DME Meeting at SWS June 5th

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The neighbors care about proximity rights to SWS, since they currently have boundary rights to Stuart. The SWS parents care about middle school, since SWS has no feeder. There should be two separate meetings, since everyone is going to be holding their own grudge/pity party, unless they just make Stuart the middle school and shut everyone up.

So much agita over a low-performing school which overwhelmingly serves low SES students anyway.

However, it's currently preferable to Eliot Hine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There were no IB rights to Prospect LC, which is SWS's new home.

Actually, SWS's new home is the Goding Elementary building, which educated neighborhood children until it was closed about a decade ago.

In the interim, the Goding site has been the home of Prospect Learning Center, which was a city-wide (NOT neighborhood) special ed program.

[Anonymous]

Also, I just commented *outside* the closing quote tag and it put it inside, so I don't think it's one person, I think it's a temporary glitch with the forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, I just commented *outside* the closing quote tag and it put it inside, so I don't think it's one person, I think it's a temporary glitch with the forum.

testing the quote block

[Anonymous]

Welp, it worked that time!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, I just commented *outside* the closing quote tag and it put it inside, so I don't think it's one person, I think it's a temporary glitch with the forum.

No, not one person. I'm the one who mentioned Prospect and was told it is Goding. I wasn't aware of it by the former name, but it doesn't alter my point that SWS/Goding/Prospect has not been a neighborhood school for many years (a decade+ apparently). Ergo, nobody bought their house or had their children with the expectation that was their local DCPS. Consequently, nothing has been lost to the neighborhood and no-one has been cheated in converting one city-wide school (Prospect - Special Education) to another city-wide school (SWS).

Since the neighbors weren't clamoring for proximity preference at Prospect, it looks pretty self-serving to be demanding it now.

[Anonymous]

I'm the person who said the "agitator" was ridiculous and it was my only comment on the forum until now. I also wanted to add, as a person who lives very near the school but has no direct stake since my kids are older, that the whole proximity-preference debate is not helping SWS's reputation as the whitest school in town -- even if (as is my understanding) it's less current families who are demanding it than people who happen to live nearby. I was at a party where a mom of a younger kid mentioned it and said, "Oh, yeah, those people just don't want to send their kids to school with black people," and about 5 people nodded in agreement. I understand that the majority of the SWS community doesn't feel that way, but the people clamoring for proximity preference aren't doing the school any favors in this respect.

[Anonymous]

Here's the upshot: Giving proximity preference for SWS is going to have the effect of creating yet another high performing, majority white affluent school while simultaneously handicapping the growth of Ludlow Taylor as a neighborhood school. Do you think that's what the DME and chancellor are looking to do? I certainly hope not.

So proximity boosters, you can stop all this talk about "good neighborhood schools for all" when you're really looking for a good neighborhood school for yourselves and a handful of your rich friends.

[Anonymous]

And FWIW, there seem to be several of us here who are against proximity preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the person who said the "agitator" was ridiculous and it was my only comment on the forum until now. I also wanted to add, as a person who lives very near the school but has no direct stake since my kids are older, that the whole proximity-preference debate is not helping SWS's reputation as the whitest school in town -- even if (as is my understanding) it's less current families who are demanding it than people who happen to live nearby. I was at a party where a mom of a younger kid mentioned it and said, "Oh, yeah, those people just don't want to send their kids to school with black people," and about 5 people nodded in agreement. I understand that the majority of the SWS community doesn't feel that way, but the people clamoring for proximity preference aren't doing the school any favors in this respect.

OH come on. This is absurd.
IF I lived across the street from SWS (and I don't), I'd rather send my kid there than to Ludlow Taylor. That's all this is. Parents who want the best possible school for their kids. I can't really blame them.

I am a current SWS parent, and I initially felt strongly that there should be some sort of proximity preference. I have somewhat modified my stance, but I do think it is important for schools to be neighborhood-based. I think it makes a stronger school community, is healthier for the kids, and is good for the neighborhood. However, SWS is sort of a by-default Hill school now, so I am not sure a preference is necessary.

[Anonymous]

+1. Also an SWS parent who thinks proximity preference is a good idea for the health of the school---but not boundaries since it is a specialized school. This is basically how it ran as part of the cluster: families could opt in or take their default neighborhood school ( Peabody ).

I say this not caring one iota what race the households around the school are. And those of you who think my opinion hinges on some kind of race hang up can go take a flying leap and drop your own hang ups as you go. What a crock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1. Also an SWS parent who thinks proximity preference is a good idea for the health of the school---but not boundaries since it is a specialized school. This is basically how it ran as part of the cluster: families could opt in or take their default neighborhood school ( Peabody ).

I say this not caring one iota what race the households around the school are. And those of you who think my opinion hinges on some kind of race hang up can go take a flying leap and drop your own hang ups as you go. What a crock.

