Anonymous wrote:Wow - 18 pages long this thread.

Can someone point me to the group joining together to advocate for proximity preference? I'd love to help make that possible. (as someone who lives a block away).

Ha, we would have too! Instead we ended up with a lottery number over 300...

I think the cluster with SWS, Logan, Ludlow Taylor and JO Wilson provide a pretty good example of why choice sets won't work. Right now, there are probably people in the neighborhood (in boundary for either LT or JO) would put SWS and Logan on the list but LT or JO. The lottery list likely then includes other schools, just not the inboundary school. I think without that flexibility a number of families, including my own, would not have our kids in public school at all.

Anonymous wrote:Wow - 18 pages long this thread.

Can someone point me to the group joining together to advocate for proximity preference? I'd love to help make that possible. (as someone who lives a block away).

I think you can contact the main organizer through the petition. http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/restore-school-within

Wow - 18 pages long this thread.

Can someone point me to the group joining together to advocate for proximity preference? I'd love to help make that possible. (as someone who lives a block away).

You should definitely lobby in favor of choice sets, then, since both Logan and SWS are in choice set K. Your friends across the Hill will hate you, but it's in your best interest.

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.

I absolutely agree. It is also in line with the environmental slant of SWS. We strongly promote walking, biking, and scootering to school.

Thanks for reviving this old, boring topic.

Anonymous wrote:I don't really see it as an issue of giving a few families an unfair advantage at one school. The real issue is the precedent that is being set that DCPS runs city-wide lottery schools. If they can make this one school a city-wide lottery school then they can do it to any school at any time. We already have a whole system of city-wide lottery schools - the charter system - and I don't want DCPS to get into the habit of opening non-magnet city-wide lottery schools. I say keep all DCPS school neighborhood schools and let all charter schools stay city-side. Don't muddy the waters either by giving charters the right to grant neighborhood preference or giving DCPS schools the right to become city-wide without competitive admissions based on talent.

This is exactly my concern! Thank you so much for this post! I am extremely concerned about both Logan and SWS turning into citywide lottery schools. It is a huge blow for Capitol Hill.

Anonymous wrote:
This. Here's the list of schools being closed. Ward 6 is one of only two wards that is unaffected. Ward 7 has four elementary schools closing. Ward 8 has three. Ward 5 has one. How is Kaya realistically to take away all of those ES seats from other wards, and then turn around and create new ES seats, exclusively for Ward 6? Because we all know that proximity preference will effectively turn SWS into an IB school. Think about the optics of this here, folks: Ward 6 getting new ES seats for IB (sorry, "proximity preference) families, while 5, 7, and 8 are losing a few hundred of them.

This is exactly the sort of result that keeps Barry, Orange, Bonds et al in office - it would be just too easy to exploit those results for political gain.

She took the seats away where they're surrounded by a sea of unused ones. DCPS should be more concerned about the mobility premium for Wards 7 & 8 families. Some families can and do transport their kids to charters or OOB schools, but that's a real hurdle for others. Charter licensing should require at least some of the schools to locate in educationally underserved areas, if for no other reason than they'll be prioritized by families living closer and most adversely impacted by closings. Rocketship, Eagle Academy and KIPP have taken this approach. Of course most charters would prefer to offer the niche curricula and locate where they can attract the highest number of affluent families.

I do wonder how far the SWS community would have followed the school. Near Southest at Van Ness? Maybe. Benning or Congress Heights? Doubtful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

how is the "history and culture" any different than any other neighborhood school? It never functioned as a standard "neighborhood school" before since only 1/2 the students were below K and not guaranteed neighborhood seats. Even SWS K didn't guarantee neighborhood seats -- only Peabody did. there was never any kind of proximity preference for SWS in its old location. Its boundary included families as far east as Barney Circle and Stadium Armory area via the Cluster

DCPS didnt' intend to create another neighborhood school to fight over boundary lines. SWS was intended as a specialized program to compete with charters and complement other DCPS offerings.

This. Here's the list of schools being closed. Ward 6 is one of only two wards that is unaffected. Ward 7 has four elementary schools closing. Ward 8 has three. Ward 5 has one. How is Kaya realistically to take away all of those ES seats from other wards, and then turn around and create new ES seats, exclusively for Ward 6? Because we all know that proximity preference will effectively turn SWS into an IB school. Think about the optics of this here, folks: Ward 6 getting new ES seats for IB (sorry, "proximity preference) families, while 5, 7, and 8 are losing a few hundred of them.

This is exactly the sort of result that keeps Barry, Orange, Bonds et al in office - it would be just too easy to exploit those results for political gain.

PP 13:54 here -- I highly doubt SWS is going to be a big magnet for all those displaced from the closing process. It will more likely become another prospective option for families weighing EOTP charters

Anonymous wrote:

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.

how is the "history and culture" any different than any other neighborhood school? It never functioned as a standard "neighborhood school" before since only 1/2 the students were below K and not guaranteed neighborhood seats. Even SWS K didn't guarantee neighborhood seats -- only Peabody did. there was never any kind of proximity preference for SWS in its old location. Its boundary included families as far east as Barney Circle and Stadium Armory area via the Cluster

DCPS didnt' intend to create another neighborhood school to fight over boundary lines. SWS was intended as a specialized program to compete with charters and complement other DCPS offerings.

This. Here's the list of schools being closed. Ward 6 is one of only two wards that is unaffected. Ward 7 has four elementary schools closing. Ward 8 has three. Ward 5 has one. How is Kaya realistically to take away all of those ES seats from other wards, and then turn around and create new ES seats, exclusively for Ward 6? Because we all know that proximity preference will effectively turn SWS into an IB school. Think about the optics of this here, folks: Ward 6 getting new ES seats for IB (sorry, "proximity preference) families, while 5, 7, and 8 are losing a few hundred of them.

This is exactly the sort of result that keeps Barry, Orange, Bonds et al in office - it would be just too easy to exploit those results for political gain.

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.

how is the "history and culture" any different than any other neighborhood school? It never functioned as a standard "neighborhood school" before since only 1/2 the students were below K and not guaranteed neighborhood seats. Even SWS K didn't guarantee neighborhood seats -- only Peabody did. there was never any kind of proximity preference for SWS in its old location. Its boundary included families as far east as Barney Circle and Stadium Armory area via the Cluster

DCPS didnt' intend to create another neighborhood school to fight over boundary lines. SWS was intended as a specialized program to compete with charters and complement other DCPS offerings.

I'm not worried about a lack of diversity, people keep harping on it, but trust me, not everyone at the school is supermwhite and dripping in money as many would have you think...

The only folks who want proximity are the folks who would directly benefit from it. Seems citywide is a fine enough answer for the rest of the city, just not you.

Anonymous wrote:^ how do you propose they give slots to the "low-income" kids? Is it just going to be a fact that if you're not from the immediate hood you must be poor? That'll b great for the community aspect...

low-income lottery set-asides are routinely used in dept. of education subsidized early ed programs like head start - there are many public school precedents around the country. the stanton park neighborhood still has some low-income kids, though few try to lottery in to sws set aside some spots for them if you're worried about lack of diversity and more would come. a city-wide lottery isn't the answer.

^ how do you propose they give slots to the "low-income" kids? Is it just going to be a fact that if you're not from the immediate hood you must be poor? That'll b great for the community aspect...