Anonymous
Post 06/06/2014 11:28     Subject: DME Meeting at SWS June 5th
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!


That was my feeling too. Seems like the sent the three wicked witches of the West. Too bad it was acoustically difficult to understand what they were rambling on about, but one even dropped the word "gerrymandering" somehow into her tirade. Maybe somebody else can elaborate how that fit into the discussion.

I understand their frustration somehow. They worked hard to make LT better and they are succeeding. But their success shouldn't be based on SWS not giving proximity preference to the neighbors. I think their success should come from parents wanting to have their kids go to LT for the long-haul because it is on par with some of the best schools in the city. Their goal should be to be the #1 choice for parents in the neighborhood and have a clear strategy/timeline how to get their. Getting rid of the competition has never really helped anyone to improve.


In this case, a neighborhood preference for a city-wide school looks like the very definition of gerrymandering. That's actually a generous way to define it.

You can't be a neighbor of SWS without being a neighbor to LT, so why do you need a preference to one but not the other? The reason all those school buildings exist right on top of each other in the Old City areas is because of pre-Brown segregation. Alright, you want special program that is going to serve the whole city? Fine. But now you want to rig the game to basically reinstate that segregation? Not likely.


Yes, this. Re-segregation is not be the intent of proximity preference, but it will definitely be the result. I think the DME should be sensitive to that.


I always thought that SWS was set up as a citywide school because it offers a "unique" RE program. What you are saying is that what is unique about it, is that it is to be diverse and fight [i]segregation. If that was its mission, it pretty much has failed since its inception. Since it is already a segregated school, i think the best thing would be to take away sibling preference. Without those 26+ seats taken by these segregationists, the school could become diverse in no time.


SWS should be a city-wide school open to any family interested in RE. I really don't care if they are white, black or purple. But when a certain clique wants to carve a chunk of a public resource out for their exclusive use, that's when your antennae should go up.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2014 11:27     Subject: DME Meeting at SWS June 5th
Correction: DC Public Schools are now neighborhood schools with proximity preference, application schools, or citywide lottery schools. The citywide concept isn't "reserved" for charters.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2014 11:25     Subject: DME Meeting at SWS June 5th
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


It's about maintaining an opt-in specialized program ( no one forced to go there) but the opportunity existing for immediate neighbors. Is that really so hard to get? And once again, I don't care who the neighbors are. It is a principle I would argue no matter where the school is --as long as it is elementary level. I have different thoughts for middle and high school. See if you can keep up with nuanced thinking.




Yes. It really is that hard to get - that you think you're entitled to exclusive access to a public good. It belongs to everyone, you don't have or deserve a special claim. Your sense of entitlement is pretty horrifying, lady.



You horrify pretty easily and may not be cut out for this city. I will repeat that my opinion does not come from a sense of entitlement ( my kid is already at SWS ) , nor from racism ( it make absolutely no difference to me at all what race my kids classmates and friends are ) but from a sense of what is best for the stability of a fledgling school program. And I repeat: SWS was not destined to be a citywide program when it broke off from the cluster. It was, rather, most likely to become a neighborhood school with a boundary, like other Reggio programs around the city.

The tilt toward citywide came only as a result of the building that became available first. So your public good argument is pretty spurious. It's a fluke that SWS doesn't have boundaries and that's why a boundary/proximity is even being discussed.

Happy to go back and forth on valid reasoning behind a difference of opinion but posters throwing around "racism!" , "entitlement!" Is annoying and unhelpful


LOL-- "nuanced thinking"? Oooookay.

Honestly, if you are a typical parent at SWS you can keep your school. You're not exactly doing them any favors.


I am not typical anything. See if that blows your mind.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2014 11:24     Subject: DME Meeting at SWS June 5th
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!


That was my feeling too. Seems like the sent the three wicked witches of the West. Too bad it was acoustically difficult to understand what they were rambling on about, but one even dropped the word "gerrymandering" somehow into her tirade. Maybe somebody else can elaborate how that fit into the discussion.

I understand their frustration somehow. They worked hard to make LT better and they are succeeding. But their success shouldn't be based on SWS not giving proximity preference to the neighbors. I think their success should come from parents wanting to have their kids go to LT for the long-haul because it is on par with some of the best schools in the city. Their goal should be to be the #1 choice for parents in the neighborhood and have a clear strategy/timeline how to get their. Getting rid of the competition has never really helped anyone to improve.


In this case, a neighborhood preference for a city-wide school looks like the very definition of gerrymandering. That's actually a generous way to define it.

