Anonymous
Post 03/13/2013 17:06     Subject: SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:2106.7 The Chancellor may designate a given school, program, or academy, including an early childhood school or program, as a specialized school, program, or academy due to the unique academic character of the school, program, or academy and the importance of matching children's needs and strengths to the mission of a school, program, or academy. When applicable, the Chancellor shall determine admission criteria for any approved specialized school, program, or academy for adoption by the Board.

This and more about proximity and out-of-boundary at:
http://www.dcregs.org/Gateway/FinalAdoptionHome.aspx?RuleVersionID=3879338


Interesting document.

This section is followed by the following one:

Students applying to specialized schools, programs, or academies must meet the specific criteria established for the schools, programs, or academies to which they are applying. Eligibility requirements and selection criteria shall be published and made available upon request to parents. When there are more students than there are available vacancies, students who are ranked equally on the selection criteria shall be selected by lottery.

As a lawyer, what I would point to is that this refers to "specialized schools, programs, or academies" for which students "must meet specific criteria established for the schools, programs, or academies to which they are applying." I would interpret this as schools that have entrance tests, language fluency tests, artistic performance auditions, etc. None of these apply to SWS, which is, right now, a strict lottery school and not actually a specialty school with special entrance requirements.

Again, the outcome of a lawsuit is not clear, but if this is the section of the law that DCPS were to try to use in a court case, there is plenty of legal maneuvering room here.



Is this M.F.? Love how you always mention that you are a lawyer!


Ha, ha, ha! I also detected the gentle hand of our favorite lawyer.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2013 17:05     Subject: SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:2106.7 The Chancellor may designate a given school, program, or academy, including an early childhood school or program, as a specialized school, program, or academy due to the unique academic character of the school, program, or academy and the importance of matching children's needs and strengths to the mission of a school, program, or academy. When applicable, the Chancellor shall determine admission criteria for any approved specialized school, program, or academy for adoption by the Board.

This and more about proximity and out-of-boundary at:
http://www.dcregs.org/Gateway/FinalAdoptionHome.aspx?RuleVersionID=3879338


Interesting document.

This section is followed by the following one:

Students applying to specialized schools, programs, or academies must meet the specific criteria established for the schools, programs, or academies to which they are applying. Eligibility requirements and selection criteria shall be published and made available upon request to parents. When there are more students than there are available vacancies, students who are ranked equally on the selection criteria shall be selected by lottery.

As a lawyer, what I would point to is that this refers to "specialized schools, programs, or academies" for which students "must meet specific criteria established for the schools, programs, or academies to which they are applying." I would interpret this as schools that have entrance tests, language fluency tests, artistic performance auditions, etc. None of these apply to SWS, which is, right now, a strict lottery school and not actually a specialty school with special entrance requirements.

Again, the outcome of a lawsuit is not clear, but if this is the section of the law that DCPS were to try to use in a court case, there is plenty of legal maneuvering room here.



Is this M.F.? Love how you always mention that you are a lawyer!


Could be, but her tell is usually points 1) 2) 3)...
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2013 17:05     Subject: SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:2106.7 The Chancellor may designate a given school, program, or academy, including an early childhood school or program, as a specialized school, program, or academy due to the unique academic character of the school, program, or academy and the importance of matching children's needs and strengths to the mission of a school, program, or academy. When applicable, the Chancellor shall determine admission criteria for any approved specialized school, program, or academy for adoption by the Board.

This and more about proximity and out-of-boundary at:
http://www.dcregs.org/Gateway/FinalAdoptionHome.aspx?RuleVersionID=3879338


Interesting document.

This section is followed by the following one:

Students applying to specialized schools, programs, or academies must meet the specific criteria established for the schools, programs, or academies to which they are applying. Eligibility requirements and selection criteria shall be published and made available upon request to parents. When there are more students than there are available vacancies, students who are ranked equally on the selection criteria shall be selected by lottery.

As a lawyer, what I would point to is that this refers to "specialized schools, programs, or academies" for which students "must meet specific criteria established for the schools, programs, or academies to which they are applying." I would interpret this as schools that have entrance tests, language fluency tests, artistic performance auditions, etc. None of these apply to SWS, which is, right now, a strict lottery school and not actually a specialty school with special entrance requirements.

Again, the outcome of a lawsuit is not clear, but if this is the section of the law that DCPS were to try to use in a court case, there is plenty of legal maneuvering room here.


I'd forgotten how much power was granted to the Chancellor.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2013 17:03     Subject: Re:SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
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.



