^. Fair enough, but why do they get to go to the front of the line rather than play the lottery like everyone else?

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really ruffles me here is that if these parents that want preference spent half their energy on their school of right they'd probably be able to change, at least improve upon, the reasons they do to want to go there in the first place. But alas, they want special treatment because the bought a house across the stret from a school 5 years ago they 1. had no potential of or desire of attending at the time and 2. Now have the balls to complain about ... Living accross the stret from a school and not having access to it.

maybe they just have a preference for SWS? I can like one school more than another without disliking the other

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SWS is a specialized program and should remain city-wide, to provide an equal chance of getting non-sibling spots.

Do you have ANY reasoning for this? It was a neighborhood school just a couple of years ago. It's no more "specialized" than Brent, which is now "Reggio-influenced" in the early years. It's the only DCPS school that was taken from a neighborhood school to a city-wide. It's one of only two city-wide DCPS elementary schools, both of which are on the Hill. If DCPS would consider a preference for Ward 6 or the Hill, I think that would be ideal.

Stop. The entire program changed. It went from a small supplemental early elementary program (not the ONLY program for IB children) to an entire school. It was never a DCPS school, only a program. That means the IB children still have a school in addition to SWS. It wasn't taken from anyone. It was expanded. When programs change, attendance change.

It went from a "program" with preference for kids in a defined neighborhood to a "program" with a city wide draw.

DCPS needs to decide what they are doing with it... is it a charter with a city-wide draw and no feeder pattern or a public school, in which case it should be both tied to a neighborhood (like every other DCPS) and have a feeder pattern to a middle school. This neither-here-nor-there approach is not helpful to anyone.

No, it is a city-wide, specialized school, not a small program within another school. DCPS does not need to decide what to do with it--it works well as a city-wide school.

Given that it's 4 months into being a city-wide school that's a bit of reach. The Peabody boundary was an exception at the time and one exception that will not likely be repeated. If SWS set up within Peabody today they'd never get to share Peabody's boundary

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SWS is a specialized program and should remain city-wide, to provide an equal chance of getting non-sibling spots.

Do you have ANY reasoning for this? It was a neighborhood school just a couple of years ago. It's no more "specialized" than Brent, which is now "Reggio-influenced" in the early years. It's the only DCPS school that was taken from a neighborhood school to a city-wide. It's one of only two city-wide DCPS elementary schools, both of which are on the Hill. If DCPS would consider a preference for Ward 6 or the Hill, I think that would be ideal.

Stop. The entire program changed. It went from a small supplemental early elementary program (not the ONLY program for IB children) to an entire school. It was never a DCPS school, only a program. That means the IB children still have a school in addition to SWS. It wasn't taken from anyone. It was expanded. When programs change, attendance change.

It went from a "program" with preference for kids in a defined neighborhood to a "program" with a city wide draw.

DCPS needs to decide what they are doing with it... is it a charter with a city-wide draw and no feeder pattern or a public school, in which case it should be both tied to a neighborhood (like every other DCPS) and have a feeder pattern to a middle school. This neither-here-nor-there approach is not helpful to anyone.

No, it is a city-wide, specialized school, not a small program within another school. DCPS does not need to decide what to do with it--it works well as a city-wide school.

It does. And DCPS has never been wishy-washy about what to do with the school. It hasnt needed a feeder yet. i don't think it an either-or preposition, it doesn't t need to "be toed" to a neighborhood in order to be granted a feeder, just like any charter.

The thing that really ruffles me here is that if these parents that want preference spent half their energy on their school of right they'd probably be able to change, at least improve upon, the reasons they do to want to go there in the first place. But alas, they want special treatment because the bought a house across the stret from a school 5 years ago they 1. had no potential of or desire of attending at the time and 2. Now have the balls to complain about ... Living accross the stret from a school and not having access to it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SWS is a specialized program and should remain city-wide, to provide an equal chance of getting non-sibling spots.

Do you have ANY reasoning for this? It was a neighborhood school just a couple of years ago. It's no more "specialized" than Brent, which is now "Reggio-influenced" in the early years. It's the only DCPS school that was taken from a neighborhood school to a city-wide. It's one of only two city-wide DCPS elementary schools, both of which are on the Hill. If DCPS would consider a preference for Ward 6 or the Hill, I think that would be ideal.

Stop. The entire program changed. It went from a small supplemental early elementary program (not the ONLY program for IB children) to an entire school. It was never a DCPS school, only a program. That means the IB children still have a school in addition to SWS. It wasn't taken from anyone. It was expanded. When programs change, attendance change.

It went from a "program" with preference for kids in a defined neighborhood to a "program" with a city wide draw.

DCPS needs to decide what they are doing with it... is it a charter with a city-wide draw and no feeder pattern or a public school, in which case it should be both tied to a neighborhood (like every other DCPS) and have a feeder pattern to a middle school. This neither-here-nor-there approach is not helpful to anyone.

No, it is a city-wide, specialized school, not a small program within another school. DCPS does not need to decide what to do with it--it works well as a city-wide school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SWS is a specialized program and should remain city-wide, to provide an equal chance of getting non-sibling spots.

Do you have ANY reasoning for this? It was a neighborhood school just a couple of years ago. It's no more "specialized" than Brent, which is now "Reggio-influenced" in the early years. It's the only DCPS school that was taken from a neighborhood school to a city-wide. It's one of only two city-wide DCPS elementary schools, both of which are on the Hill. If DCPS would consider a preference for Ward 6 or the Hill, I think that would be ideal.

