Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, if its city-wide it will not benefit 'the rest of the hill' any more than it will benefit other areas of the city. Its either going to benefit a small group of LT inbounds families, or no one. The 'rest of the hill' is sol regardless of how it goes.

I do think that between siblings, walking distance preference and low attrition, there will be very few spots available if its not citywide.

This. There just aren't going to be many (any?) slots for non-siblings, especially as they start to add grades, and certainly not enough to offer citywide seats after proximity.

I just don't buy this. Would need to see some kind of analysis backing it up. Sounds paranoid to me.

For this year, there were 8 PS-3 spots out of 30 that went to non-siblings. Does that qualify? Eight seats doesn't go very far when you have 275 applicants. Suppose they take the middle ground approach and split those between citywide and proximity families - that's only four of each.

Anyway, good luck to everyone however it shakes out!

^. Check out the current lottery results. There were a total of 3 classes to pull from and half the seats went to sibs. Add three more grades to stock with sibs, look at Logan's numbers. I'm sympathetic to the plight of the proximity families, but you've got to be kidding me if you don't think that really = IB.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, if its city-wide it will not benefit 'the rest of the hill' any more than it will benefit other areas of the city. Its either going to benefit a small group of LT inbounds families, or no one. The 'rest of the hill' is sol regardless of how it goes.

I do think that between siblings, walking distance preference and low attrition, there will be very few spots available if its not citywide.

This. There just aren't going to be many (any?) slots for non-siblings, especially as they start to add grades, and certainly not enough to offer citywide seats after proximity.

I just don't buy this. Would need to see some kind of analysis backing it up. Sounds paranoid to me.

^ not neccessarily in this case. I'm curious if the DCPS ranking system, when applied to a citywide DCPS school might not be more -- self-selecting (?) -- than the charter system currently is? I think with the ranking system there will be many local-to-the-school families ranking it higher than those in NW would (vs. the throw a dart at the board and deal with the commute mentality of the charter system.)

I want to know what the long-term charter parents think about this development. I've heard the complaints that citywide has a negative effect, but it seems to me, if you're that interested in Reggio and the location that you have to rank it high in order to get a slot that you'd be involved once you got in? It's not like this is the one citywide choice any longer, so you just must take it? Am I delusional that the parents, regardless of where they come from, may genuinely be interested in the model?

(I say this as an SwS parent with the caveat that we adore the neighborhood school feeling and all it entails: play dates around the corner, carpooling, last-minute pick ups when needed, weekend picnics where everyone can BiKE to the venue. I'll definitely miss that if the dominant population comes from NW.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No indeed. I am an SWS parent and am fully in favor of a city-wide draw that will open the school up to people from all over the city, but I also support proximity preference where immediate neighbors can opt in to the school if they so choose. To me, this seems a reasonable middle way.

My only interest here is for a healthy, sustained and community supported SWS. ( no property value boost or other benefits to accrue to me and I have no need to create the highest possible number of city-wide slots since I am already in ). That's why I can look at this with a modicum of reason instead of self interest with ridiculous "better for the city" arguments as cover.

PP - But it it makes little difference for the city as the number of spaces is relatively small. It's going to fill largely with sibs at the younger grades (like all the sought after charters). I should clarify that I'm less against than neutral on it. Not sure proximity will make it lean anymore towards the Hill than it will on its own, as it will continue to attract from the neighborhood. Just don't see why it needs to be a significant chunk of the LT catchment above the rest of the Hill.

I don't care if it leans to the Hill or not. Wherever the school is located, it is a positive thing in my mind to give immediate neighbors the option to go to the school, especially with the history and culture of sws. For me this holds true whoever lives nearby.

Should they also give proximity preference to the Montessori school at Logan?

Anonymous wrote:Well, if its city-wide it will not benefit 'the rest of the hill' any more than it will benefit other areas of the city. Its either going to benefit a small group of LT inbounds families, or no one. The 'rest of the hill' is sol regardless of how it goes.

I do think that between siblings, walking distance preference and low attrition, there will be very few spots available if its not citywide.

This. There just aren't going to be many (any?) slots for non-siblings, especially as they start to add grades, and certainly not enough to offer citywide seats after proximity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No indeed. I am an SWS parent and am fully in favor of a city-wide draw that will open the school up to people from all over the city, but I also support proximity preference where immediate neighbors can opt in to the school if they so choose. To me, this seems a reasonable middle way.

