Anonymous wrote:The Cluster boundaries, including proximity, applied to SWS until the move to the Goding building. Basically one of the conditions of the move was that SWS become a citywide school. I was in favor of that decision (though did nothing to influence it either way), but I understand the concerns raised by Cluster families who were formally in boundary for the school, by Ludlow Taylor families, who worry that it will continue pull away high income students (as it has historically), and the families that live across the street from the Goding building who have to put up with increase traffic from the school but believe that their kids are not going to be able to attend.

Why would there be an increase in traffic? Prospect Learning Center was in the building before SWS. The building was only closed for one year.

Anonymous wrote:The Cluster boundaries, including proximity, applied to SWS until the move to the Goding building. Basically one of the conditions of the move was that SWS become a citywide school. I was in favor of that decision (though did nothing to influence it either way), but I understand the concerns raised by Cluster families who were formally in boundary for the school, by Ludlow Taylor families, who worry that it will continue pull away high income students (as it has historically), and the families that live across the street from the Goding building who have to put up with increase traffic from the school but believe that their kids are not going to be able to attend.

Thank you. You seem like a very reasonable person who is able to look at all the perspectives.

The Cluster boundaries, including proximity, applied to SWS until the move to the Goding building. Basically one of the conditions of the move was that SWS become a citywide school. I was in favor of that decision (though did nothing to influence it either way), but I understand the concerns raised by Cluster families who were formally in boundary for the school, by Ludlow Taylor families, who worry that it will continue pull away high income students (as it has historically), and the families that live across the street from the Goding building who have to put up with increase traffic from the school but believe that their kids are not going to be able to attend.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Not true. K retained the Cluster boundary for enrollment priority until SWS landed in a new home. Cluster boundary families got priority for K at Logan Annex, but I'm not sure if that preference was before or after Peabody families who had a one time option to move between Peabody and SWS at the time of the split (both ways -- SWS families were allowed to move to Peabody). FWIW there was more movement from SWS to Peabody than vice versa. Don't know if proximity applied at the Annex, but the Cluster boundary definitely did.

Anonymous wrote:Right. I think that with proximity the low income apartments at Capitol Hill Towers would be included, so this worry about just wealthy neighbors getting in is bunk. It is about the long term health of a school that is supported by its nearest neighbors no matter who they are

That's a senior assisted living facility, so no

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Calling it "proximity preference" is such a joke. If there are no inbounds kids, then proximity preference is a de facto boundary. It's not a "compromise"-- if you give people around SWS proximity preference, you are CREATING A BOUNDARY. So let's just be honest about that, okay?

+1 that would make SWS a school for siblings and wealthy neighbors. I wonder why Kaya isn't going along with this plan?

Wealthy neighbors? Sure, the area has changed and house values have increased a lot but there are plenty of low-income families still within proximity of SWS.

Your argument could also be true of many other Hill schools - Brent, Maury, Peabody, etc. At least those folks can walk to the school closest to them, unlike the people living immediately around SWS.

Oh, you can't walk to Ludlow-Taylor?

I never said I couldn't. But SWS is right across the street - the school closest to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Calling it "proximity preference" is such a joke. If there are no inbounds kids, then proximity preference is a de facto boundary. It's not a "compromise"-- if you give people around SWS proximity preference, you are CREATING A BOUNDARY. So let's just be honest about that, okay?

Fine. But "proximity" is actually very small compared to an "inbound boundary." I think the largest "proximity" they are considering is 3000 feet from the school, which is only roughly two blocks. This will still allow for others outside the "boundary" a chance to get in.

Not true. There were 7 non-sibling seats for PK3 this year. Those would be sucked up in a heartbeat by proximity families, leaving others outside the boundary SOL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Calling it "proximity preference" is such a joke. If there are no inbounds kids, then proximity preference is a de facto boundary. It's not a "compromise"-- if you give people around SWS proximity preference, you are CREATING A BOUNDARY. So let's just be honest about that, okay?

+1 that would make SWS a school for siblings and wealthy neighbors. I wonder why Kaya isn't going along with this plan?

Wealthy neighbors? Sure, the area has changed and house values have increased a lot but there are plenty of low-income families still within proximity of SWS.

Your argument could also be true of many other Hill schools - Brent, Maury, Peabody, etc. At least those folks can walk to the school closest to them, unlike the people living immediately around SWS.

Oh, you can't walk to Ludlow-Taylor?

Right. I think that with proximity the low income apartments at Capitol Hill Towers would be included, so this worry about just wealthy neighbors getting in is bunk. It is about the long term health of a school that is supported by its nearest neighbors no matter who they are

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Calling it "proximity preference" is such a joke. If there are no inbounds kids, then proximity preference is a de facto boundary. It's not a "compromise"-- if you give people around SWS proximity preference, you are CREATING A BOUNDARY. So let's just be honest about that, okay?

+1 that would make SWS a school for siblings and wealthy neighbors. I wonder why Kaya isn't going along with this plan?

Wealthy neighbors? Sure, the area has changed and house values have increased a lot but there are plenty of low-income families still within proximity of SWS.

Your argument could also be true of many other Hill schools - Brent, Maury, Peabody, etc. At least those folks can walk to the school closest to them, unlike the people living immediately around SWS.

Anonymous wrote:Calling it "proximity preference" is such a joke. If there are no inbounds kids, then proximity preference is a de facto boundary. It's not a "compromise"-- if you give people around SWS proximity preference, you are CREATING A BOUNDARY. So let's just be honest about that, okay?

Fine. But "proximity" is actually very small compared to an "inbound boundary." I think the largest "proximity" they are considering is 3000 feet from the school, which is only roughly two blocks. This will still allow for others outside the "boundary" a chance to get in.

Anonymous wrote:Calling it "proximity preference" is such a joke. If there are no inbounds kids, then proximity preference is a de facto boundary. It's not a "compromise"-- if you give people around SWS proximity preference, you are CREATING A BOUNDARY. So let's just be honest about that, okay?

+1 that would make SWS a school for siblings and wealthy neighbors. I wonder why Kaya isn't going along with this plan?

Calling it "proximity preference" is such a joke. If there are no inbounds kids, then proximity preference is a de facto boundary. It's not a "compromise"-- if you give people around SWS proximity preference, you are CREATING A BOUNDARY. So let's just be honest about that, okay?

Anonymous wrote:I was excited about having SWS and Logan in my choice sets (I am IB for LT) and then I realized:
1) I would loose my right to Stuart Hobson, even though I live across the street.
2) I would have near zero chance for any of the other schools I like on the Hill (currently in Peabody due to proximity).

What chance do you realistically have for other schools on the Hill at the moment? You're already in Peabody so that wouldn't hurt you. Maury and Brent are both so popular that they are basically IB only. I don't understand your argument.

I live across the street from SWS and basically have no chance of sending my kids there without a proximity preference. How is that any different from your situation with Stuart Hobson? (or Peabody, as you would not have gotten in there without a proximity preference)

There are winners and losers in this whole DC school lottery/boundary issue. I hope they come up with something so everyone feels like they at least have a CHOICE in where they send their kids. - Parent of someone who got her 12th "choice" school pick and poor waitlist numbers everywhere else (especially at SWS).

I was excited about having SWS and Logan in my choice sets (I am IB for LT) and then I realized:
1) I would loose my right to Stuart Hobson, even though I live across the street.
2) I would have near zero chance for any of the other schools I like on the Hill (currently in Peabody due to proximity).