Why is SWS so white?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SWS had sent 12 kids to MIT since it opened.

I don't know anything about that stat, but it seems unrelated to SWS ES academics. The first class that went through 5th grade at SWS is finishing 11th grade now. So, for anyone who's already made it to MIT that's a stat about where they went to preschool, which hardly seems like the most predictive thing in their education experience.

Seems like that stat would be a stronger statement about who was feeding SWS back then, which as many have pointed out is different now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To add the following schools rank above SWS when it comes to just white student performance:

Math
Marie Reed
Stoddert
Payne
Janney
Lafayette
Tyler
Watkins
Key
Maury
Inspired
Eaton
DC Bilingual
LT
Ross
Shepherd
Mann
Oyster
Hyde
Even Jefferson MS
Two Rivers
Powell

ELA
Ross
Powell
Bancroft
LT
Key
Payne
Shepherd
Eaton
Maury
Janney
Hearst
Stoddert
Inspired
Lafayette
Jefferson middle (again, only showing cuz CH), Sojourner Truth for that matter
DCB
Two rivers Young
Watkins
Mann
Brent
Tyler
Murch
Oyster
Hyde
Two Rivers 4th
Marie Reed


Also to point out again, SWS has the highest population of white kids outside of the WOTP and some IB CH schools.

SWS has a long way to go. It’s sort of like the CH version of Creative Minds - white people continue to enroll to be amongst white people, not because it’s a better school.

Don’t get me started on their Black student performance. Their ELA scores a whopping 15% - the worst school in the City is scores 11%. They are tied for 5th from last place! Math is a tad better at 27%, tied with Bridges and below Center City Brightwood, Height….

So tell me what exactly does SWS do well?

"Here is 1 metric, based off a flawed standardized test, that a small minority of parents actually care about."

Oh come on. No one is saying PARCC tests are perfect, but when your white kids are underperforming schools in the city most of your parents would never consider and you're tied for 5th worst in the city for AA acheivement in the subject most linked to social mobility (ELA) at a school w/ enormous parental resources and social capital which claims that racial equity is basically its driving mission... something would seem to be very wrong.

It stands to reason that SWS parents may be a little less hard charging at home when it comes to academics and that that posture coheres with SWS’s more gentle approach. If it’s a good fit for them, why complain?

Wouldn’t work for my kids, but is there some evidence that SWS kids fall on their face elsewhere? If not, let SWS be SWS now, let SWS be SWS tomorruh, let SWS be SWS forevah!!

SWS is a great school for kids who aren’t exactly academically oriented. If you don’t have great aspirations in that area, you can be happy at SWS, muddle through Stuart Hobson, and graduate from eastern. School isn’t for everyone and I am not trying to be shady. If you’re looking for real academics, literally any other school is a better option.

You’re not getting it. The school is a public school, not a private school. It’s number one job is to educate City kids. They are failing on their mission. Full stop.

Anyone commuting to SWS can just as easily get to (and into) JO Wilson, which is probably sufficiently focused on educating “city kids.”

I agree with you. The difference is that some (not all) Sws parents seem to think that being “joyful” is more important than all that. And they RAM it in the faces of those of us who need solid academics. Well that’s fine if you’re okay with mediocre academics and have the cash to supplement later on or pay for some expensive easy admit private college somewhere I suppose. However there are a lot of people who can’t afford mathnesium (like me for example) and are dependent on the school to do a good job teaching my kids. I’m super happy for the white parents who show off to their neighbors how they’re so super woke and belong to the white affinity group, but make no mistake- the resources and time wasted on making these white parents feel good is taken from resources which should be used to ensure a solid academic background for the kids. These parents could push for stronger academics instead of this nonsense. But then how could they brag about their wokeness at that ridiculous prom?

It seems that you're a SWS parent. If you're so frustrated with the money spent on kindred, please feel free to send out a survey to the whole school. I think you would be surprised at the amount of white parents ranking academics over kindred. During the last survey I ranked kindred at the bottom for receiving extra funds.