You can't be a neighbor of SWS without being a neighbor to LT, so why do you need a preference to one but not the other? The reason all those school buildings exist right on top of each other in the Old City areas is because of pre-Brown segregation. Alright, you want special program that is going to serve the whole city? Fine. But now you want to rig the game to basically reinstate that segregation? Not likely.


Yes, this. Re-segregation is not be the intent of proximity preference, but it will definitely be the result. I think the DME should be sensitive to that.


I always thought that SWS was set up as a citywide school because it offers a "unique" RE program. What you are saying is that what is unique about it, is that it is to be diverse and fight [i]segregation. If that was its mission, it pretty much has failed since its inception. Since it is already a segregated school, i think the best thing would be to take away sibling preference. Without those 26+ seats taken by these segregationists, the school could become diverse in no time.


You are being deliberately obtuse. You simply can't have proximity preference at a citywide school. It undermines the ENTIRE CONCEPT of citywide.


Correct. And that's why this whole discussion about public schools being citywide is so wrong: Public schools are either neighborhood schools (or at least proximity) or test-in schools. The whole citywide concept is reserved for Charter schools. And it works find there.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2014 11:19     Subject: DME Meeting at SWS June 5th
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!


That was my feeling too. Seems like the sent the three wicked witches of the West. Too bad it was acoustically difficult to understand what they were rambling on about, but one even dropped the word "gerrymandering" somehow into her tirade. Maybe somebody else can elaborate how that fit into the discussion.

I understand their frustration somehow. They worked hard to make LT better and they are succeeding. But their success shouldn't be based on SWS not giving proximity preference to the neighbors. I think their success should come from parents wanting to have their kids go to LT for the long-haul because it is on par with some of the best schools in the city. Their goal should be to be the #1 choice for parents in the neighborhood and have a clear strategy/timeline how to get their. Getting rid of the competition has never really helped anyone to improve.


In this case, a neighborhood preference for a city-wide school looks like the very definition of gerrymandering. That's actually a generous way to define it.

You can't be a neighbor of SWS without being a neighbor to LT, so why do you need a preference to one but not the other? The reason all those school buildings exist right on top of each other in the Old City areas is because of pre-Brown segregation. Alright, you want special program that is going to serve the whole city? Fine. But now you want to rig the game to basically reinstate that segregation? Not likely.


Yes, this. Re-segregation is not be the intent of proximity preference, but it will definitely be the result. I think the DME should be sensitive to that.


I always thought that SWS was set up as a citywide school because it offers a "unique" RE program. What you are saying is that what is unique about it, is that it is to be diverse and fight [i]segregation. If that was its mission, it pretty much has failed since its inception. Since it is already a segregated school, i think the best thing would be to take away sibling preference. Without those 26+ seats taken by these segregationists, the school could become diverse in no time.


You are being deliberately obtuse. You simply can't have proximity preference at a citywide school. It undermines the ENTIRE CONCEPT of citywide.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2014 11:18     Subject: DME Meeting at SWS June 5th
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!


That was my feeling too. Seems like the sent the three wicked witches of the West. Too bad it was acoustically difficult to understand what they were rambling on about, but one even dropped the word "gerrymandering" somehow into her tirade. Maybe somebody else can elaborate how that fit into the discussion.

I understand their frustration somehow. They worked hard to make LT better and they are succeeding. But their success shouldn't be based on SWS not giving proximity preference to the neighbors. I think their success should come from parents wanting to have their kids go to LT for the long-haul because it is on par with some of the best schools in the city. Their goal should be to be the #1 choice for parents in the neighborhood and have a clear strategy/timeline how to get their. Getting rid of the competition has never really helped anyone to improve.


In this case, a neighborhood preference for a city-wide school looks like the very definition of gerrymandering. That's actually a generous way to define it.

You can't be a neighbor of SWS without being a neighbor to LT, so why do you need a preference to one but not the other? The reason all those school buildings exist right on top of each other in the Old City areas is because of pre-Brown segregation. Alright, you want special program that is going to serve the whole city? Fine. But now you want to rig the game to basically reinstate that segregation? Not likely.


Yes, this. Re-segregation is not be the intent of proximity preference, but it will definitely be the result. I think the DME should be sensitive to that.


I always thought that SWS was set up as a citywide school because it offers a "unique" RE program. What you are saying is that what is unique about it, is that it is to be diverse and fight [i]segregation. If that was its mission, it pretty much has failed since its inception. Since it is already a segregated school, i think the best thing would be to take away sibling preference. Without those 26+ seats taken by these segregationists, the school could become diverse in no time.


You are being deliberately obtuse. You simply can't have proximity preference at a citywide school. It undermines the ENTIRE CONCEPT of citywide.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2014 11:16     Subject: DME Meeting at SWS June 5th
Anonymous wrote:10:55 you are wrong. There are non-white families with young children who would be able to use proximity preference. Or do you just mean that "non-white" has to be black?