Stop. The entire program changed. It went from a small supplemental early elementary program (not the ONLY program for IB children) to an entire school. It was never a DCPS school, only a program. That means the IB children still have a school in addition to SWS. It wasn't taken from anyone. It was expanded. When programs change, attendance change.

It went from a "program" with preference for kids in a defined neighborhood to a "program" with a city wide draw.

DCPS needs to decide what they are doing with it... is it a charter with a city-wide draw and no feeder pattern or a public school, in which case it should be both tied to a neighborhood (like every other DCPS) and have a feeder pattern to a middle school. This neither-here-nor-there approach is not helpful to anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SWS is a specialized program and should remain city-wide, to provide an equal chance of getting non-sibling spots.

Do you have ANY reasoning for this? It was a neighborhood school just a couple of years ago. It's no more "specialized" than Brent, which is now "Reggio-influenced" in the early years. It's the only DCPS school that was taken from a neighborhood school to a city-wide. It's one of only two city-wide DCPS elementary schools, both of which are on the Hill. If DCPS would consider a preference for Ward 6 or the Hill, I think that would be ideal.

Stop. The entire program changed. It went from a small supplemental early elementary program (not the ONLY program for IB children) to an entire school. It was never a DCPS school, only a program. That means the IB children still have a school in addition to SWS. It wasn't taken from anyone. It was expanded. When programs change, attendance change.

Anonymous wrote:SWS is a specialized program and should remain city-wide, to provide an equal chance of getting non-sibling spots.

Do you have ANY reasoning for this? It was a neighborhood school just a couple of years ago. It's no more "specialized" than Brent, which is now "Reggio-influenced" in the early years. It's the only DCPS school that was taken from a neighborhood school to a city-wide. It's one of only two city-wide DCPS elementary schools, both of which are on the Hill. If DCPS would consider a preference for Ward 6 or the Hill, I think that would be ideal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really satisfied with this answer and I've seen this question raised on Moth and ignored. A 9-block square in that neck of the woods would fill a class right? and really make,it an expensive square to buy in wouldnt it? I think i remember from other posts that the way they give it now at maury or tyler is a big square, much bigger than 9-blocks. Preference seems to put these people to the front of a long line ahead of all other people in ward 6 that want a spot. Not sure that is reasonable or why they deserve it?

They don't "deserve" it. They can want anything they want, but wanting isn't getting. The only people who really have a reason to be upset about SWS being city-wide are the people who were inbounds for the Cluster, IMO. They lost SWS. The people who just happened to live next to a school where SWS ultimately ended up-- why should they be entitled to this program? Because they own expensive houses?

If DCPS does give proximity preference for SWS, I for one will be extremely pissed off.

Same here, and I'm an SWS parent who might be within the proximity boundary. There is absolutely no sensible reason to grant proximity preference, and many reasons not to. It would be awesome for the real estate values of the few people living in that boundary. Crazy.

Anonymous wrote:The real question is who do you want to anger the least? The folks against proximity for SWS don't really care about getting into the school, they're generally just bitter about the prospect of well-to-do Hill families having preferred access. And the Hill families who want preference will be angry if they don't get it, but they're resourceful enough to figure something out. The funny thing is that the bitter folks rant and rant about this being an issue of fairness when they know well that a citywide draw will only mean a handful of spots for non-siblings -- a drop in the bucket.

Wow, you are so off on that. Can only speak for myself, but I live in NW and SWS is by far my #1 choice because I think the Reggio model would be great for my kid. It's a specialized program--and like Logan Montessori, people all over the District should have an equal chance of getting in.

The real question is who do you want to anger the least? The folks against proximity for SWS don't really care about getting into the school, they're generally just bitter about the prospect of well-to-do Hill families having preferred access. And the Hill families who want preference will be angry if they don't get it, but they're resourceful enough to figure something out. The funny thing is that the bitter folks rant and rant about this being an issue of fairness when they know well that a citywide draw will only mean a handful of spots for non-siblings -- a drop in the bucket.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, if the question is why do the proximity folks deserve preference, why does anyone deserve a preference of any sort. This argument is a slippery slope. I think the neighbors think they deserve preference because they deal with the traffic and hassle of being across the street of a school that has over 200 kids and is only growing.

The traffic issues lasts all of 10 minutes twice a day and afternoon isn't as bad as morning because of aftercare. It's no different than any other neighborhood school on the Hill. Many families walk, bike, or scoot. Hardly a reasonable justification for proximity.

Yes, if the question is why do the proximity folks deserve preference, why does anyone deserve a preference of any sort. This argument is a slippery slope. I think the neighbors think they deserve preference because they deal with the traffic and hassle of being across the street of a school that has over 200 kids and is only growing.

Anonymous wrote:Not really satisfied with this answer and I've seen this question raised on Moth and ignored. A 9-block square in that neck of the woods would fill a class right? and really make,it an expensive square to buy in wouldnt it? I think i remember from other posts that the way they give it now at maury or tyler is a big square, much bigger than 9-blocks. Preference seems to put these people to the front of a long line ahead of all other people in ward 6 that want a spot. Not sure that is reasonable or why they deserve it?

. . . and still behind the growing number of spots taken by siblings who will be at the front of the line. Proximity may open some spaces, but as the school expands upwards, more of those enrolled students will have siblings joining behind them. Proximity will help, but it will be no guarantee for the 32 PS3 spaces available. And unlike a boundary school, there would be no guaranteed seat for K.