I said I was playing devil's advocate. There is no reason to make any school city-wide because the seats at underenrolled schools are filled city-wide through the OOB process anyway. This is true for seats at L-T and it is true for seats at SWS. Why be against proximity preference at SWS when we have a system for filling seats at schools already that can be applied equally to all schools? Why is it a better outcome to have students from other neighborhoods filling seats at SWS than at L-T? Why should DCPS create "new categories, regulations, etc" to fill seats at SWS, to use your language?

Because in the case of SWS, allowing OOB with proximity would effectively make it a Hill, ergo it would not be city-wide. DCPS stands to gain by offering another city-wide school. Meanwhile, as long as the Hill can't support (fill with IB students) the elementary schools it already has, there is absolutely no justification for giving it another. The school it is replacing (Prospect) was city-wide, and SWS becomes city-wide. There is no net loss of seats to the Hill, because Peabody expands to fill SWSs space.

The only "winners" in allowing OOB with proximity at SWS are the immediate neighbors on the Hill. DCPS as a system loses, the schools SWS will poach from lose, and the rest of the city loses.

Leave LT as it is, make SWS city-wide - this is the winning scenario for DCPS & the rest of the city. Meanwhile, LT (and everyone else surrounding SWS) lose nothing. You can't lose what you haven't got.

[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.

Sorry, but you are not the arbiter of what makes a "specialized school" - the school can certainly be specialized without having "special entrance requirements." And to clarify, the other reggio schools are "reggio inspired", and at least one of them (LT?) is half-assing it at best.

Exactly. As previously stated, Logan Montessori is most definitely a "specialized school" and it most definitely does not have special entrance requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry, but you are not the arbiter of what makes a "specialized school" - the school can certainly be specialized without having "special entrance requirements." And to clarify, the other reggio schools are "reggio inspired", and at least one of them (LT?) is half-assing it at best.

Exactly. As previously stated, Logan Montessori is most definitely a "specialized school" and it most definitely does not have special entrance requirements.

I don't know the history of Logan, but somebody posted earlier that when Logan Montessorri first opened it had an interview process by which the families were chosen. At that point, it probably met the definition of a "specialty school" laid out in this part of the law. Now that it is a lottery school, it is less clear that it would satisfy this definition. It has the same legal question open around it that SWS has under its current enrollment process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then there lies the rub. There's a great school right there in SWS, but it's locked up, and you probably aren't going to have a shot in hell now anyway, with sib pref.

So, is the effort to get proximity much better spent on getting LT principal canned? I've heard direct reports on numerous occasions of how clueless this woman is.

What can be done here? How did Brent do it? Did they have a new principal? Fire a host of teachers? Can you approach principal and convince her to,carve out a language immersion space like Tyler?

This may true for the people who would get proximity preference who are IB for L-T. But, it doesn't address the issue for those people who would get proximity preference who are IB at Maury, Miner, J.O. Wilson, and Peabody. Prospect Learning Center actually sits near an odd juncture of all of these attendance zones, clipping each one, although the biggest chunk is in the L-T boundary area. While the folks with guaranteed seats at K at Peabody and Maury are probably most concerned with wait list issues at PS and PK, the folks IB to Miner and J.O. Wilson may want SWS as an option through 5th. Without an IB area for SWS, the two issues, quality at L-T and proximity preference at SWS, are related but not identical. For some people they are quite separate.

Proximity preference is a LOT smaller than you think and SWS wouldn't be clipping off parts of JO Wilson, Maury or Miner folks, and barely any or maybe even none from Peabody. This is really a LT IB issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. As previously stated, Logan Montessori is most definitely a "specialized school" and it most definitely does not have special entrance requirements.

I don't know the history of Logan, but somebody posted earlier that when Logan Montessorri first opened it had an interview process by which the families were chosen. At that point, it probably met the definition of a "specialty school" laid out in this part of the law. Now that it is a lottery school, it is less clear that it would satisfy this definition. It has the same legal question open around it that SWS has under its current enrollment process.

