Anonymous wrote:How about if we give SWS back to the Cluster? That would satisfy those who claim that it needs neighborhood inputs, "restore" it to its real roots, and alleviate crowding at Peabody. Bonus if you carve off the northern portion of Brent for the Peabody-SWS catchment--those families would probably be satisfied with a SWS-Stuart-Hobson path, and Brent families could avoid the trailers or the dreaded trek across Virginia Ave. to Van Ness. Sure, it's a wee bit farther for Cluster families than Logan was, but I'm sure some would be more than willing to come to Prospect.

Yeah,, that's the ticket. Brent parents are fighting tooth and nail to get into an excellent school such as SH where reading proficiency is at 60 percent!

Anonymous wrote:How about if we give SWS back to the Cluster? That would satisfy those who claim that it needs neighborhood inputs, "restore" it to its real roots, and alleviate crowding at Peabody. Bonus if you carve off the northern portion of Brent for the Peabody-SWS catchment--those families would probably be satisfied with a SWS-Stuart-Hobson path, and Brent families could avoid the trailers or the dreaded trek across Virginia Ave. to Van Ness. Sure, it's a wee bit farther for Cluster families than Logan was, but I'm sure some would be more than willing to come to Prospect.

Interesting. Why did SWS leave the Cluster to begin with? I don't know the backstory there.

How about if we give SWS back to the Cluster? That would satisfy those who claim that it needs neighborhood inputs, "restore" it to its real roots, and alleviate crowding at Peabody. Bonus if you carve off the northern portion of Brent for the Peabody-SWS catchment--those families would probably be satisfied with a SWS-Stuart-Hobson path, and Brent families could avoid the trailers or the dreaded trek across Virginia Ave. to Van Ness. Sure, it's a wee bit farther for Cluster families than Logan was, but I'm sure some would be more than willing to come to Prospect.

Think for a second why DCPS favors a citywide draw. Appearances. This is all political posturing. A few (literally a few) seats at SWS available to kids through a lottery process isn't going to do anything to combat inequality, de facto segregation, or any of this city's other educational problems. Anyone arguing otherwise is either delusional or just bitter at the prospect of Hill families getting some sort of preference.

Anonymous wrote:Fortunately for us, Kaya has absolutely nothing to gain by providing proximity preference. In SWS, she will have a successful program that serves the whole city, and she won't be undermining Ludlow-Taylor. I'm not personally interested in the SWS model, but it certainly seems to fit the criteria for a specialty school. Oh, and Tommy Wells is running for mayor, so "citywide" is music to his ears.

Not sure I follow. You'd have to be blind to not notice Tommy's Ward 6 schools getting slapped around in the Mayor's 2014 budget. Then again it fits his milktoast MO to let it happen.

Anonymous wrote:Wow. There is a ton of sour grapes and self interest going on here with both sides trying to justify with "you are selfish and entitled and I not".

No question that the best thing for THE SCHOOL itself is for there to be a mix of city wide draw and proximity preference. I don't believe people saying the school would fill up with kids within 1500 feet. Especially with sibling preference for those already admitted city wide being ranked above proximity.

Those of you arguing against citywide simply want a better chance for your own kids and don't truly have the best interests of the school or the city at heart. But nice try.

Sorry, but filling a school via sibling preference and proximity doesn't count as "citywide." But nice try!

And I'm not really following your logic that advocating for a citywide program that gives kids from every ward a shot is *more* selfish than those who want the school to belong to a handful of neighbors. If you have lived on the Hill, you know that Hill elementary schools are full of out-of-bounds kids; what would be best for the Hill would be *fewer* seats, not more. That would concentrate neighborhood advocates at their neighborhood schools, which most agree is best for everyone.

Fortunately for us, Kaya has absolutely nothing to gain by providing proximity preference. In SWS, she will have a successful program that serves the whole city, and she won't be undermining Ludlow-Taylor. I'm not personally interested in the SWS model, but it certainly seems to fit the criteria for a specialty school. Oh, and Tommy Wells is running for mayor, so "citywide" is music to his ears.

