Again, neighborhood is part of Reggio. So you not caring about neighborhood preference adds no benefit to the school and therefore your oh-so-diverse child doesn't either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably not. Also heard today from reliable source that there will never be neighborhood preference. DCPS is too afraid of having another majority white school EoTP, is my guess.

I really hope you are wrong.

No offense--but, I don't-- SWS is an extremely homogenious school. It shcking to see a school with no cultutal diversity whatsoever.

. My child would add "diversity" and we have a great slot. So to reference OP... Anyone in PK turning down their slot?

Also, for what it's worth, I think it's great that there is not a neighborhood preference---and I live in the neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably not. Also heard today from reliable source that there will never be neighborhood preference. DCPS is too afraid of having another majority white school EoTP, is my guess.

I really hope you are wrong.

No offense--but, I don't-- SWS is an extremely homogenious school. It shcking to see a school with no cultutal diversity whatsoever.

This is BS. Anyone sees a school with >50% Caucasian kids and it's "shockingly homogenous?" By that rationale every school in DC is shockingly homogenous. I wouldn't classify 6 out of the 20 kids in our class as Caucasian. There are numerous languages spoken at home, very diverse cultural backgrounds, deaf parents, stay at home dads, all levels of SES and a mutual respect among all of us.

It might serve you well to have less assumptions about something you clearly don't know anything about.

#25 on list! I will definitely take the slot if offered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably not. Also heard today from reliable source that there will never be neighborhood preference. DCPS is too afraid of having another majority white school EoTP, is my guess.

I really hope you are wrong.

No offense--but, I don't-- SWS is an extremely homogenious school. It shcking to see a school with no cultutal diversity whatsoever.

PP who is leaving K-where are you sending DC?

^wasnt aware anyone got in for K, are they working the WL?

no, but i'm giving up K. commute too long

Anonymous wrote: I have yet to hear a good rationale for why these people deserve the spots less than others, and that seems like the only reasonable criteria at a non-magnet school. Neighbors should not have to prove that they deserve the seats more than others. We have a system that ranks people by location. If it is good enough for the other DCPS schools, it seems like it should be good enough for this one too.

The problem is that there are too many neighborhood seats on the Hill. They should be closing at least one or two schools, not adding another one. I agree with the PP who said that it will probably stay citywide to try to compete with the charters.

There was a big argument about this on another thread. Some sort of logic about taking spots from the city? I'm indifferent as well, and I'm not sure anyone from the hill would care much, the school would prefer it, the neighborhood would pbviously prefer it, but the point is, you've got to convince KAYA to believe it's a good move. And if I'm her, it hasn't happened yet. I'm hurting LT not now, but possibly down the road, and I'm losing this shining star of a school I can point to when people state that charters are the best option in the city... Citywide makes sense to me, if I'm her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^. Sorry, still missing your point I think (and I didn't bring up the preference subject, nor LT/Maury...I was a NP.) Do you not want proximity preference then? What is it about?

I'm agnostic on proximity preference. It would serve a micro-sliver of the Stanton Park neighborhood and makes little difference to SWS community. For all the hand wringing about IB, plenty of the sought after Hill ES schools attract OOB students, not just the ones less favored by Hill residents. It's just much less so for PS/PK

If it makes little difference, why oppose it? It wouldn't do anything to hurt the school since most of the current kids are from the Hill anyway? And, by your logic, there would still be plenty of OOB kids, just like at all the Hill schools, so what is the big deal?

Do you not know the meaning of the word "agnostic"? I neither oppose nor support the idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^. Sorry, still missing your point I think (and I didn't bring up the preference subject, nor LT/Maury...I was a NP.) Do you not want proximity preference then? What is it about?

I'm agnostic on proximity preference. It would serve a micro-sliver of the Stanton Park neighborhood and makes little difference to SWS community. For all the hand wringing about IB, plenty of the sought after Hill ES schools attract OOB students, not just the ones less favored by Hill residents. It's just much less so for PS/PK

If it makes little difference, why oppose it? It wouldn't do anything to hurt the school since most of the current kids are from the Hill anyway? And, by your logic, there would still be plenty of OOB kids, just like at all the Hill schools, so what is the big deal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ya - they should have put it straight into van ness, and kept the boundaries of prefernce the same until van ness could have supported the population requirement, ergo making it a neighborhood school.

Alas, that wouldn't have helped LT IB families in any way, and this being the only sound argument for proximity (Reggio works best when community-centered) it seems the best bet is to have the school itself drive the argument.

I agree that the Van Ness plan would have been a good one and I don't really understand why they didn't do this since then a good program could have grown much bigger than it will ever be able to grow at the Prospect location. With a Van Ness IB catchment area, eventually it would have been a real neighborhood school in an emerging neighborhood and when the Cluster parents lost their preference, they would still have had Peabody as a good option. A win-win for two neighborhoods.

Van Ness wasn't a viable option for SY13-14, and it requires extensitve renovation and cost. The projected smaller size for SWS is a better fit for Goding than Van Ness. Van Ness, however, has the advantage of more outdoor space and potential, but the Goding building is better landing spot for SWS now. SWS families who've witnessed the Logan Annex transformation are exciting about the possiblities of this new home. Within 2-3 years Van Ness will likely return as a neighborhood school.

Anonymous wrote:^. Sorry, still missing your point I think (and I didn't bring up the preference subject, nor LT/Maury...I was a NP.) Do you not want proximity preference then? What is it about?

I'm agnostic on proximity preference. It would serve a micro-sliver of the Stanton Park neighborhood and makes little difference to SWS community. For all the hand wringing about IB, plenty of the sought after Hill ES schools attract OOB students, not just the ones less favored by Hill residents. It's just much less so for PS/PK

Anonymous wrote:Ya - they should have put it straight into van ness, and kept the boundaries of prefernce the same until van ness could have supported the population requirement, ergo making it a neighborhood school.

Alas, that wouldn't have helped LT IB families in any way, and this being the only sound argument for proximity (Reggio works best when community-centered) it seems the best bet is to have the school itself drive the argument.

I agree that the Van Ness plan would have been a good one and I don't really understand why they didn't do this since then a good program could have grown much bigger than it will ever be able to grow at the Prospect location. With a Van Ness IB catchment area, eventually it would have been a real neighborhood school in an emerging neighborhood and when the Cluster parents lost their preference, they would still have had Peabody as a good option. A win-win for two neighborhoods.

But, since DCPS didn't decide to make it a neighborhood school in SE DC, I don't see where the opposition come from to giving preference to the neighbors in its new NE DC location. It is just a regular elementary school, not a magnet school, so there is no real reason to prefer any one kid in DC over any other kid in DC and DCPS runs neighborhood schools. It seems strange that the PP made the argument that the neighbors don't deserve to get seats because they "lucked into" living near the new school site. We all "luck in" to our local schools by that logic. I bought in the Brent district 15 years ago when it was a terrible school and got lucky that it got better in time for my kid to enjoy it. There were parents who helped this happen, but I wasn't one of them until I had a kid at the school and I don't know many people who spent time and energy on a neighborhood school before their kid got in. I did nothing to deserve a good school any more than a person who lives near the new SWS location did to deserve to have the school to relocate near them. But, I do think that they should get preference at a school in their neighborhood just like I do and like all of the rest of the DCPS parents do in this city. I have yet to hear a good rationale for why these people deserve the spots less than others, and that seems like the only reasonable criteria at a non-magnet school. Neighbors should not have to prove that they deserve the seats more than others. We have a system that ranks people by location. If it is good enough for the other DCPS schools, it seems like it should be good enough for this one too.