Anonymous wrote:
(2) The animosity that everyone has toward people living around the new SWS who are agitating for proximity. The mood seems to be, "well, you're doing well enough financially -- why should you get a nice neighborhood school?" I have a feeling that if a citywide school (like SWS) was placed in the middle of the poorest neighborhood in Ward 8, but kids from those neighborhoods were only allowed in through the lottery, then people on DCUM would be singing a different tune about what's fair with regard to proximity.
Anonymous wrote:Two recurring themes on here that don't make sense:
(1) The animosity that non-Ludlow Taylor Hill families have toward LT families who want something better. Don't you understand that people have tried with LT and it's not working? And don't you understand that, by helping either make LT better or get rid of it altogether, you're helping yourself by making the Hill better?
(2) The animosity that everyone has toward people living around the new SWS who are agitating for proximity. The mood seems to be, "well, you're doing well enough financially -- why should you get a nice neighborhood school?" I have a feeling that if a citywide school (like SWS) was placed in the middle of the poorest neighborhood in Ward 8, but kids from those neighborhoods were only allowed in through the lottery, then people on DCUM would be singing a different tune about what's fair with regard to proximity.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear - neighborhood is not part of reggio. A sense of community is. And there's the rub I suppose - how people define community does vary. Some people see it very geographically - sharing a common boundary; others see it more philosophically - sharing a common mindset.
I'm a current SWS parent, and I don't think proximity is beneficial for the school. We're not a Ward 6 boundary school so we don't have Wells championing us and with proximity preference, it dilutes our city-wide argument and thus ability to get other council members invested in us - and thus the school gets lost politically speaking.
Are you a current SWS parent who got in because of boundary preference with the Cluster boundaries? If so, how nice for you to take advantage of the chance to get in with proximity preference, but to champion a citywide school for others who have to get lucky in the lottery.
Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear - neighborhood is not part of reggio. A sense of community is. And there's the rub I suppose - how people define community does vary. Some people see it very geographically - sharing a common boundary; others see it more philosophically - sharing a common mindset.
I'm a current SWS parent, and I don't think proximity is beneficial for the school. We're not a Ward 6 boundary school so we don't have Wells championing us and with proximity preference, it dilutes our city-wide argument and thus ability to get other council members invested in us - and thus the school gets lost politically speaking.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That is the problem with charters and citywide schools -- parents are desperate to flee their horrible neighborhood schools (if not truly, at least in their minds) and will go anywhere else, regardless of the program. "Reggio without community?" No problem! "Hebrew immersion?" No problem!
that's an awfully narrow view of community. You speak of these options like they're taken solely out of desperation. Plenty of families actively seek out specific language immersion, or specialized curricula that meets their philosophic preferences. I wouldn't assume to know the motives of every family or the basis for their school decisions.
Anonymous wrote:That is the problem with charters and citywide schools -- parents are desperate to flee their horrible neighborhood schools (if not truly, at least in their minds) and will go anywhere else, regardless of the program. "Reggio without community?" No problem! "Hebrew immersion?" No problem!