Anonymous wrote:Aaarrrggghh! It WAS a neighborhood school -- that's why the Hill parents are upset!

It was a neighborhood PRESCHOOL. TWO years folks, that's all it was. For 15 years, it was PK and K. Period. I still don't get the outraqge of parents who are so pissy that they "lost" a two-year window of preschool (that they claim they bought into the neighborhood for - huh?) when they a) couldn't put their kids there in PS3, because that wasn't an option (I'm talking to you MOTH parents who bitched up a storm about it, but are currently enrolled in PS3 at the excellent Peabody and, oh yeah SWS (!) for PS3) and b) would have lost the program as even a citywide option for 1st grade.

SWS is basically a new school, which no one had "the rights" to beyond a small sliver of time, so get over what you think you lost already.

Anonymous wrote:Aaarrrggghh! It WAS a neighborhood school -- that's why the Hill parents are upset!

Peabody was a neighborhood school and still is. It expanded to fill SWSs space. There's no net loss.

Anonymous wrote:Aaarrrggghh! It WAS a neighborhood school -- that's why the Hill parents are upset!

It wasn't a "school" at all; it was a PK4-K (1?) program within Peabody (hence the name). Just a couple of classrooms. That's it. DCPS is now expanding it to include PS3 and go up to 5 and making it its own school.

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me also understand why DCPS simply did not make this a neighborhood school. It then would have had to deal with the outrage from other families around the city. There is no win win situation here.

SWS is getting a bigger profile but it's always been well off the radar and very small. I can't tell you how many DCPS parents I know in other parts of town who've never heard of it

Aaarrrggghh! It WAS a neighborhood school -- that's why the Hill parents are upset!

This thread makes me also understand why DCPS simply did not make this a neighborhood school. It then would have had to deal with the outrage from other families around the city. There is no win win situation here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Sorry, but by that definition SWS is "reggio inspired" as well. In fact, every single "Reggio" school outside of the Malaguzzi Center in Reggio Emelia is "reggio inspired". There is no certifying body. You may find differences in the quality of programs, but all of them are classified under the same mantel.

The point is that a "specialized school" is whatever the Chancellor says it is. And a city-wide school is whatever the Chancellor says it is. And the Chancellor may make exceptions at her discretion for the benefit of the system, and nobody can or will do anything about it, which is how the Fenty boys ended up at Lafayette.

The bottom line is that the Hill hasn't loss any seats, and LT neighbors haven't lost any rights which they previously enjoyed. There is no net change in those circumstances.

It's been said before (not by me, but I agree with the PP or PPs who have) that the solution to improving the quality of schools on the Hill isn't to increase the number of available seats, but to decrease them.

There are Hardy neighbors complaining on another thread (which is titled about Deal) that they have too many OOB students. They want to move Hardy and open another MS instead, which sounds about as sane as any suggestions on this thread (which is to say, completely insane). If they really want an IB only school, they should eliminate classrooms to create fewer OOB seats (and pull in Eaton, while they're at it). In the land of mediocrity, more is not equal to better, it's actually worse.

You're confusing the educational mission or pedagogy with the political act of drawing boundaries. Every school is "specialized" in some way -- they promote some value or distinction to serve its community. You may or may not find value in it, you'd be hard pressed to find two identical educational programs at any given level, aside from national chains (ie KIPP, Appletree)

I get the sense that the people who want more seats are those shut out of PS/PK lotteries or those who are realizing the possibilities of being shut out in the future. IB overcrowding has yet to be fully realized at upper ES grades on the Hill. That's not to say the demographic projects agree about future space needs (or more charters to fill in the gaps). Closures represent current enrollement and near term projections, but you don't see DCPS decomissioning closed buildings. They're retaining capacity if not active seats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Sorry, but by that definition SWS is "reggio inspired" as well. In fact, every single "Reggio" school outside of the Malaguzzi Center in Reggio Emelia is "reggio inspired". There is no certifying body. You may find differences in the quality of programs, but all of them are classified under the same mantel.

The point is that a "specialized school" is whatever the Chancellor says it is. And a city-wide school is whatever the Chancellor says it is. And the Chancellor may make exceptions at her discretion for the benefit of the system, and nobody can or will do anything about it, which is how the Fenty boys ended up at Lafayette.

The bottom line is that the Hill hasn't loss any seats, and LT neighbors haven't lost any rights which they previously enjoyed. There is no net change in those circumstances.

It's been said before (not by me, but I agree with the PP or PPs who have) that the solution to improving the quality of schools on the Hill isn't to increase the number of available seats, but to decrease them.

There are Hardy neighbors complaining on another thread (which is titled about Deal) that they have too many OOB students. They want to move Hardy and open another MS instead, which sounds about as sane as any suggestions on this thread (which is to say, completely insane). If they really want an IB only school, they should eliminate classrooms to create fewer OOB seats (and pull in Eaton, while they're at it). In the land of mediocrity, more is not equal to better, it's actually worse.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not an LT parent, and i'm not thinking the LT parents should get special treatment here, as I can't disagree with any arguments made here.

