The only issue here, is how do our elementary school students get to school? This morning I was packing my pre-schooler and his nap roll in a car, to drive him to school, and another parent was unloading his pre-schooler with his nap roll to go to SWS. How on Earth does this make any sense? The Ann Goding, Ludlow Taylor, and Logan schools were boundary schools for decades, until the child population dropped. Now that the old buildings have been re-opened as public schools, they should be boundary schools. Take a look at the old boundary map, the 3 schools coexisted just fine! If SWS and Logan insist on staying lottery schools, then they should become charters. In meeting with parents of SWS, they said that they get 'better' kids using the lottery system. I found that a sickening concept. One parent actually said, that if all of the kids were in-bounds, that the school would be 'ruined'. I am not making this up.

Anonymous wrote:Correction ---- I live near Stanton Park and now my in-bounds elementary school is Watkins, which is far away and has a lot of troubled students. SWS should have a boundary that includes Stanton Park, or else Ludlow's boundary should move SOUTH to include Stanton (or Maury move west to include Stanton).

Curious how you know/discern this? Watkins does have high OOB and a significant FARMS. Is that what you are equating with troubled? It is a large elementary school, I think largest in Ward 6. But that of itself doesn't shed any light on why you perceive it as having troubled kids. I am in-bounds and a long-time Peabody/SWS (when it was in the Cluster) and Watkins parent. FWIW, Watkins white students have some of the highest achievement in DC-CAS in the city. Again, if you are drawing conclusions just from the racial/SES make-up of the school. And many OOB are actually Hill kids.

Anonymous wrote:Correction ---- I live near Stanton Park and now my in-bounds elementary school is Watkins, which is far away and has a lot of troubled students. SWS should have a boundary that includes Stanton Park, or else Ludlow's boundary should move SOUTH to include Stanton (or Maury move west to include Stanton).

Maury? If it covered Stanton Park it would have an HUGE boundary. That makes no sense. Or it's just that you want fewer "troubled students"?

You're inbounds for Watkins because you live next to Peabody and Stuart Hobson, i.e., you are in the Cluster. It's not that hard to understand.

FWIW, Maury's boundary is likely moving east, not west.

Correction ---- I live near Stanton Park and now my in-bounds elementary school is Watkins, which is far away and has a lot of troubled students. SWS should have a boundary that includes Stanton Park, or else Ludlow's boundary should move SOUTH to include Stanton (or Maury move west to include Stanton).

I live near Stanton Park and now my in-bounds elementary school is Watkins, which is far away and has a lot of troubled students. SWS should have a boundary that includes Stanton Park, or else Ludlow's boundary should move north to include Stanton (or Maury move west to include Stanton).

Anonymous wrote:
You're beating a dead horse pp. You want special treatment, and if that treatment is granted to you that means progressive programs DCPS wants to implement are useless, they'll be co-opted by the richest, so what's the point? Pull the funding from Logan and SWS, no specialty programs should be allowed. If you live in the Logan catchement and your kid would suffer in montessori, it's on you to move. It's cookie-cutter neighborhood or it's nothing. That, or do these types of specialized programs, do them more often, do them in other geographies, and keep them city wide.

To argue that everyone else's chances should go from shitty to impossible to benefit you it just a bunch of BS.

But families clearly WANT the specialized programs and will leave DCPS to enroll if necessary. If there are no such city wide programs, the programs are either dismantled outright or boundaries drawn where none currently exist. Those boundaries would directly compete with existing boundaries -- in this case Ludlow Taylor's on two fronts. You could easily expand that analogy to all immersion programs too. By the neighborhood schools are less specialized by design, and that's part of the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am happy at my inbounds elementary, so have no dog in this fight, but I think it is more than a little ridiculous to say that giving a proximity preference would "hurt every other student in the city." There are very few nonsibling spaces. SWS is not a meaningful resource to "the city" as a whole. As an aside, I also don't buy the idea that Reggio is such a unique program that a citywide lottery is appropriate. My daughter went to a Reggio preschool, and it was perfectly pleasant, but I honestly do not see is as so different from the other early childhood methods around that it merits a citywide draw.

Not the PP, but I'll give it a shot.

As a city-wide school, every child in DC (who doesn't have a sibling at the school already) has the exact same odds of getting into this special program. Granted, there are very few seats, nonetheless Amy's parents' ability to muster the financial resources to buy a home on the Hill do not buy her better odds than Billy - even though his parents can only afford a rental in Ward 7. Were SWS to offer proximity preference, that egalitarian system would disappear. Of the few available spots at SWS, only those families like Amy's who could afford to buy into the neighborhood could improve their odds. Billy is SOL, as is any other child whose family can't afford the neighborhood.