If things continue the way they have on this side of the Hill, LT would be majority white if they drew IB families.



How many families altogether? How many black families? How many non-white families? Any FARM-ish families? Proximity families are OVERWHELMINGLY white and affluent, and the preference would only make it more so.

Yes, I agree that L-T might be majority white if all IB families got interested. Too bad some of the most active people in the neighborhood are spending their energies trying to reserve seats for themselves at SWS instead of building bridges at LT.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2014 11:15     Subject: DME Meeting at SWS June 5th
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!


That was my feeling too. Seems like the sent the three wicked witches of the West. Too bad it was acoustically difficult to understand what they were rambling on about, but one even dropped the word "gerrymandering" somehow into her tirade. Maybe somebody else can elaborate how that fit into the discussion.

I understand their frustration somehow. They worked hard to make LT better and they are succeeding. But their success shouldn't be based on SWS not giving proximity preference to the neighbors. I think their success should come from parents wanting to have their kids go to LT for the long-haul because it is on par with some of the best schools in the city. Their goal should be to be the #1 choice for parents in the neighborhood and have a clear strategy/timeline how to get their. Getting rid of the competition has never really helped anyone to improve.


In this case, a neighborhood preference for a city-wide school looks like the very definition of gerrymandering. That's actually a generous way to define it.

You can't be a neighbor of SWS without being a neighbor to LT, so why do you need a preference to one but not the other? The reason all those school buildings exist right on top of each other in the Old City areas is because of pre-Brown segregation. Alright, you want special program that is going to serve the whole city? Fine. But now you want to rig the game to basically reinstate that segregation? Not likely.


Yes, this. Re-segregation is not be the intent of proximity preference, but it will definitely be the result. I think the DME should be sensitive to that.


I always thought that SWS was set up as a citywide school because it offers a "unique" RE program. What you are saying is that what is unique about it, is that it is to be diverse and fight [i]segregation. If that was its mission, it pretty much has failed since its inception. Since it is already a segregated school, i think the best thing would be to take away sibling preference. Without those 26+ seats taken by these segregationists, the school could become diverse in no time.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2014 11:10     Subject: DME Meeting at SWS June 5th
Anonymous wrote:Confused non-hill poster here.

So the women were arguing that by giving SWS proximity preference it would do what to L-T exactly?


That it would keep LT IB high SES families from going to LT. Which they aren't doing in most cases anyways. My LT IB neighbors are at private, parochial, charter, and other DCPS.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2014 11:06     Subject: DME Meeting at SWS June 5th
10:55 you are wrong. There are non-white families with young children who would be able to use proximity preference. Or do you just mean that "non-white" has to be black?

If things continue the way they have on this side of the Hill, LT would be majority white if they drew IB families.

Anonymous
Post 06/06/2014 11:02     Subject: DME Meeting at SWS June 5th
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!


That was my feeling too. Seems like the sent the three wicked witches of the West. Too bad it was acoustically difficult to understand what they were rambling on about, but one even dropped the word "gerrymandering" somehow into her tirade. Maybe somebody else can elaborate how that fit into the discussion.

I understand their frustration somehow. They worked hard to make LT better and they are succeeding. But their success shouldn't be based on SWS not giving proximity preference to the neighbors. I think their success should come from parents wanting to have their kids go to LT for the long-haul because it is on par with some of the best schools in the city. Their goal should be to be the #1 choice for parents in the neighborhood and have a clear strategy/timeline how to get their. Getting rid of the competition has never really helped anyone to improve.


In this case, a neighborhood preference for a city-wide school looks like the very definition of gerrymandering. That's actually a generous way to define it.

You can't be a neighbor of SWS without being a neighbor to LT, so why do you need a preference to one but not the other? The reason all those school buildings exist right on top of each other in the Old City areas is because of pre-Brown segregation. Alright, you want special program that is going to serve the whole city? Fine. But now you want to rig the game to basically reinstate that segregation? Not likely.


Yes, this. Re-segregation is not be the intent of proximity preference, but it will definitely be the result. I think the DME should be sensitive to that.

Except that the neighborhood is fairly integrated and diverse. The ANC said her district was 50% black. Boundaries and neighborhood preferences work against diversity in some areas, but not here.


I don't know her precise ANC boundaries to speak to that, but the immediate blocks around the school are most definitely not "50% black". If you include the senior home a block to the north that number could possibly be accurate, but I still doubt it and that's not a source of school aged kids anyway. If we're talking proximity, it's a miniscule geographic area.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2014 11:00     Subject: DME Meeting at SWS June 5th
Confused non-hill poster here.