I don't understand how someone can be in favor of proximity but not a boundary and think that there is not the appearance (if not the intention) of trying to gerrymander a situation where you get both small class sizes and a white, high-SES student body from Capitol Hill. If you think proximity is good for the health of the school, then it seems like you should be in favor of a boundary and take your lumps just like all the other neighborhood schools in terms of unpredictable class sizes and population driven by whoever lives in your boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1. Also an SWS parent who thinks proximity preference is a good idea for the health of the school---but not boundaries since it is a specialized school. This is basically how it ran as part of the cluster: families could opt in or take their default neighborhood school ( Peabody ).

I say this not caring one iota what race the households around the school are. And those of you who think my opinion hinges on some kind of race hang up can go take a flying leap and drop your own hang ups as you go. What a crock.

Pp, can you clarify why you think it's healthier again? I personally have gone back-and-forth on the matte, I see benefits AND detractors to proximity preference. I also think it's an important question to ask where the lottery winners this year came from. I've heard that most of the lotteryn" winners" this year were from the immediate neighborhood anyway, because people in the area ranked it high on their lottery applications. Can anyone from the school confirm that? If the school remains a "city-wide" school and we find that through the common lottery it mostly remains a neighborhood school anyway is it fair to argue against the minimal number of families who gain access to it,fromoutside of the neighborhood? If those families are particularly invested and interested in the model, shouldn't they be welcome?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There were no IB rights to Prospect LC, which is SWS's new home.

Actually, SWS's new home is the Goding Elementary building, which educated neighborhood children until it was closed about a decade ago.

Doesn't that mean the same result in the end? We're talking about a building that wasn't in use, and that didn't have a boundary. Nobody had anything taken away from them.

Actually, all of families who were sending their children to Goding had the school taken away from them when it was closed.

Are you planning to tell the Van Ness families that they shouldn't be able to go to school at Van Ness too since it wasn't "taken away from them?" I somewhat imagine decisions about how to set up schools and to draw boundaries for them being made on a more principled level than that. Until a couple years ago, every DCPS elementary school admitted the students who lived near them. Lots of us think that's how they should continue to operate.

Yes, of course. But they don't always get the option to attend EVERY school that is near them. Plenty of families live close to one school but are zoned for a different nearby school. If you somehow don't have a neighborhood school at all, that would be cause for concern.

Actually, people do get proximity preference for every school that they live within 1500 feet of in DC. I am inbound for Miner, but I have proximity preference at Maury. While proximity preference doesn't get me a seat at Maury right now because it fills up with IB kids, it does get me at the top of the list for OOB kids without sibling preference. This is essentially what is being asked for at SWS by the neighbors. Since there isn't an IB population, there is only sibling preference at SWS and, since the preferences in DC go IB, sibling, proximity, I don't see why proximity preference at SWS is looked at so harshly by some people. Giving it is just treating the school like others in DC. No boundary does not have to mean that the other two preference categories must be discarded. If you take away proximity preference at SWS, should you also take away sibling preference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There were no IB rights to Prospect LC, which is SWS's new home.

Actually, SWS's new home is the Goding Elementary building, which educated neighborhood children until it was closed about a decade ago.

Doesn't that mean the same result in the end? We're talking about a building that wasn't in use, and that didn't have a boundary. Nobody had anything taken away from them.

Actually, all of families who were sending their children to Goding had the school taken away from them when it was closed.

Are you planning to tell the Van Ness families that they shouldn't be able to go to school at Van Ness too since it wasn't "taken away from them?" I somewhat imagine decisions about how to set up schools and to draw boundaries for them being made on a more principled level than that. Until a couple years ago, every DCPS elementary school admitted the students who lived near them. Lots of us think that's how they should continue to operate.

Yes, of course. But they don't always get the option to attend EVERY school that is near them. Plenty of families live close to one school but are zoned for a different nearby school. If you somehow don't have a neighborhood school at all, that would be cause for concern.

Actually, people do get proximity preference for every school that they live within 1500 feet of in DC. I am inbound for Miner, but I have proximity preference at Maury. While proximity preference doesn't get me a seat at Maury right now because it fills up with IB kids, it does get me at the top of the list for OOB kids without sibling preference. This is essentially what is being asked for at SWS by the neighbors. Since there isn't an IB population, there is only sibling preference at SWS and, since the preferences in DC go IB, sibling, proximity, I don't see why proximity preference at SWS is looked at so harshly by some people. Giving it is just treating the school like others in DC. No boundary does not have to mean that the other two preference categories must be discarded. If you take away proximity preference at SWS, should you also take away sibling preference?

Sigh. But in the absence of an in-boundary population, proximity becomes a de facto boundary. Then you have a citywide school that accepts nobody but siblings and immediate neighbors. And is almost entirely white, which frankly looks bad in a city where we're trying to at least look like we're trying to bridge the achievement gap.