There's nothing in my reading of the law that says a specialized program has to have a specialized admission criteria. "When applicable, the Chancellor shall determine admission criteria for any approved specialized school, program, or academy...." In the case of CHS, students without prior Montessori experience aren't admitted after PS-3. In the case of the immersion programs, sibling preference trumps boundary preferences. These admission rules are annoying to some people, but they're not illegal. I'll bet that the law is broad enough to allow her to create a new citywide program at SWS, and if it's not, then the council will amend it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Making SWS a neighborhood school is not the answer. There are too many elementary schools on the Hill. That's the issue. The reason you see such large numbers of OOB is because (as in the case of L-T) the school has space for them. With fewer schools, the nucleus of IB families would grow and sustain itself. As of now the IB nucleus at a school like L-T just can't get up to the tipping point.

To play devil's advocate - Why not make L-T a city-wide school? It basically is already since it has so many OOB students. Although given the discussion earlier, it seems like any city-wide school option without proximity preference might be a violation of the law.

How would DCPS gain by making LT city-wide? All schools that aren't full with IB students already are effectively city-wide anyway, without DCPS having to create any new categories, regulations, etc. There's absolutely no benefit to this proposal.

I agree. That's why I said I was playing devil's advocate. There is no reason to make any school city-wide because the seats at underenrolled schools are filled city-wide through the OOB process anyway. This is true for seats at L-T and it is true for seats at SWS. Why be against proximity preference at SWS when we have a system for filling seats at schools already that can be applied equally to all schools? Why is it a better outcome to have students from other neighborhoods filling seats at SWS than at L-T? Why should DCPS create "new categories, regulations, etc" to fill seats at SWS, to use your language?

Because in the case of SWS, allowing OOB with proximity would effectively make it a Hill, ergo it would not be city-wide. DCPS stands to gain by offering another city-wide school. Meanwhile, as long as the Hill can't support (fill with IB students) the elementary schools it already has, there is absolutely no justification for giving it another. The school it is replacing (Prospect) was city-wide, and SWS becomes city-wide. There is no net loss of seats to the Hill, because Peabody expands to fill SWSs space.

The only "winners" in allowing OOB with proximity at SWS are the immediate neighbors on the Hill. DCPS as a system loses, the schools SWS will poach from lose, and the rest of the city loses.

Leave LT as it is, make SWS city-wide - this is the winning scenario for DCPS & the rest of the city. Meanwhile, LT (and everyone else surrounding SWS) lose nothing. You can't lose what you haven't got.

You seem to think that this is about winning and losing. The law doesn't really care about winning and losing. The law is concerned about establishing equal treatment of all people under the law so that no group is unduly favored or unduly burdened by a system. That is how the law defines a win. I understand why you feel the way that you do and why you feel that creating another school on the Hill would have downsides. You are not wrong about some of the downsides. I am simply pointing out another angle from which to see the problem. Creating a new and unique enrollment system for this one school (or really these two schools since the city-wide lottery nature of CHM is the same) in such a way that does not comport with the DCPS definition of a "specialty school, program, or academy" creates a legal problem. Giving OOB w/proximity preference is not the only way to solve this problem if that outcome is objectionable to DCPS. It can return to an interview system at CHM or create an interview system at SWS so that students likely to uniquely benefit from the program are admitted. This would be akin to the beginning of a magnet school program in DC, something that I think that many of us would very much welcome. But, a city-wide lottery that doesn't have another selection criteria does not satisfy the criteria that is listed in this part of the law on its own to establish programs such as SWS or CHM as specialty schools. I have to imagine that the lawyers who work at DCPS are well aware of this and are working on this problem right now. It will be interesting to see what information is released when we start getting information about the coming changes. Until we have concrete information from DCPS about what is to come, we are all just doing speculative, if interesting, mind exercises about the what ifs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How big is SWS supposed to become? Is it two classes at each grade? Or three? If its two, we are talking about 48ish kids of each grade level drawn from parts of five school zones, and that doesn't count any siblings of students who get in OOB who make that number lower. I can't quite see the hysteria about undermining these other schools. Unless SWS is going to be a lot bigger than it has been described, it just isn't taking enough students to really make a difference. The whole point of it is that it is a tiny school that almost nobody OOB w/proximity or OOB will get into anyway.