I don't think it's really that complicated to understand in the first place, but hopefully that clarified everything.

Yes, I get that everyone in the city has the same minuscule odds. But the odds are minuscule. To pretend that citywide access is meaningfully helping children in other wards get a good education is to indulge in a fantasy. It isn't an education strategy.

You're beating a dead horse pp. You want special treatment, and if that treatment is granted to you that means progressive programs DCPS wants to implement are useless, they'll be co-opted by the richest, so what's the point? Pull the funding from Logan and SWS, no specialty programs should be allowed. If you live in the Logan catchement and your kid would suffer in montessori, it's on you to move. It's cookie-cutter neighborhood or it's nothing. That, or do these types of specialized programs, do them more often, do them in other geographies, and keep them city wide.

To argue that everyone else's chances should go from shitty to impossible to benefit you it just a bunch of BS.

Bartender, I'd like to buy this lady a drink.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am happy at my inbounds elementary, so have no dog in this fight, but I think it is more than a little ridiculous to say that giving a proximity preference would "hurt every other student in the city." There are very few nonsibling spaces. SWS is not a meaningful resource to "the city" as a whole. As an aside, I also don't buy the idea that Reggio is such a unique program that a citywide lottery is appropriate. My daughter went to a Reggio preschool, and it was perfectly pleasant, but I honestly do not see is as so different from the other early childhood methods around that it merits a citywide draw.

Not the PP, but I'll give it a shot.

As a city-wide school, every child in DC (who doesn't have a sibling at the school already) has the exact same odds of getting into this special program. Granted, there are very few seats, nonetheless Amy's parents' ability to muster the financial resources to buy a home on the Hill do not buy her better odds than Billy - even though his parents can only afford a rental in Ward 7. Were SWS to offer proximity preference, that egalitarian system would disappear. Of the few available spots at SWS, only those families like Amy's who could afford to buy into the neighborhood could improve their odds. Billy is SOL, as is any other child whose family can't afford the neighborhood.

I don't think it's really that complicated to understand in the first place, but hopefully that clarified everything.

Yes, I get that everyone in the city has the same minuscule odds. But the odds are minuscule. To pretend that citywide access is meaningfully helping children in other wards get a good education is to indulge in a fantasy. It isn't an education strategy.

In other words, "The chances are small anyway, so why not just give the spot to me and save everyone the trouble?"

Nice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am happy at my inbounds elementary, so have no dog in this fight, but I think it is more than a little ridiculous to say that giving a proximity preference would "hurt every other student in the city." There are very few nonsibling spaces. SWS is not a meaningful resource to "the city" as a whole. As an aside, I also don't buy the idea that Reggio is such a unique program that a citywide lottery is appropriate. My daughter went to a Reggio preschool, and it was perfectly pleasant, but I honestly do not see is as so different from the other early childhood methods around that it merits a citywide draw.

Not the PP, but I'll give it a shot.

As a city-wide school, every child in DC (who doesn't have a sibling at the school already) has the exact same odds of getting into this special program. Granted, there are very few seats, nonetheless Amy's parents' ability to muster the financial resources to buy a home on the Hill do not buy her better odds than Billy - even though his parents can only afford a rental in Ward 7. Were SWS to offer proximity preference, that egalitarian system would disappear. Of the few available spots at SWS, only those families like Amy's who could afford to buy into the neighborhood could improve their odds. Billy is SOL, as is any other child whose family can't afford the neighborhood.

I don't think it's really that complicated to understand in the first place, but hopefully that clarified everything.

Yes, I get that everyone in the city has the same minuscule odds. But the odds are minuscule. To pretend that citywide access is meaningfully helping children in other wards get a good education is to indulge in a fantasy. It isn't an education strategy.

You're beating a dead horse pp. You want special treatment, and if that treatment is granted to you that means progressive programs DCPS wants to implement are useless, they'll be co-opted by the richest, so what's the point? Pull the funding from Logan and SWS, no specialty programs should be allowed. If you live in the Logan catchement and your kid would suffer in montessori, it's on you to move. It's cookie-cutter neighborhood or it's nothing. That, or do these types of specialized programs, do them more often, do them in other geographies, and keep them city wide.

