Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:^. Fair enough, but why do they get to go to the front of the line rather than play the lottery like everyone else?
My point is that they don't get to the front of the line. They may be looking to get into the line somewhere in the middle, but that won't guarantee them a seat over the sibs at the front
Let's get real, here. After sibs, if there is a proximity preference there will be NO spots left for anyone else. Zippy. Who are you trying to kid?
Anonymous wrote:The real question is who do you want to anger the least? The folks against proximity for SWS don't really care about getting into the school, they're generally just bitter about the prospect of well-to-do Hill families having preferred access. And the Hill families who want preference will be angry if they don't get it, but they're resourceful enough to figure something out. The funny thing is that the bitter folks rant and rant about this being an issue of fairness when they know well that a citywide draw will only mean a handful of spots for non-siblings -- a drop in the bucket.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:^. Fair enough, but why do they get to go to the front of the line rather than play the lottery like everyone else?
My point is that they don't get to the front of the line. They may be looking to get into the line somewhere in the middle, but that won't guarantee them a seat over the sibs at the front

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:^. Fair enough, but why do they get to go to the front of the line rather than play the lottery like everyone else?
My point is that they don't get to the front of the line. They may be looking to get into the line somewhere in the middle, but that won't guarantee them a seat over the sibs at the front
Anonymous wrote:I definitely got the sense at the Ward 6 Focus groups that there were two groups of parents with clear agendas - those that are seeking preference for SWS and those that want Stuart Hobson to get more money. I don't have a strong view about either of those goals, but I do think that it really skews any hope of these being real focus groups. Don't know what I was expecting, but it seems like those two pieces will effect very small parts of Ward 6 (for the SWS preferences, literally only a few families) and for Stuart Hobson, basically only the cluster. What am I missing?
Anonymous wrote:^. Fair enough, but why do they get to go to the front of the line rather than play the lottery like everyone else?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:SWS is a specialized program and should remain city-wide, to provide an equal chance of getting non-sibling spots.
Do you have ANY reasoning for this? It was a neighborhood school just a couple of years ago. It's no more "specialized" than Brent, which is now "Reggio-influenced" in the early years. It's the only DCPS school that was taken from a neighborhood school to a city-wide. It's one of only two city-wide DCPS elementary schools, both of which are on the Hill. If DCPS would consider a preference for Ward 6 or the Hill, I think that would be ideal.
Stop. The entire program changed. It went from a small supplemental early elementary program (not the ONLY program for IB children) to an entire school. It was never a DCPS school, only a program. That means the IB children still have a school in addition to SWS. It wasn't taken from anyone. It was expanded. When programs change, attendance change.
It went from a "program" with preference for kids in a defined neighborhood to a "program" with a city wide draw.
DCPS needs to decide what they are doing with it... is it a charter with a city-wide draw and no feeder pattern or a public school, in which case it should be both tied to a neighborhood (like every other DCPS) and have a feeder pattern to a middle school. This neither-here-nor-there approach is not helpful to anyone.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:SWS is a specialized program and should remain city-wide, to provide an equal chance of getting non-sibling spots.
Do you have ANY reasoning for this? It was a neighborhood school just a couple of years ago. It's no more "specialized" than Brent, which is now "Reggio-influenced" in the early years. It's the only DCPS school that was taken from a neighborhood school to a city-wide. It's one of only two city-wide DCPS elementary schools, both of which are on the Hill. If DCPS would consider a preference for Ward 6 or the Hill, I think that would be ideal.
Stop. The entire program changed. It went from a small supplemental early elementary program (not the ONLY program for IB children) to an entire school. It was never a DCPS school, only a program. That means the IB children still have a school in addition to SWS. It wasn't taken from anyone. It was expanded. When programs change, attendance change.
It went from a "program" with preference for kids in a defined neighborhood to a "program" with a city wide draw.
DCPS needs to decide what they are doing with it... is it a charter with a city-wide draw and no feeder pattern or a public school, in which case it should be both tied to a neighborhood (like every other DCPS) and have a feeder pattern to a middle school. This neither-here-nor-there approach is not helpful to anyone.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:SWS is a specialized program and should remain city-wide, to provide an equal chance of getting non-sibling spots.
Do you have ANY reasoning for this? It was a neighborhood school just a couple of years ago. It's no more "specialized" than Brent, which is now "Reggio-influenced" in the early years. It's the only DCPS school that was taken from a neighborhood school to a city-wide. It's one of only two city-wide DCPS elementary schools, both of which are on the Hill. If DCPS would consider a preference for Ward 6 or the Hill, I think that would be ideal.
Stop. The entire program changed. It went from a small supplemental early elementary program (not the ONLY program for IB children) to an entire school. It was never a DCPS school, only a program. That means the IB children still have a school in addition to SWS. It wasn't taken from anyone. It was expanded. When programs change, attendance change.
It went from a "program" with preference for kids in a defined neighborhood to a "program" with a city wide draw.
DCPS needs to decide what they are doing with it... is it a a city-wide draw and no feeder pattern or a public school, in which case it should be both tied to a neighborhood (like every other DCPS) and have a feeder pattern to a middle school. This neither-here-nor-there approach is not helpful to anyone.