So the women were arguing that by giving SWS proximity preference it would do what to L-T exactly?
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2014 10:55     Subject: DME Meeting at SWS June 5th
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!


That was my feeling too. Seems like the sent the three wicked witches of the West. Too bad it was acoustically difficult to understand what they were rambling on about, but one even dropped the word "gerrymandering" somehow into her tirade. Maybe somebody else can elaborate how that fit into the discussion.

I understand their frustration somehow. They worked hard to make LT better and they are succeeding. But their success shouldn't be based on SWS not giving proximity preference to the neighbors. I think their success should come from parents wanting to have their kids go to LT for the long-haul because it is on par with some of the best schools in the city. Their goal should be to be the #1 choice for parents in the neighborhood and have a clear strategy/timeline how to get their. Getting rid of the competition has never really helped anyone to improve.


In this case, a neighborhood preference for a city-wide school looks like the very definition of gerrymandering. That's actually a generous way to define it.

You can't be a neighbor of SWS without being a neighbor to LT, so why do you need a preference to one but not the other? The reason all those school buildings exist right on top of each other in the Old City areas is because of pre-Brown segregation. Alright, you want special program that is going to serve the whole city? Fine. But now you want to rig the game to basically reinstate that segregation? Not likely.


Yes, this. Re-segregation is not be the intent of proximity preference, but it will definitely be the result. I think the DME should be sensitive to that.

Except that the neighborhood is fairly integrated and diverse. The ANC said her district was 50% black. Boundaries and neighborhood preferences work against diversity in some areas, but not here.


Oh, please. If you think the neighbors in the proximity houses are diverse, you are not paying attention. I can count the number of households occupied by non-white families on one hand, and none that I can think of that have young children. And FFS, if there is a proximity preference put into play, you can bet your bottom dollar that proximity houses will be FULL of white families. That is the way the neighborhood is moving.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2014 10:52     Subject: DME Meeting at SWS June 5th
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!


That was my feeling too. Seems like the sent the three wicked witches of the West. Too bad it was acoustically difficult to understand what they were rambling on about, but one even dropped the word "gerrymandering" somehow into her tirade. Maybe somebody else can elaborate how that fit into the discussion.

I understand their frustration somehow. They worked hard to make LT better and they are succeeding. But their success shouldn't be based on SWS not giving proximity preference to the neighbors. I think their success should come from parents wanting to have their kids go to LT for the long-haul because it is on par with some of the best schools in the city. Their goal should be to be the #1 choice for parents in the neighborhood and have a clear strategy/timeline how to get their. Getting rid of the competition has never really helped anyone to improve.


In this case, a neighborhood preference for a city-wide school looks like the very definition of gerrymandering. That's actually a generous way to define it.

You can't be a neighbor of SWS without being a neighbor to LT, so why do you need a preference to one but not the other? The reason all those school buildings exist right on top of each other in the Old City areas is because of pre-Brown segregation. Alright, you want special program that is going to serve the whole city? Fine. But now you want to rig the game to basically reinstate that segregation? Not likely.


Yes, this. Re-segregation is not be the intent of proximity preference, but it will definitely be the result. I think the DME should be sensitive to that.

Except that the neighborhood is fairly integrated and diverse. The ANC said her district was 50% black. Boundaries and neighborhood preferences work against diversity in some areas, but not here.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2014 10:47     Subject: DME Meeting at SWS June 5th
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!


That was my feeling too. Seems like the sent the three wicked witches of the West. Too bad it was acoustically difficult to understand what they were rambling on about, but one even dropped the word "gerrymandering" somehow into her tirade. Maybe somebody else can elaborate how that fit into the discussion.

I understand their frustration somehow. They worked hard to make LT better and they are succeeding. But their success shouldn't be based on SWS not giving proximity preference to the neighbors. I think their success should come from parents wanting to have their kids go to LT for the long-haul because it is on par with some of the best schools in the city. Their goal should be to be the #1 choice for parents in the neighborhood and have a clear strategy/timeline how to get their. Getting rid of the competition has never really helped anyone to improve.


In this case, a neighborhood preference for a city-wide school looks like the very definition of gerrymandering. That's actually a generous way to define it.

You can't be a neighbor of SWS without being a neighbor to LT, so why do you need a preference to one but not the other? The reason all those school buildings exist right on top of each other in the Old City areas is because of pre-Brown segregation. Alright, you want special program that is going to serve the whole city? Fine. But now you want to rig the game to basically reinstate that segregation? Not likely.


Yes, this. Re-segregation is not be the intent of proximity preference, but it will definitely be the result. I think the DME should be sensitive to that.