To argue that everyone else's chances should go from shitty to impossible to benefit you it just a bunch of BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am happy at my inbounds elementary, so have no dog in this fight, but I think it is more than a little ridiculous to say that giving a proximity preference would "hurt every other student in the city." There are very few nonsibling spaces. SWS is not a meaningful resource to "the city" as a whole. As an aside, I also don't buy the idea that Reggio is such a unique program that a citywide lottery is appropriate. My daughter went to a Reggio preschool, and it was perfectly pleasant, but I honestly do not see is as so different from the other early childhood methods around that it merits a citywide draw.

Not the PP, but I'll give it a shot.

As a city-wide school, every child in DC (who doesn't have a sibling at the school already) has the exact same odds of getting into this special program. Granted, there are very few seats, nonetheless Amy's parents' ability to muster the financial resources to buy a home on the Hill do not buy her better odds than Billy - even though his parents can only afford a rental in Ward 7. Were SWS to offer proximity preference, that egalitarian system would disappear. Of the few available spots at SWS, only those families like Amy's who could afford to buy into the neighborhood could improve their odds. Billy is SOL, as is any other child whose family can't afford the neighborhood.

I don't think it's really that complicated to understand in the first place, but hopefully that clarified everything.

Yes, I get that everyone in the city has the same minuscule odds. But the odds are minuscule. To pretend that citywide access is meaningfully helping children in other wards get a good education is to indulge in a fantasy. It isn't an education strategy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this would all make more sense if there were in fact specialized city wide programs in all parts of the city. Then yes, let's make all of them citywide. But the only ones treated like this are on Capitol Hill, a mile a part.

Agreed! DCPS, please initiate more specialized programs, but keep them city-wide, AND put them in other wards. But please, don't set a precedent with SWS and Logan by allowing the neighbors easier access to these schools. Every address should have an in-bounds, by-right school within walking distance. For unique programs such as this, all children should have a fair chance at entrance.

I agree with the first poster. If DCPS decides to go with a system of city-wide specialty programs, that would be great. SWS and Logan could be part of a city-wide system of schools that have enough seats at great schools so people can really choose a program that is best for their child. If DCPS decides not to go in that direction, it doesn't make sense to have two random city-wide schools and every other school is based on the preference for neighborhood kids Either go with the idea that DCPS is a system of neighborhood schools and city-side specialty programs in every ward and those specialty programs are given newly renovated spaces out of the ward's cache of school space OR go with the idea that DCPS is organized around the idea of neighborhood schools alone. But, right now it seems like there is one system for most of the city and then these two random schools.

Anonymous wrote:I think this would all make more sense if there were in fact specialized city wide programs in all parts of the city. Then yes, let's make all of them citywide. But the only ones treated like this are on Capitol Hill, a mile a part.

Agreed! DCPS, please initiate more specialized programs, but keep them city-wide, AND put them in other wards. But please, don't set a precedent with SWS and Logan by allowing the neighbors easier access to these schools. Every address should have an in-bounds, by-right school within walking distance. For unique programs such as this, all children should have a fair chance at entrance.

I think this would all make more sense if there were in fact specialized city wide programs in all parts of the city. Then yes, let's make all of them citywide. But the only ones treated like this are on Capitol Hill, a mile a part.

Anonymous wrote:I am happy at my inbounds elementary, so have no dog in this fight, but I think it is more than a little ridiculous to say that giving a proximity preference would "hurt every other student in the city." There are very few nonsibling spaces. SWS is not a meaningful resource to "the city" as a whole. As an aside, I also don't buy the idea that Reggio is such a unique program that a citywide lottery is appropriate. My daughter went to a Reggio preschool, and it was perfectly pleasant, but I honestly do not see is as so different from the other early childhood methods around that it merits a citywide draw.

Not the PP, but I'll give it a shot.

As a city-wide school, every child in DC (who doesn't have a sibling at the school already) has the exact same odds of getting into this special program. Granted, there are very few seats, nonetheless Amy's parents' ability to muster the financial resources to buy a home on the Hill do not buy her better odds than Billy - even though his parents can only afford a rental in Ward 7. Were SWS to offer proximity preference, that egalitarian system would disappear. Of the few available spots at SWS, only those families like Amy's who could afford to buy into the neighborhood could improve their odds. Billy is SOL, as is any other child whose family can't afford the neighborhood.

I don't think it's really that complicated to understand in the first place, but hopefully that clarified everything.

It is different in early childhood in the way the school is built entiry around the method and how the whole program is meant to support the Reggio approach. There's a big difference between a teacher reading up on Reggio over the weekend and then "implementing" it in their class and what SWS does. It will be very different if they maintain this approach through the 5th grade.

I agree it doesn't seem like a lot of seats to go around, but if you got in and you live in a very low-performing school district, you are certain that your child would have been "hurt" by a proximity preference.