Isn't it a Reggio program? Ergo, NOT a regular elementary school?
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2013 17:02     Subject: SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:2106.7 The Chancellor may designate a given school, program, or academy, including an early childhood school or program, as a specialized school, program, or academy due to the unique academic character of the school, program, or academy and the importance of matching children's needs and strengths to the mission of a school, program, or academy. When applicable, the Chancellor shall determine admission criteria for any approved specialized school, program, or academy for adoption by the Board.

This and more about proximity and out-of-boundary at:
http://www.dcregs.org/Gateway/FinalAdoptionHome.aspx?RuleVersionID=3879338


Interesting document.

This section is followed by the following one:

Students applying to specialized schools, programs, or academies must meet the specific criteria established for the schools, programs, or academies to which they are applying. Eligibility requirements and selection criteria shall be published and made available upon request to parents. When there are more students than there are available vacancies, students who are ranked equally on the selection criteria shall be selected by lottery.

As a lawyer, what I would point to is that this refers to "specialized schools, programs, or academies" for which students "must meet specific criteria established for the schools, programs, or academies to which they are applying." I would interpret this as schools that have entrance tests, language fluency tests, artistic performance auditions, etc. None of these apply to SWS, which is, right now, a strict lottery school and not actually a specialty school with special entrance requirements.

Again, the outcome of a lawsuit is not clear, but if this is the section of the law that DCPS were to try to use in a court case, there is plenty of legal maneuvering room here.



Is this M.F.? Love how you always mention that you are a lawyer!
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2013 17:00     Subject: SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote:2106.7 The Chancellor may designate a given school, program, or academy, including an early childhood school or program, as a specialized school, program, or academy due to the unique academic character of the school, program, or academy and the importance of matching children's needs and strengths to the mission of a school, program, or academy. When applicable, the Chancellor shall determine admission criteria for any approved specialized school, program, or academy for adoption by the Board.

This and more about proximity and out-of-boundary at:
http://www.dcregs.org/Gateway/FinalAdoptionHome.aspx?RuleVersionID=3879338


Interesting document.

This section is followed by the following one:

Students applying to specialized schools, programs, or academies must meet the specific criteria established for the schools, programs, or academies to which they are applying. Eligibility requirements and selection criteria shall be published and made available upon request to parents. When there are more students than there are available vacancies, students who are ranked equally on the selection criteria shall be selected by lottery.

As a lawyer, what I would point to is that this refers to "specialized schools, programs, or academies" for which students "must meet specific criteria established for the schools, programs, or academies to which they are applying." I would interpret this as schools that have entrance tests, language fluency tests, artistic performance auditions, etc. None of these apply to SWS, which is, right now, a strict lottery school and not actually a specialty school with special entrance requirements.

Again, the outcome of a lawsuit is not clear, but if this is the section of the law that DCPS were to try to use in a court case, there is plenty of legal maneuvering room here.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2013 16:45     Subject: SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
2106.7 The Chancellor may designate a given school, program, or academy, including an early childhood school or program, as a specialized school, program, or academy due to the unique academic character of the school, program, or academy and the importance of matching children's needs and strengths to the mission of a school, program, or academy. When applicable, the Chancellor shall determine admission criteria for any approved specialized school, program, or academy for adoption by the Board.

This and more about proximity and out-of-boundary at:
http://www.dcregs.org/Gateway/FinalAdoptionHome.aspx?RuleVersionID=3879338
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2013 16:37     Subject: Re:SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure all the proximity and other preferences are a matter of law. Proximity families are legally entitled to a school of right, and that is protected even if SWS is a citywide program. Are you suggesting that proximity families should sue?


I don't understand how you are using this language. Can you clarify?


Sorry, all families are entitled to an in-bounds school, and that is your school of right. I'm not sure that the secondary preferences (sibling, proximity) are protected by law or if this just a DCPS policy. I'm sure someone is researching it.



Whether or not the other preferences are protected by law is an interesting legal question. However, there is a legal requirement that government entities, like DCPS, treat all residents equally under standard rules and regulations. Since DCPS has standard rules and regulations for how students are admitted to elementary schools, then a legal challenge based on violating these procedures would not be without legal merit (which is different from saying that the case would win, since legal outcomes are very dependent on the vagaries of the lawyers, judges, etc.).

I am certainly not saying that people who would get proximity preference to this school SHOULD sue. It is wildly premature for considering such an action and, since the boundary and preference details have not been released yet, it may be moot if DCPS changes this on its own. What I am saying is that this group of residents COULD sue and, if they did, they would have a pretty good legal leg to stand on.

