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.

Yes. Including siblings of children who get in with the city wide lottery, providing a nice balance of city wide draw and immediate neighbors. What is wrong with the middle road here?

PP here and yes I agree. The sibs will increasingly come from the citywide draw as the school expands (increasing %50 next year). the biggest newcomer beneficiaries are the current PK4. If they have younger sibs there will be more pressure on PS3 availability for SY14-15. All the current sibs who applied via lottery were offerred space this year. Will have to see if that's the case next year.

It sucks that DCPS sucks so badly that everyone is reduced to squabbling over what will only amount to a handful of seats every year, if that. The constant refrain is the same, if you didn't get on the ground floor, either by putting in a ton of sweat equity, buying when houses were cheap, or taking a chance on an unproven charter, you're pretty much out of luck. I dont like the neighbor vs. neighbor conversation at all.

Anonymous wrote:

One of many motivations, yes. It is in all of our best interests to have a good school at Ludlow Taylor, though I admit I am not an LT parent. Frankly, I can't bear the thought of our neighborhood being loaded with even more insufferable pricks eager to buy a house near H street and with preference at SWS. That is another motivation.

Comical. Do you see one of those "insufferable pricks" when you look in the mirror?

You know what they say! "if you can't figure out who the insufferable prick on your street is, it's probably you!"

One of many motivations, yes. It is in all of our best interests to have a good school at Ludlow Taylor, though I admit I am not an LT parent. Frankly, I can't bear the thought of our neighborhood being loaded with even more insufferable pricks eager to buy a house near H street and with preference at SWS. That is another motivation.

Comical. Do you see one of those "insufferable pricks" when you look in the mirror?

Anonymous wrote:It's not clear yet if proximity is a win for the school. I hear parents talking about both the pros AND the cons. It's certainly not clear to me.

What were the cons you heard mentioned?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So, we're back to your discussion point that the school will be a failure if it has a citywide draw, and only the most excellent proximity families can sustain the culture and educational approach. It's so fortunate that this truth aligns neatly with your needs.

I sincerely hope that if you do not get into SWS that you consider your neighborhood school of Ludlow Taylor. Your hard-working neighbors who are trying against odds to make L-T an option for everyone in the catchment could certainly use your persistence and energy.

You are overwrought. Take a breather. I am pp and I did not say that a city wide draw would make the school a failure. I said that a hybrid of proximity preference ( not boundary ) plus citywide would be in the best interest of the school

And thank you for revealing your motivation for coming out against proximity preference. You are concerned about losing families from consolidating around Ludlow.

One of many motivations, yes. It is in all of our best interests to have a good school at Ludlow Taylor, though I admit I am not an LT parent. Frankly, I can't bear the thought of our neighborhood being loaded with even more insufferable pricks eager to buy a house near H street and with preference at SWS. That is another motivation.

Then let me assure you that no proximity preference at sws does not equal improved LT. But it does mean people you seem to despise will move away more quickly or else send their kids to school at a charter so you may see less of them.

Anonymous wrote:It's not clear yet if proximity is a win for the school. I hear parents talking about both the pros AND the cons. It's certainly not clear to me.

What were the cons you heard mentioned?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So, we're back to your discussion point that the school will be a failure if it has a citywide draw, and only the most excellent proximity families can sustain the culture and educational approach. It's so fortunate that this truth aligns neatly with your needs.

I sincerely hope that if you do not get into SWS that you consider your neighborhood school of Ludlow Taylor. Your hard-working neighbors who are trying against odds to make L-T an option for everyone in the catchment could certainly use your persistence and energy.

You are overwrought. Take a breather. I am pp and I did not say that a city wide draw would make the school a failure. I said that a hybrid of proximity preference ( not boundary ) plus citywide would be in the best interest of the school

And thank you for revealing your motivation for coming out against proximity preference. You are concerned about losing families from consolidating around Ludlow.

One of many motivations, yes. It is in all of our best interests to have a good school at Ludlow Taylor, though I admit I am not an LT parent. Frankly, I can't bear the thought of our neighborhood being loaded with even more insufferable pricks eager to buy a house near H street and with preference at SWS. That is another motivation.

It's not clear yet if proximity is a win for the school. I hear parents talking about both the pros AND the cons. It's certainly not clear to me.

Anonymous wrote:

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

So, we're back to your discussion point that the school will be a failure if it has a citywide draw, and only the most excellent proximity families can sustain the culture and educational approach. It's so fortunate that this truth aligns neatly with your needs.

I sincerely hope that if you do not get into SWS that you consider your neighborhood school of Ludlow Taylor. Your hard-working neighbors who are trying against odds to make L-T an option for everyone in the catchment could certainly use your persistence and energy.

You are overwrought. Take a breather. I am pp and I did not say that a city wide draw would make the school a failure. I said that a hybrid of proximity preference ( not boundary ) plus citywide would be in the best interest of the school

And thank you for revealing your motivation for coming out against proximity preference. You are concerned about losing families from consolidating around Ludlow.

Anonymous wrote:

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

That is delusional. It is the complete OPPOSITE of what's best for the school.

Explain, please, why having immediate neighbors able ( but not obligated, they already have a guaranteed in boundary school assigned) to opt in to a specific education approach is bad for the school. Can't wait

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

That is delusional. It is the complete OPPOSITE of what's best for the school.

Anonymous wrote:This is a pointless discussion. There's no way that Kaya is turning SWS back over to the neighborhood after making it citywide. She wants authority to create charters, but until she gets that she will make citywide schools.

THIS

So, we're back to your discussion point that the school will be a failure if it has a citywide draw, and only the most excellent proximity families can sustain the culture and educational approach. It's so fortunate that this truth aligns neatly with your needs.

I sincerely hope that if you do not get into SWS that you consider your neighborhood school of Ludlow Taylor. Your hard-working neighbors who are trying against odds to make L-T an option for everyone in the catchment could certainly use your persistence and energy.

I'm the PP who accused some of being delusional/bitter. To be clear, I don't know what's best for SWS as a school -- current SWS parents could better speak to that. I do think that the point made earlier about it being a specialty program and how that would make for an odd in-bounds school makes sense. I also don't think that a citywide draw will doom the school in any way. What I do think is that a citywide draw is just bad policy -- aside from the very valid point that it limits a school's sense of community, a citywide draw just doesn't help the students who are most in need of improved educational outcomes. Can it help a very few? Sure. Is it a realistically and objectively good policy for improving DCPS? No.

I wish DCPS would focus solely on a high-quality comprehensive system of neighborhood schools with a primary focus to serve the kids in their boundary, as opposed to focusing on a particular educational philosophy (which may not be a good fit for some children) or to draw in OOB kids. Charters seem like a better place for experimentation.

Logan Montessori and SWS were both started before charters took hold and seem like odd orphans in the current system.