My only interest here is for a healthy, sustained and community supported SWS. ( no property value boost or other benefits to accrue to me and I have no need to create the highest possible number of city-wide slots since I am already in ). That's why I can look at this with a modicum of reason instead of self interest with ridiculous "better for the city" arguments as cover.

PP - But it it makes little difference for the city as the number of spaces is relatively small. It's going to fill largely with sibs at the younger grades (like all the sought after charters). I should clarify that I'm less against than neutral on it. Not sure proximity will make it lean anymore towards the Hill than it will on its own, as it will continue to attract from the neighborhood. Just don't see why it needs to be a significant chunk of the LT catchment above the rest of the Hill.

I don't care if it leans to the Hill or not. Wherever the school is located, it is a positive thing in my mind to give immediate neighbors the option to go to the school, especially with the history and culture of sws. For me this holds true whoever lives nearby.

Well, if its city-wide it will not benefit 'the rest of the hill' any more than it will benefit other areas of the city. Its either going to benefit a small group of LT inbounds families, or no one. The 'rest of the hill' is sol regardless of how it goes.

I do think that between siblings, walking distance preference and low attrition, there will be very few spots available if its not citywide.

Anonymous wrote:No indeed. I am an SWS parent and am fully in favor of a city-wide draw that will open the school up to people from all over the city, but I also support proximity preference where immediate neighbors can opt in to the school if they so choose. To me, this seems a reasonable middle way.

My only interest here is for a healthy, sustained and community supported SWS. ( no property value boost or other benefits to accrue to me and I have no need to create the highest possible number of city-wide slots since I am already in ). That's why I can look at this with a modicum of reason instead of self interest with ridiculous "better for the city" arguments as cover.

PP - But it it makes little difference for the city as the number of spaces is relatively small. It's going to fill largely with sibs at the younger grades (like all the sought after charters). I should clarify that I'm less against than neutral on it. Not sure proximity will make it lean anymore towards the Hill than it will on its own, as it will continue to attract from the neighborhood. Just don't see why it needs to be a significant chunk of the LT catchment above the rest of the Hill.

No indeed. I am an SWS parent and am fully in favor of a city-wide draw that will open the school up to people from all over the city, but I also support proximity preference where immediate neighbors can opt in to the school if they so choose. To me, this seems a reasonable middle way.

My only interest here is for a healthy, sustained and community supported SWS. ( no property value boost or other benefits to accrue to me and I have no need to create the highest possible number of city-wide slots since I am already in ). That's why I can look at this with a modicum of reason instead of self interest with ridiculous "better for the city" arguments as cover.

Anonymous wrote:^^^^Again, do you have any interest in what will give the school a strong and stable backbone ( proximity preference in addition to a citywide draw)? Or is your ONLY concern the lottery chances of your neighbors?

The self interest here is astounding

the schools already has a strong and stable backbone with or without proximity.

Um, let's see. I'm an active parent who volunteers at the school, fundraises and contributes time, effort and money to the school. I know -- I'm so selfish sticking up for my neighbors who should get a fair shake. To be fair, I don't think charters should offer proximity preference either. No one at the school is on pins and needles for the proximity crowd to rescue us from citywide oblivian. My kids already have seats so I would consider myself a greater stakeholder than someone lobbying for proximity (talk about self interest!)

Anonymous wrote:^^^^Again, do you have any interest in what will give the school a strong and stable backbone ( proximity preference in addition to a citywide draw)? Or is your ONLY concern the lottery chances of your neighbors?

The self interest here is astounding

And for you, would you support a reversion back to the old boundaries, as someone suggested upthread? That would certainly give SWS a strong and stable community backbone, but might not be in your own self interest.

^^^^Again, do you have any interest in what will give the school a strong and stable backbone ( proximity preference in addition to a citywide draw)? Or is your ONLY concern the lottery chances of your neighbors?

The self interest here is astounding

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.

my neighbors a few blocks south of Lincoln Park with younger kids were shut out of what was a neighborhood option just last year (they're ok with Peabody but on the fence about Watkins). SWS is a good fit for them, but they now have to compete with a citywide draw. They shouldn't be further handicapped behind H St area neighbors who gained SWS on their doorstep through sheer dumb luck.