***uh, those of you arguing against Proximity preference ( not city wide )

Wow. There is a ton of sour grapes and self interest going on here with both sides trying to justify with "you are selfish and entitled and I not".

No question that the best thing for THE SCHOOL itself is for there to be a mix of city wide draw and proximity preference. I don't believe people saying the school would fill up with kids within 1500 feet. Especially with sibling preference for those already admitted city wide being ranked above proximity.

Those of you arguing against citywide simply want a better chance for your own kids and don't truly have the best interests of the school or the city at heart. But nice try.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If DCPS is going to embrace real alternative models for school organization, that's great. But a school like what is being structured at the new location of SWS, which is a very nice but standard elementary school in every way except its unusual admissions pattern, is not what we should be advocating for as parents in this city. It doesn't do anything to push the whole system toward new and better school models.

Except SWS and its Reggio inspired approach is not a "standard elementary school".It's educational philosophy and approach is different than most DCPS offerings, even compared with other programs which claim to be "Reggio inspired". Academically it probably alligns academically with Expeditionary Learning schools like Cap City and Two Rivers.

And Reggio is not a good fit for every family and/or child. The idea of SWS as a straight up boundary school is really strange to me. It worked with a shared boundary along with Peabody because no one was forced into it as their only IB option. which is why it's strange that Oyster is a boundary school. What if I don't prefer language immersion?

Maybe the solution is for SWS to become a charter school because then it could keep the city-wide lottery admissions pattern without setting a city-wide lottery precedent for the rest of DCPS. Or, it could become a school that requires an interview for each child and admits students based on their fit with the program, and therefore it would become a true specialty school. If proximity preference is so objectionable (even though it wouldn't create the straight up boundary issue you cite since people would have another IB choice), why not consider alternatives that make the school truly an alternative model for DCPS. We already have a system in which half the students of this city are high-tailing it all over the city to try to get a good education. I do not want to see the rest of the system move away from a neighborhood model unless DCPS schools are offering something better than a random lottery. This might seem like a win for the very few people who get into the school, but it is a long-term losing scenario for the city as a whole.

Oh boy is that an eye-roller. So much so I can't believe you could say it with a straight face, except that you've got yourself absolutely convinced that it's in the entire city's best interest to show your child undeserved favoritism. The delusion and entitlement is actually palpable. I think I can feel it radiating out from your street.

Except that I already stated that I won't personally benefit from proximity preference and will mention here that my oldest is already enrolled at a different school that we like, giving my youngest sibling preference when the time comes. Not everyone who is interested in this issue is interested in only the consequences for their own kid in the short term. I live in DC and I would like to see DC create a vibrant alternative to the charter system that involves strong neighborhood schools and carefully crafted magnet programs using the successful models found of many other cities. Creating more city-wide lottery schools within DCPS pushes more people into city-wide schools, which steals resources from neighborhood school initiatives while also reducing DCPS's impetus to create a strong neighborhood school system that serves kids where they live. I realize that you have no interest in larger education policy debates and a strong desire to view this issue only through a narrow lens of petty neighborhood politics, but other people in this city are interested in a broader view.

For those who don't support proximity, make sure to let DCPS and the City Council know! It's important that they hear from you - thanks!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If DCPS is going to embrace real alternative models for school organization, that's great. But a school like what is being structured at the new location of SWS, which is a very nice but standard elementary school in every way except its unusual admissions pattern, is not what we should be advocating for as parents in this city. It doesn't do anything to push the whole system toward new and better school models.

Except SWS and its Reggio inspired approach is not a "standard elementary school".It's educational philosophy and approach is different than most DCPS offerings, even compared with other programs which claim to be "Reggio inspired". Academically it probably alligns academically with Expeditionary Learning schools like Cap City and Two Rivers.

And Reggio is not a good fit for every family and/or child. The idea of SWS as a straight up boundary school is really strange to me. It worked with a shared boundary along with Peabody because no one was forced into it as their only IB option. which is why it's strange that Oyster is a boundary school. What if I don't prefer language immersion?