School boundary redrawing is the kind of thing that spins off multiple lawsuits in almost every jurisdiction in which it is undertaken. That is an inevitability in the process and I would suspect that DC sees (conservatively) at least a dozen or so challenges as the process goes forward. We will have to wait and see if this becomes one of those challenges.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2013 16:22     Subject: Re:SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure all the proximity and other preferences are a matter of law. Proximity families are legally entitled to a school of right, and that is protected even if SWS is a citywide program. Are you suggesting that proximity families should sue?


I don't understand how you are using this language. Can you clarify?


Sorry, all families are entitled to an in-bounds school, and that is your school of right. I'm not sure that the secondary preferences (sibling, proximity) are protected by law or if this just a DCPS policy. I'm sure someone is researching it.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2013 16:22     Subject: SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
I'm not an LT parent, and i'm not thinking the LT parents should get special treatment here, as I can't disagree with any arguments made here.

However, one must admit that there's something a little tough psychologically about carting your 4-year-old past the school that's across the street from your own home (a school that enjoys a greta reputation with seeminglynsatisfied parents) to the school that's further away and which is demonstrably inferior. There's special treatment and then there's just "in your face."

Also, doesn't the Reggio model value community quite highly - i'd think the kids that live across the street do have a special amount of skin-in-the game vs. someone commuting from NW, or even Eastern Market...
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2013 16:16     Subject: Re:SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


No. The point is that it isn't a charter school. If it was, then it would operate under the charter rules and would not be able to give proximity preference. It is a DCPS school and, therefore, must operate under the rules that govern DCPS schools. If SWS wants to become a charter, it can do that. Except for CMS and SWS, the other city-wide schools are HS programs that have entrance requirements. There is no reason (that would hold up in a legal challenge) why these two schools should be operated against the standard preference principles established by DCPS for elementary school entrance.

If DCPS decided that it wants city-wide schools, it is going to have to establish fixed rules that are applied city-wide and are not done on an ad hoc basis. There has to be standard reasons and conditions established for why a certain school needs to be a city-wide program. Otherwise DCPS is vulnerable to lawsuits.


I'm not sure all the proximity and other preferences are a matter of law. Proximity families are legally entitled to a school of right, and that is protected even if SWS is a citywide program. Are you suggesting that proximity families should sue?


I don't understand how you are using this language. Can you clarify?
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2013 16:16     Subject: Re:SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.

This is what is so upsetting. 1. SWS would never skim off LT families, because there are very very few neighborhood families that go to LT after PS. LT families are skimming themselves off b/c its not an acceptable program after pk. Rennovation is NOT going to help that school get better and is a mute point.


Of course SWS would skim off L-T families! Families that are "forced" to go to L-T for PS and PK would be delighted to skip L-T altogether and go to SWS.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2013 16:12     Subject: Re:SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


No. The point is that it isn't a charter school. If it was, then it would operate under the charter rules and would not be able to give proximity preference. It is a DCPS school and, therefore, must operate under the rules that govern DCPS schools. If SWS wants to become a charter, it can do that. Except for CMS and SWS, the other city-wide schools are HS programs that have entrance requirements. There is no reason (that would hold up in a legal challenge) why these two schools should be operated against the standard preference principles established by DCPS for elementary school entrance.

If DCPS decided that it wants city-wide schools, it is going to have to establish fixed rules that are applied city-wide and are not done on an ad hoc basis. There has to be standard reasons and conditions established for why a certain school needs to be a city-wide program. Otherwise DCPS is vulnerable to lawsuits.


I'm not sure all the proximity and other preferences are a matter of law. Proximity families are legally entitled to a school of right, and that is protected even if SWS is a citywide program. Are you suggesting that proximity families should sue?
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2013 16:02     Subject: Re:SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote: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.

This is what is so upsetting. 1. SWS would never skim off LT families, because there are very very few neighborhood families that go to LT after PS. LT families are skimming themselves off b/c its not an acceptable program after pk. Rennovation is NOT going to help that school get better and is a mute point.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2013 15:56     Subject: Re:SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
Anonymous wrote:
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.


No. The point is that it isn't a charter school. If it was, then it would operate under the charter rules and would not be able to give proximity preference. It is a DCPS school and, therefore, must operate under the rules that govern DCPS schools. If SWS wants to become a charter, it can do that. Except for CMS and SWS, the other city-wide schools are HS programs that have entrance requirements. There is no reason (that would hold up in a legal challenge) why these two schools should be operated against the standard preference principles established by DCPS for elementary school entrance.

If DCPS decided that it wants city-wide schools, it is going to have to establish fixed rules that are applied city-wide and are not done on an ad hoc basis. There has to be standard reasons and conditions established for why a certain school needs to be a city-wide program. Otherwise DCPS is vulnerable to lawsuits.