However, one must admit that there's something a little tough psychologically about carting your 4-year-old past the school that's across the street from your own home (a school that enjoys a greta reputation with seeminglynsatisfied parents) to the school that's further away and which is demonstrably inferior. There's special treatment and then there's just "in your face."

Also, doesn't the Reggio model value community quite highly - i'd think the kids that live across the street do have a special amount of skin-in-the game vs. someone commuting from NW, or even Eastern Market...

You mean like the kids who live spitting distance from Brent but have to schelp IB to Watkins or Tyler?

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Sorry, but by that definition SWS is "reggio inspired" as well. In fact, every single "Reggio" school outside of the Malaguzzi Center in Reggio Emelia is "reggio inspired". There is no certifying body. You may find differences in the quality of programs, but all of them are classified under the same mantel.

Blech. Do we think anyone in the Chancellor's office reads DCUM?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish people were thinking about this issue more broadly and not just in the context of this one small school. I am very much in favor of city-wide schools IF those schools are really specialized magnet-type schools that offer unique programs to students who are well-chosen to their missions. Most other cities have a school system that actively tries to cater to the different needs of its students instead of trying to force all its students into one model. In DC, we have the charter system, which is specialized but is only allowed to use "luck" as a selection criteria, so it doesn't do a very good job of matching students with schools.

DCPS could create a system of city-wide schools that uses something other than "luck" as a selection criteria. What is troubling about the path they are taking with SWS and CHM is that they are trying to match the charter school system - as others have said make these schools their own "charter-like" schools, instead of use their latitude to actually create a new kind of specialty school that goes beyond using "luck" to create school communities. If DCPS commits too far down this road, it will set back an effort to create a real, thriving magnet school system in the city, delaying the time it takes for DC to bring itself up to the quality of other urban systems. Having all school choice come down to location or "luck" ax it is right now with DCPS and the charter schools is not a long-term solution for fixing the system. Simply perpetuating the "luck" model in DCPS is not really helping the system as a whole.

DCPS isn't committed to creating a real, thriving magnet school system in the city. Groups of higher SES parents certainly are, but DCPS isn't. DCPS wants to blur the distinction between opportunities for higher SES students and everybody else, not highlight them.

I agree. I just think this is too bad and a missed opportunity since a better system will be better for all students in the long run. There is something real to the phrase "A rising tide lifts all boats." It is this kind of short-sighted thinking that is so frustrating about DCPS.

Anonymous wrote:I wish people were thinking about this issue more broadly and not just in the context of this one small school. I am very much in favor of city-wide schools IF those schools are really specialized magnet-type schools that offer unique programs to students who are well-chosen to their missions. Most other cities have a school system that actively tries to cater to the different needs of its students instead of trying to force all its students into one model. In DC, we have the charter system, which is specialized but is only allowed to use "luck" as a selection criteria, so it doesn't do a very good job of matching students with schools.

DCPS could create a system of city-wide schools that uses something other than "luck" as a selection criteria. What is troubling about the path they are taking with SWS and CHM is that they are trying to match the charter school system - as others have said make these schools their own "charter-like" schools, instead of use their latitude to actually create a new kind of specialty school that goes beyond using "luck" to create school communities. If DCPS commits too far down this road, it will set back an effort to create a real, thriving magnet school system in the city, delaying the time it takes for DC to bring itself up to the quality of other urban systems. Having all school choice come down to location or "luck" ax it is right now with DCPS and the charter schools is not a long-term solution for fixing the system. Simply perpetuating the "luck" model in DCPS is not really helping the system as a whole.

DCPS isn't committed to creating a real, thriving magnet school system in the city. Groups of higher SES parents certainly are, but DCPS isn't. DCPS wants to blur the distinction between opportunities for higher SES students and everybody else, not highlight them.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In a system with finite resources (aka seats at SWS), yes there are winners and losers. Giving preference to one class of students (those within proximity boundaries to Prospect) gives them an advantage over other students. That is the very definition of unduly favored and unduly burdened. As for the rest, see where your hypothetical has already been answered:

"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."

and

"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."

I wish people were thinking about this issue more broadly and not just in the context of this one small school. I am very much in favor of city-wide schools IF those schools are really specialized magnet-type schools that offer unique programs to students who are well-chosen to their missions. Most other cities have a school system that actively tries to cater to the different needs of its students instead of trying to force all its students into one model. In DC, we have the charter system, which is specialized but is only allowed to use "luck" as a selection criteria, so it doesn't do a very good job of matching students with schools.

DCPS could create a system of city-wide schools that uses something other than "luck" as a selection criteria. What is troubling about the path they are taking with SWS and CHM is that they are trying to match the charter school system - as others have said make these schools their own "charter-like" schools, instead of use their latitude to actually create a new kind of specialty school that goes beyond using "luck" to create school communities. If DCPS commits too far down this road, it will set back an effort to create a real, thriving magnet school system in the city, delaying the time it takes for DC to bring itself up to the quality of other urban systems. Having all school choice come down to location or "luck" ax it is right now with DCPS and the charter schools is not a long-term solution for fixing the system. Simply perpetuating the "luck" model in DCPS is not really helping the system as a whole.