Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.
Shhhh, if you point this out, they will call you "delusional" or "bitter." (Actually, sibling preference would trump proximity, but it still would be a de facto IB school for the proximity folks.)
No, it's not delusional or bitter to suggest that "proximity" and "in-bounds" are one in the same (although I'm not sure that that's true), but it is delusional or bitter to suggest, with a straight face, that the citywide draw is a good or significantly beneficial process by which to populate a school, especially when there are so few open spots relative to the number of applicants.
But it is not delusional to suggest with a straight face that populating a school almost exclusively with wealthy families within a few block radius *is* beneficial to the city as a whole?
It is clearly better for the school and its culture and educational approach. Are you suggesting that the good of the school should be sacrifices for the ( mythical ) good of the city ? Well, that would be in line with DCPS policy decision making that has so far had some miserable results
Anonymous wrote: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:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.
Shhhh, if you point this out, they will call you "delusional" or "bitter." (Actually, sibling preference would trump proximity, but it still would be a de facto IB school for the proximity folks.)
No, it's not delusional or bitter to suggest that "proximity" and "in-bounds" are one in the same (although I'm not sure that that's true), but it is delusional or bitter to suggest, with a straight face, that the citywide draw is a good or significantly beneficial process by which to populate a school, especially when there are so few open spots relative to the number of applicants.
But it is not delusional to suggest with a straight face that populating a school almost exclusively with wealthy families within a few block radius *is* beneficial to the city as a whole?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.
Not true. Siblings would still rank first, and don't underestimate how many spaces will get occupied this way.
OK. So all the students there now are Cluster families, and spaces would then be taken by Cluster families and LT families (or rather, "proximity preference" famlilies).
Again, why would DCPS do this?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.
Not true. Siblings would still rank first, and don't underestimate how many spaces will get occupied this way.
Anonymous wrote: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:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.
Shhhh, if you point this out, they will call you "delusional" or "bitter." (Actually, sibling preference would trump proximity, but it still would be a de facto IB school for the proximity folks.)
No, it's not delusional or bitter to suggest that "proximity" and "in-bounds" are one in the same (although I'm not sure that that's true), but it is delusional or bitter to suggest, with a straight face, that the citywide draw is a good or significantly beneficial process by which to populate a school, especially when there are so few open spots relative to the number of applicants.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.
Shhhh, if you point this out, they will call you "delusional" or "bitter." (Actually, sibling preference would trump proximity, but it still would be a de facto IB school for the proximity folks.)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.
Not true. Siblings would still rank first, and don't underestimate how many spaces will get occupied this way.
Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.
Anonymous wrote:"Proximity preference" is just another way of saying "inbounds," when there is no IB population. What would be ranked above proximity preference? Nobody. So you're essentially IB. So why would DCPS want to have two IB schools for a small group of families? It makes no sense.
Anonymous wrote: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.
Anonymous wrote:
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!