Which is why there isn't going to be proximity preference. That would eliminate it from being a city-wide school, and DCPS wants to be able to offer it as a city-wide school in order to support their claim that they are expanding opportunities and quality seats throughout the system.

Fundamentally DCPS does not want SWS to be a Hill school, they want it to draw city-wide like a charter.

Why didn't they just move it to a part of the city where they are trying to create more seats then? DCPS doesn't run charter schools. That isn't its mission.

Because A) it is a currently operating school, with current families, who live reasonably close to the school - it doesn't make sense to the people who are there now - and for the foreseeable future - to arbitrarily move it several miles away.

This is especially true, because B) Hello? They have to choose from among facilities they already have. When you're closing over a dozen schools, you don't go build a new one, you use something you've already got. Prospect is currently in use, is closing, and is already city-wide (so neighbors can't realistically complain about noise from new students, because they've already been dealing with noise from current and previous students for years). It's actually the most elegant solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry, but you are not the arbiter of what makes a "specialized school" - the school can certainly be specialized without having "special entrance requirements." And to clarify, the other reggio schools are "reggio inspired", and at least one of them (LT?) is half-assing it at best.

Exactly. As previously stated, Logan Montessori is most definitely a "specialized school" and it most definitely does not have special entrance requirements.

I don't know the history of Logan, but somebody posted earlier that when Logan Montessorri first opened it had an interview process by which the families were chosen. At that point, it probably met the definition of a "specialty school" laid out in this part of the law. Now that it is a lottery school, it is less clear that it would satisfy this definition. It has the same legal question open around it that SWS has under its current enrollment process.

There is not a precise, generally accepted legal definition of a "specialty school." "Specialty" is deliberately vague, and in this case, it is whatever DCPS says it is. In any event even if there was once an interview process, there isn't any longer, and yet it remains a specialty school. Not only that, but everyone is likely better off for it. Interviews are inherently subjective, and creating an interview process would likely end of favoring certain types of students over others. You want to talk about legal challenge? Think about defending an interview process which selects for school-readiness, independence, and emotional stability and ask yourself if that yields a higher SES (and also generally whiter) population. Wow, now THAT is a charge and a battle that DCPS really doesn't want to fight. You can bet the current enrollment process is much better in the eyes of the legal counsel, and it's going to stay what it is. And expanding specialized offerings (SWS) via a lottery process which does not favor higher SES, whiter populations (aka, Hill residents near Prospect) is exactly what DCPS wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You seem to think that this is about winning and losing. The law doesn't really care about winning and losing. The law is concerned about establishing equal treatment of all people under the law so that no group is unduly favored or unduly burdened by a system. That is how the law defines a win. I understand why you feel the way that you do and why you feel that creating another school on the Hill would have downsides. You are not wrong about some of the downsides. I am simply pointing out another angle from which to see the problem. Creating a new and unique enrollment system for this one school (or really these two schools since the city-wide lottery nature of CHM is the same) in such a way that does not comport with the DCPS definition of a "specialty school, program, or academy" creates a legal problem. Giving OOB w/proximity preference is not the only way to solve this problem if that outcome is objectionable to DCPS. It can return to an interview system at CHM or create an interview system at SWS so that students likely to uniquely benefit from the program are admitted. This would be akin to the beginning of a magnet school program in DC, something that I think that many of us would very much welcome. But, a city-wide lottery that doesn't have another selection criteria does not satisfy the criteria that is listed in this part of the law on its own to establish programs such as SWS or CHM as specialty schools. I have to imagine that the lawyers who work at DCPS are well aware of this and are working on this problem right now. It will be interesting to see what information is released when we start getting information about the coming changes. Until we have concrete information from DCPS about what is to come, we are all just doing speculative, if interesting, mind exercises about the what ifs.

This is where I get hung up. How does a citywide draw unduly favor or burden anyone? If a school is not an in-bounds school, then giving proximity preference essentially favors certain students. Proximity preference works for in-bounds schools, because the presumption is that in-bounds students had first dibs to go there. This I think is much more of an issue than whether or not Montessori or Reggio could be considered specialty schools.