Anonymous
04/16/2014 19:52
Subject: SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote:
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.
So, which is it? Are there enough seats rest of the city to have a chance to get in after proximity, or are there so few that it's fine for them to all be taken by the affluent neighbors? It can't be both. Seven seats per year puts SWS on par with some of the most popular charters in the city, and nobody in their right minds thinks its okay to set those charter seats aside for people who can afford to buy houses right next door. It does suck for the neighbors, I agree, just like it sucks for those who live right around the corner from Stokes or LAMB to know that they don't have special access.
Anonymous
04/16/2014 19:51
Subject: SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote:This is an issue that really isn't that complicated and should lend itself to an easy compromise if people would stop being so emotional about it.
I don't think anyone can honestly dispute that living in close proximity to a school involves negative externalities.
When you move-in next to a school, you can account for those costs when you buy.
When a school moves in next to you, you cannot.
If you have lived within 3 blocks of SWS since it got there, you get a preference.
If you moved there after, you knew what you were getting into---no preference + bad traffic.
You think that people should get a proximity preference because of traffic? Really?
So if a store moves in down the block, should I get a proximity discount, too?
Anonymous
04/16/2014 19:27
Subject: SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote:Riiight. Schools that let neighbors in = country clubs. Ones that don't are just normal DC Public Schools... Keep telling yourself that. And every other DCPS elementary school will keep operating as neighborhood schools and will keep not being country clubs.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Because having a grand total of 7 seats for the entire city to divvy up in a lottery is a really critical thing? Sorry, the school isn't "citywide" if it's only offering 7 seats to the entire city. That's more like a private school or country club.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?
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.
The point is there's a CHANCE for someone who doesn't live accross the street - if you give proximity to 30 people that chance goes away and then it really IS a country club.
And pp, as far as I can tell from the DME's proposals "they" aren't anyone!
NP here. I really don't have a dog in this fight. I think you're hoping for something you can't have, though. Right now the hot topic is whether even traditional DCPS schools which have been allowed a lot of independence (such as Lafayette) have to give up 10 - 20% of their space for OOB students. So the idea that a newly created "city-wide" school that's perceived to be a high-quality one, would be permitted to offer neighborhood preference really swims against the tide.
Sorry, I feel for your dilemma, but it runs entirely counter to everything DCPS wants to do right now.
Anonymous
04/16/2014 19:11
Subject: SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
This is an issue that really isn't that complicated and should lend itself to an easy compromise if people would stop being so emotional about it.
I don't think anyone can honestly dispute that living in close proximity to a school involves negative externalities.
When you move-in next to a school, you can account for those costs when you buy.
When a school moves in next to you, you cannot.
If you have lived within 3 blocks of SWS since it got there, you get a preference.
If you moved there after, you knew what you were getting into---no preference + bad traffic.
I don't think anyone can honestly dispute that living in close proximity to a school involves negative externalities.
When you move-in next to a school, you can account for those costs when you buy.
When a school moves in next to you, you cannot.
If you have lived within 3 blocks of SWS since it got there, you get a preference.
If you moved there after, you knew what you were getting into---no preference + bad traffic.
Anonymous
04/16/2014 18:14
Subject: Re:SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote: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.
We live a block away, the traffic is bad, especially in the morning. I don't get the sense the school was very full before, there was never much traffic. (We have lived by the school for almost 7 years.)
Anonymous
04/16/2014 17:22
Subject: SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote:Because having a grand total of 7 seats for the entire city to divvy up in a lottery is a really critical thing? Sorry, the school isn't "citywide" if it's only offering 7 seats to the entire city. That's more like a private school or country club.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?
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.
um, no. those 23 other seats may be sibs, but they're public school students like anywhere else in the public school system. How is sibling preference different for SWS than it is for any other DCPS or charter school?
Anonymous
04/16/2014 17:04
Subject: SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Because having a grand total of 7 seats for the entire city to divvy up in a lottery is a really critical thing? Sorry, the school isn't "citywide" if it's only offering 7 seats to the entire city. That's more like a private school or country club.
This point gets overlooked. It's funny how proximity preference is viewed as such a catastrophic injustice when, AT WORST, it would take away a mere handful of non-sibling seats.