Maybe the solution is for SWS to become a charter school because then it could keep the city-wide lottery admissions pattern without setting a city-wide lottery precedent for the rest of DCPS. Or, it could become a school that requires an interview for each child and admits students based on their fit with the program, and therefore it would become a true specialty school. If proximity preference is so objectionable (even though it wouldn't create the straight up boundary issue you cite since people would have another IB choice), why not consider alternatives that make the school truly an alternative model for DCPS. We already have a system in which half the students of this city are high-tailing it all over the city to try to get a good education. I do not want to see the rest of the system move away from a neighborhood model unless DCPS schools are offering something better than a random lottery. This might seem like a win for the very few people who get into the school, but it is a long-term losing scenario for the city as a whole.

Oh boy is that an eye-roller. So much so I can't believe you could say it with a straight face, except that you've got yourself absolutely convinced that it's in the entire city's best interest to show your child undeserved favoritism. The delusion and entitlement is actually palpable. I think I can feel it radiating out from your street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If DCPS is going to embrace real alternative models for school organization, that's great. But a school like what is being structured at the new location of SWS, which is a very nice but standard elementary school in every way except its unusual admissions pattern, is not what we should be advocating for as parents in this city. It doesn't do anything to push the whole system toward new and better school models.

Except SWS and its Reggio inspired approach is not a "standard elementary school".It's educational philosophy and approach is different than most DCPS offerings, even compared with other programs which claim to be "Reggio inspired". Academically it probably alligns academically with Expeditionary Learning schools like Cap City and Two Rivers.

And Reggio is not a good fit for every family and/or child. The idea of SWS as a straight up boundary school is really strange to me. It worked with a shared boundary along with Peabody because no one was forced into it as their only IB option. which is why it's strange that Oyster is a boundary school. What if I don't prefer language immersion?

Maybe the solution is for SWS to become a charter school because then it could keep the city-wide lottery admissions pattern without setting a city-wide lottery precedent for the rest of DCPS. Or, it could become a school that requires an interview for each child and admits students based on their fit with the program, and therefore it would become a true specialty school. If proximity preference is so objectionable (even though it wouldn't create the straight up boundary issue you cite since people would have another IB choice), why not consider alternatives that make the school truly an alternative model for DCPS. We already have a system in which half the students of this city are high-tailing it all over the city to try to get a good education. I do not want to see the rest of the system move away from a neighborhood model unless DCPS schools are offering something better than a random lottery. This might seem like a win for the very few people who get into the school, but it is a long-term losing scenario for the city as a whole.

Anonymous wrote:^ this. I don't think many of the posters have truly spent time at nor understand the school. It honestly isn't "standard" - it is flexible, driven by the children's needs, requires a very high level of parental involvement, focused on expeditionary lessons, etc. 10 minutes in the artist atelierista's studio and yo understand that. It's an absolute model for public school improvement.

As someone who has an excellent waitlist # at one of the most desired charters in the district, I will happily pass for a spot at SWS.

As a parent of a child who went running (literally) from SWS the PP is correct. We were lucky because we could go the Peabody. Reggio is not for all children nor should be a model for all schools. Having boundaries would hurt the school and the kids who don't thrive in that environment. Oyster IS weird with the boundaries. What do they do with the kids who aren't cutout for it?

Anonymous wrote:I also think it is disingenuous to suggest that the school catchments in DC are "constantly changing," since boundaries and feeder patterns haven't been revised since the 70s.

The boundaries aren't constantly changing but the populations that live within those boundaries are constantly changing and have been altering quickly in the last decade. Look at what has happened to the Maury and Brent districts in the last five years. The only thing that is certain is that LT will be a very different school in a few years regardless of what happens with SWS.

^ this. I don't think many of the posters have truly spent time at nor understand the school. It honestly isn't "standard" - it is flexible, driven by the children's needs, requires a very high level of parental involvement, focused on expeditionary lessons, etc. 10 minutes in the artist atelierista's studio and yo understand that. It's an absolute model for public school improvement.

As someone who has an excellent waitlist # at one of the most desired charters in the district, I will happily pass for a spot at SWS.