Reply to DME Meeting at SWS June 5th

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "DME Meeting at SWS June 5th"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
 There were no IB rights to Prospect LC, which is SWS's new home.

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

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.  [/quote]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.   [/quote]

Yes, of course. [b]But they don't always get the option to attend EVERY school that is near them.[/b] 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.[/quote]

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? [/quote]

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.[/quote]

If it is truly a citywide school, why is it almost exclusively white?  Shouldn't it be mostly black if it takes kids at random in the common lottery?  If only white people from Capitol Hill are picking it in the lottery anyway, then giving preference to the white people who happen to live close by really isn't going to harm its non-existent "diversity." [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics