Well, we also have the impending realignment of boundaries coming up this spring. Hopefully that will make things a bit clearer.
Who knows, maybe Logan might get proximity too. There have been enough complaints about this from close-by families for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In truth, the number of quality early childhood spots is basically the same given that Peabody was able to expand. And the cluster never really had claim to SWS elementary - the Cluster elementary is Watkins. What is odd to me is that there is no proximity preference for SWS and Logan. I'm not saying it has to be a huge area, but the idea that the neighbors should deal with the downsides of colocation next to the school without any upside is not a good one. One point of correction - Prospect was a school for persons with disabilities. The fact that Prospect was citywide is not a real comparison - students were placed there based on their IEP. The only other citywide elementary school is Logan.

+1. Prospect is a school that requires a student to qualify for services by having a qualifying IEP. It is not a city-wide school in the sense that anyone can go there through a lottery. If SWS was becoming a magnet test-in school or some other kind of school that required the students to show they had a special skill or a special need, that would be different. The fact is that it is just a regular elementary school and DCPS policy is that there is a hierarchy that determines who gets preference at non-specialty schools: IB w/sibling, IB, OOB w/sibling, OOB w/proximity, no preference. All that is being claimed here is that DCPS should not violate its own preference order, not that DCPS provide anything special to the people who live in this community. If it chooses to not give an IB area to this school then the list still should go OOB w/sibling, OOB w/proximity, no preference. That is not special treatment. That is equal treatment.

If DCPS decides it is a citywide program, then it does not have proximity preference, period. Like charter schools, you can't relocate to get better access to a citywide program at this time. I don't have a horse in this race, but DCPS would be very stupid to provide proximity preference and skim off L-T families when they are doing a renovation of L-T. They don't need to boost enrollment and engagement at SWS; it is already success story.

I wouldn't be surprised if DCPS created more citywide schools like this in order to compete with the charters. It's been demonstrated over and over again that high SES parents will go to any lengths to get into specialized programs and escape their IB schools.

Anonymous wrote:In truth, the number of quality early childhood spots is basically the same given that Peabody was able to expand. And the cluster never really had claim to SWS elementary - the Cluster elementary is Watkins. What is odd to me is that there is no proximity preference for SWS and Logan. I'm not saying it has to be a huge area, but the idea that the neighbors should deal with the downsides of colocation next to the school without any upside is not a good one. One point of correction - Prospect was a school for persons with disabilities. The fact that Prospect was citywide is not a real comparison - students were placed there based on their IEP. The only other citywide elementary school is Logan.

+1. Prospect is a school that requires a student to qualify for services by having a qualifying IEP. It is not a city-wide school in the sense that anyone can go there through a lottery. If SWS was becoming a magnet test-in school or some other kind of school that required the students to show they had a special skill or a special need, that would be different. The fact is that it is just a regular elementary school and DCPS policy is that there is a hierarchy that determines who gets preference at non-specialty schools: IB w/sibling, IB, OOB w/sibling, OOB w/proximity, no preference. All that is being claimed here is that DCPS should not violate its own preference order, not that DCPS provide anything special to the people who live in this community. If it chooses to not give an IB area to this school then the list still should go OOB w/sibling, OOB w/proximity, no preference. That is not special treatment. That is equal treatment.

Anonymous wrote:In truth, the number of quality early childhood spots is basically the same given that Peabody was able to expand. And the cluster never really had claim to SWS elementary - the Cluster elementary is Watkins. What is odd to me is that there is no proximity preference for SWS and Logan. I'm not saying it has to be a huge area, but the idea that the neighbors should deal with the downsides of colocation next to the school without any upside is not a good one. One point of correction - Prospect was a school for persons with disabilities. The fact that Prospect was citywide is not a real comparison - students were placed there based on their IEP. The only other citywide elementary school is Logan.

The point is really that LT neighbors had no more right to Prospect than anyone else before, so there's no change in having no more right to it now. Similarly, LT neighbors dealt with the traffic of a city-wide school and the noise from city-wide children before, so there's no change in dealing with that now.

In truth, the number of quality early childhood spots is basically the same given that Peabody was able to expand. And the cluster never really had claim to SWS elementary - the Cluster elementary is Watkins. What is odd to me is that there is no proximity preference for SWS and Logan. I'm not saying it has to be a huge area, but the idea that the neighbors should deal with the downsides of colocation next to the school without any upside is not a good one. One point of correction - Prospect was a school for persons with disabilities. The fact that Prospect was citywide is not a real comparison - students were placed there based on their IEP. The only other citywide elementary school is Logan.

Quick question: Why isn't the citywide aspect of both CHM and SWS "advertised" better on the DCPS website? That's where most potential parents would get their information, yet the citywide aspect of the schools is either hard to find or you have to interpret it (e.g., an IB% of 0 - are people just supposed to know that this means it is citywide?).

The citywide high schools in DC get mentioned on the DCPS website. Why not the citywide primary schools?

SWS should not revert to IB. I get it that Cluster parents may feel a bit bitter about losing SWS. But I don't agree with the "Cluster (or Capitol Hill) parents started SWS, so they should benefit." The reasons are twofold - 1. The individuals who started SWS likely don't have kids there any longer. 2. DCPS has and will continue to put a lot on money into SWS, so the entire city should "benefit", ESPECIALLY if LT is also getting remodeled.

Anonymous wrote:
I am not pretending that something has been taken away from me. What I am saying is that a new school is opening across the street from my house and I don't see why my child wouldn't have preference to attend it. It is much closer to my house than LT and it is a better school. Of course I want preference. I think that most people would advocate for preference at a good school in neighborhood. The real question is: why don't you want to?

This might sound odd, but I don't want to live in a highly desirable proximity area. I have lived in this neighborhood a long time, and I don't love all the changes that have taken place in the last several years. I miss the old residents who have died or sold their houses, and I miss some of the shabbiness and edginess that came with living on the fringes of the Hill. I don't love all of our pushy new neighbors who are continually going on about property values, even though I will someday benefit from the high prices of houses in the neighborhood. I don't want another new influx of arrivals who are trying to avoid L-T by buying close to SWS. I know that neighborhood change is inevitable, but that doesn't mean I have to agitate for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But, having chosen a location across the street from my house, I don't see why I am less deserving and can see why I am, in fact, more deserving, of a seat, just like the people who lived IB for the Cluster were entitled to preference when the school was located close to their houses.

You are not "less deserving". You are equally deserving. Why is this hard to understand?

I am not pp, and probably not wuite close enough to be given preference myself, but Cluster got preference b/c it was an IB school there. We are asking for a step down, with walking distance preference. But those who are close should get it based on SWS' history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's pretty obvious. "Neighborhood preference" is just another way of saying inbounds. (I realize that DCPS has "OOB with proximity" for the lottery, but if there is no IB option, like at SWS, then a proximity preference would essentially be IB.) They don't want another IB school practically right next to Ludlow Taylor. They are pouring a lot of money into LT to renovate it-- why would they then go ahead and undermine it by plopping another IB school next to it? People get pissy enough when they don't get a spot in the PS/PK lottery-- you think folks are going to be happy when they are shut out of their quasi-inbounds school and have to go to the "less than" LT?

There is no upside for DCPS to make this an IB (or if you prefer, "neighborhood preference") school. None.

If DCPS allows OOB with proximity preference at all other city schools (except CHM) why should this school be different? I have OOB with proximity preference at Maury and it hasn't undermined my IB school (Peabody). Proximity preference is much smaller than an IB catchment area and doesn't affect that many kids.

There you go - the exception that probed the rule. DCPS does not have proximity preference for all other city schools.

No. It very oddly does not give proximity preference at only two elementary schools, both in the same part of Capitol Hill. The fact that the only two city-wide schools are located within blocks of each other is maddening to people who live across the street from these schools. If there are other city-wide schools, please name then here because I am unaware of any other DCPS school that does not give neighborhood preference. I do not understand why people on Capitol Hill are turning a blind eye to the outsourcing of their quality elementary schools when no other neighborhood in the city has stood for this kind of treatment at the hands of DCPS. If all the sudden Murch or Janney became city-wide schools there would be holy hell unleashed by the residents of upper NW.

The Montessori program was always a citywide program. It was co-located at Watkins until the move to the unused Logan building. The SWS program was a small, early elementary program co-located at Peabody with IB preference for Cluster families. Last year it moved to trailers at Logan, and next year it will be located in the Prospect building and will expand to 5th grade.

The comparison to Murch or Janney is ridiculous, since those are neighborhood elementary schools. Both the CHM and the SWS programs have expanded into space near your house, but you never had any rights to attend them. Like me, you purchased a house in the L-T catchment. Don't pretend that something has been taken away from us that we never had. The Cluster families are the only ones who have the right to complain; they've lost their IB access to SWS except through their sibling preferences.

I am not pretending that something has been taken away from me. What I am saying is that a new school is opening across the street from my house and I don't see why my child wouldn't have preference to attend it. It is much closer to my house than LT and it is a better school. Of course I want preference. I think that most people would advocate for preference at a good school in neighborhood. The real question is: why don't you want to?

You are, in fact, pretending that something has been taken away from you when you claim that "people on Capitol Hill are turning a blind eye to the outsourcing of their quality elementary schools when no other neighborhood in the city has stood for this kind of treatment at the hands of DCPS." You are willfully misunderstanding the definition of a citywide program, and you are claiming that DCPS is opening a *new* school across the street from your house, which is not true. An existing program is being located there. I am quite certain that you were not interested in attending the existing program at Prospect, even though it is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET!

I get it; you don't want to send your kid to L-T. You should lobby DCPS for it, and I'm sure you will. Just understand that others of us are not going to manufacture outrage on your behalf.

Fair enough. I am not actually outraged and would be fine sending my kid to LT for PS and PK and playing the lotteries to get into a better DCPS/charter. And, I certainly don't expect others who wouldn't benefit to care if SWS gets neighborhood preference. What I don't quite understand is why a neighbors who would benefit is against the idea. DCPS could have chosen to locate the school anywhere. But, having chosen a location across the street from my house, I don't see why I am less deserving and can see why I am, in fact, more deserving, of a seat, just like the people who lived IB for the Cluster were entitled to preference when the school was located close to their houses.

You are not "less deserving". You are equally deserving. Why is this hard to understand?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's pretty obvious. "Neighborhood preference" is just another way of saying inbounds. (I realize that DCPS has "OOB with proximity" for the lottery, but if there is no IB option, like at SWS, then a proximity preference would essentially be IB.) They don't want another IB school practically right next to Ludlow Taylor. They are pouring a lot of money into LT to renovate it-- why would they then go ahead and undermine it by plopping another IB school next to it? People get pissy enough when they don't get a spot in the PS/PK lottery-- you think folks are going to be happy when they are shut out of their quasi-inbounds school and have to go to the "less than" LT?

There is no upside for DCPS to make this an IB (or if you prefer, "neighborhood preference") school. None.

If DCPS allows OOB with proximity preference at all other city schools (except CHM) why should this school be different? I have OOB with proximity preference at Maury and it hasn't undermined my IB school (Peabody). Proximity preference is much smaller than an IB catchment area and doesn't affect that many kids.

There you go - the exception that probed the rule. DCPS does not have proximity preference for all other city schools.

No. It very oddly does not give proximity preference at only two elementary schools, both in the same part of Capitol Hill. The fact that the only two city-wide schools are located within blocks of each other is maddening to people who live across the street from these schools. If there are other city-wide schools, please name then here because I am unaware of any other DCPS school that does not give neighborhood preference. I do not understand why people on Capitol Hill are turning a blind eye to the outsourcing of their quality elementary schools when no other neighborhood in the city has stood for this kind of treatment at the hands of DCPS. If all the sudden Murch or Janney became city-wide schools there would be holy hell unleashed by the residents of upper NW.

The Montessori program was always a citywide program. It was co-located at Watkins until the move to the unused Logan building. The SWS program was a small, early elementary program co-located at Peabody with IB preference for Cluster families. Last year it moved to trailers at Logan, and next year it will be located in the Prospect building and will expand to 5th grade.

The comparison to Murch or Janney is ridiculous, since those are neighborhood elementary schools. Both the CHM and the SWS programs have expanded into space near your house, but you never had any rights to attend them. Like me, you purchased a house in the L-T catchment. Don't pretend that something has been taken away from us that we never had. The Cluster families are the only ones who have the right to complain; they've lost their IB access to SWS except through their sibling preferences.

I am not pretending that something has been taken away from me. What I am saying is that a new school is opening across the street from my house and I don't see why my child wouldn't have preference to attend it. It is much closer to my house than LT and it is a better school. Of course I want preference. I think that most people would advocate for preference at a good school in neighborhood. The real question is: why don't you want to?

You are, in fact, pretending that something has been taken away from you when you claim that "people on Capitol Hill are turning a blind eye to the outsourcing of their quality elementary schools when no other neighborhood in the city has stood for this kind of treatment at the hands of DCPS." You are willfully misunderstanding the definition of a citywide program, and you are claiming that DCPS is opening a *new* school across the street from your house, which is not true. An existing program is being located there. I am quite certain that you were not interested in attending the existing program at Prospect, even though it is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET!

I get it; you don't want to send your kid to L-T. You should lobby DCPS for it, and I'm sure you will. Just understand that others of us are not going to manufacture outrage on your behalf.

Fair enough. I am not actually outraged and would be fine sending my kid to LT for PS and PK and playing the lotteries to get into a better DCPS/charter. And, I certainly don't expect others who wouldn't benefit to care if SWS gets neighborhood preference. What I don't quite understand is why a neighbors who would benefit is against the idea. DCPS could have chosen to locate the school anywhere. But, having chosen a location across the street from my house, I don't see why I am less deserving and can see why I am, in fact, more deserving, of a seat, just like the people who lived IB for the Cluster were entitled to preference when the school was located close to their houses.

You're suggesting that DCPS had a wealth of choices for this new program, when in fact it didn't. They had to choose from among the facilities being closed, not spend an extra hundred million purchasing a city block, tearing down what's there, and building up a new school. Prospect is/was a city-wide school in the first place. It is being replaced with another city-wide school. It has been in use, ergo it will not need massive renovations to even make it usable (unlike, say, JF Cook, which was awarded to Mundo Verde). That makes a certain amount of sense. DCPS is trying to rationalize its spending, capital investments, and programs. Keeping SWS city-wide in a different facility, not far from its old location (there are current families to serve, after all) contributes to that plan.

What you want is a new and different plan, that serves your personal interests and those of a few dozen families in your immediate neighborhood, and you want this new plan at the expense of DCPS and everyone else in the city. Why are you surprised that no-one is jumping on your bandwagon?

Anonymous wrote:The biggest problem here is that LT sucks. If LT was better, we may still want preference, but it wouldn't be so upsetting that we don't have it. That is not SWS' burden to bear, but it is why we are so frustrated.

+1

The biggest problem here is that LT sucks. If LT was better, we may still want preference, but it wouldn't be so upsetting that we don't have it. That is not SWS' burden to bear, but it is why we are so frustrated.

I have contacted Kaya and Tommy Wells, got nowhere, possibly b/c we were fortunate enough to find a good dcps option for the next few years, so we do not attend LT (although we went there for a while at the start of the year). LT as a whole does not want the principal out, but these people do NOT live in LT's neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's pretty obvious. "Neighborhood preference" is just another way of saying inbounds. (I realize that DCPS has "OOB with proximity" for the lottery, but if there is no IB option, like at SWS, then a proximity preference would essentially be IB.) They don't want another IB school practically right next to Ludlow Taylor. They are pouring a lot of money into LT to renovate it-- why would they then go ahead and undermine it by plopping another IB school next to it? People get pissy enough when they don't get a spot in the PS/PK lottery-- you think folks are going to be happy when they are shut out of their quasi-inbounds school and have to go to the "less than" LT?

There is no upside for DCPS to make this an IB (or if you prefer, "neighborhood preference") school. None.

If DCPS allows OOB with proximity preference at all other city schools (except CHM) why should this school be different? I have OOB with proximity preference at Maury and it hasn't undermined my IB school (Peabody). Proximity preference is much smaller than an IB catchment area and doesn't affect that many kids.

There you go - the exception that probed the rule. DCPS does not have proximity preference for all other city schools.

No. It very oddly does not give proximity preference at only two elementary schools, both in the same part of Capitol Hill. The fact that the only two city-wide schools are located within blocks of each other is maddening to people who live across the street from these schools. If there are other city-wide schools, please name then here because I am unaware of any other DCPS school that does not give neighborhood preference. I do not understand why people on Capitol Hill are turning a blind eye to the outsourcing of their quality elementary schools when no other neighborhood in the city has stood for this kind of treatment at the hands of DCPS. If all the sudden Murch or Janney became city-wide schools there would be holy hell unleashed by the residents of upper NW.

To be fully honest, the only other neighborhood(s) in the city where there are quality elementary schools in the first place are west of the park. The comparison doesn't hold however, because those have always been higher SES, majority white, high-quality elementaries, serving families with higher levels of education in the home. So, it's leaning towards a strongman argument to suggest that the Hill is being deprived of something available to the rest of DC. It's not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's pretty obvious. "Neighborhood preference" is just another way of saying inbounds. (I realize that DCPS has "OOB with proximity" for the lottery, but if there is no IB option, like at SWS, then a proximity preference would essentially be IB.) They don't want another IB school practically right next to Ludlow Taylor. They are pouring a lot of money into LT to renovate it-- why would they then go ahead and undermine it by plopping another IB school next to it? People get pissy enough when they don't get a spot in the PS/PK lottery-- you think folks are going to be happy when they are shut out of their quasi-inbounds school and have to go to the "less than" LT?

There is no upside for DCPS to make this an IB (or if you prefer, "neighborhood preference") school. None.

If DCPS allows OOB with proximity preference at all other city schools (except CHM) why should this school be different? I have OOB with proximity preference at Maury and it hasn't undermined my IB school (Peabody). Proximity preference is much smaller than an IB catchment area and doesn't affect that many kids.

There you go - the exception that probed the rule. DCPS does not have proximity preference for all other city schools.

No. It very oddly does not give proximity preference at only two elementary schools, both in the same part of Capitol Hill. The fact that the only two city-wide schools are located within blocks of each other is maddening to people who live across the street from these schools. If there are other city-wide schools, please name then here because I am unaware of any other DCPS school that does not give neighborhood preference. I do not understand why people on Capitol Hill are turning a blind eye to the outsourcing of their quality elementary schools when no other neighborhood in the city has stood for this kind of treatment at the hands of DCPS. If all the sudden Murch or Janney became city-wide schools there would be holy hell unleashed by the residents of upper NW.

The Montessori program was always a citywide program. It was co-located at Watkins until the move to the unused Logan building. The SWS program was a small, early elementary program co-located at Peabody with IB preference for Cluster families. Last year it moved to trailers at Logan, and next year it will be located in the Prospect building and will expand to 5th grade.

The comparison to Murch or Janney is ridiculous, since those are neighborhood elementary schools. Both the CHM and the SWS programs have expanded into space near your house, but you never had any rights to attend them. Like me, you purchased a house in the L-T catchment. Don't pretend that something has been taken away from us that we never had. The Cluster families are the only ones who have the right to complain; they've lost their IB access to SWS except through their sibling preferences.

I am not pretending that something has been taken away from me. What I am saying is that a new school is opening across the street from my house and I don't see why my child wouldn't have preference to attend it. It is much closer to my house than LT and it is a better school. Of course I want preference. I think that most people would advocate for preference at a good school in neighborhood. The real question is: why don't you want to?

You are, in fact, pretending that something has been taken away from you when you claim that "people on Capitol Hill are turning a blind eye to the outsourcing of their quality elementary schools when no other neighborhood in the city has stood for this kind of treatment at the hands of DCPS." You are willfully misunderstanding the definition of a citywide program, and you are claiming that DCPS is opening a *new* school across the street from your house, which is not true. An existing program is being located there. I am quite certain that you were not interested in attending the existing program at Prospect, even though it is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET!

I get it; you don't want to send your kid to L-T. You should lobby DCPS for it, and I'm sure you will. Just understand that others of us are not going to manufacture outrage on your behalf.

Fair enough. I am not actually outraged and would be fine sending my kid to LT for PS and PK and playing the lotteries to get into a better DCPS/charter. And, I certainly don't expect others who wouldn't benefit to care if SWS gets neighborhood preference. What I don't quite understand is why a neighbors who would benefit is against the idea. DCPS could have chosen to locate the school anywhere. But, having chosen a location across the street from my house, I don't see why I am less deserving and can see why I am, in fact, more deserving, of a seat, just like the people who lived IB for the Cluster were entitled to preference when the school was located close to their houses.