Also, mathnasium is not only enrolled by SWS kids: Ludlow Taylor, Brent, Maury, Capitol Day School, Saint Peter. While I hear that you can't afford it, it seems that at all the schools there will always be parents supplementing.

I echo the sentiment that a lot of white parents are fed up with Kindred too. We also ranked it last in that survey they sent out about priorities. I want SWS to be more academic. I want my kids to get homework and do math in the last two months of school. It's hard to speak out about the focus on race beyond surveys though - imagine being the white parent at a school with affinity groups that speaks out against them...

Another parent who ranked kindred last on the survey. It would be really interesting to see the results of that survey...

That's the thing, though. Do you really think that most black parents care about affinity groups? No. I understand that white folks feel like they are always walking on eggshells, but many black people feel the same way, perhaps for different reasons. It's like a small minority of people that are pushing these things and all the rest of us are afraid to express reservations even though most of us are thinking the same things!!! There is a particular type of person that is hyper-focused on issues of "identity," "inclusion" whatever-- and the rest of us just fall into place and shut up, whether we are black, white, or whatever. It's just individually easier to grin and bear it...but collectively exhausting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SWS had sent 12 kids to MIT since it opened.

I don't know anything about that stat, but it seems unrelated to SWS ES academics. The first class that went through 5th grade at SWS is finishing 11th grade now. So, for anyone who's already made it to MIT that's a stat about where they went to preschool, which hardly seems like the most predictive thing in their education experience.

Seems like that stat would be a stronger statement about who was feeding SWS back then, which as many have pointed out is different now.

You are very earnest to even bother responding to such foolishness. Better person than me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To add the following schools rank above SWS when it comes to just white student performance:

Math
Marie Reed
Stoddert
Payne
Janney
Lafayette
Tyler
Watkins
Key
Maury
Inspired
Eaton
DC Bilingual
LT
Ross
Shepherd
Mann
Oyster
Hyde
Even Jefferson MS
Two Rivers
Powell

ELA
Ross
Powell
Bancroft
LT
Key
Payne
Shepherd
Eaton
Maury
Janney
Hearst
Stoddert
Inspired
Lafayette
Jefferson middle (again, only showing cuz CH), Sojourner Truth for that matter
DCB
Two rivers Young
Watkins
Mann
Brent
Tyler
Murch
Oyster
Hyde
Two Rivers 4th
Marie Reed


Also to point out again, SWS has the highest population of white kids outside of the WOTP and some IB CH schools.

SWS has a long way to go. It’s sort of like the CH version of Creative Minds - white people continue to enroll to be amongst white people, not because it’s a better school.

Don’t get me started on their Black student performance. Their ELA scores a whopping 15% - the worst school in the City is scores 11%. They are tied for 5th from last place! Math is a tad better at 27%, tied with Bridges and below Center City Brightwood, Height….

So tell me what exactly does SWS do well?

"Here is 1 metric, based off a flawed standardized test, that a small minority of parents actually care about."

Oh come on. No one is saying PARCC tests are perfect, but when your white kids are underperforming schools in the city most of your parents would never consider and you're tied for 5th worst in the city for AA acheivement in the subject most linked to social mobility (ELA) at a school w/ enormous parental resources and social capital which claims that racial equity is basically its driving mission... something would seem to be very wrong.

It stands to reason that SWS parents may be a little less hard charging at home when it comes to academics and that that posture coheres with SWS’s more gentle approach. If it’s a good fit for them, why complain?

Wouldn’t work for my kids, but is there some evidence that SWS kids fall on their face elsewhere? If not, let SWS be SWS now, let SWS be SWS tomorruh, let SWS be SWS forevah!!

SWS is a great school for kids who aren’t exactly academically oriented. If you don’t have great aspirations in that area, you can be happy at SWS, muddle through Stuart Hobson, and graduate from eastern. School isn’t for everyone and I am not trying to be shady. If you’re looking for real academics, literally any other school is a better option.

You’re not getting it. The school is a public school, not a private school. It’s number one job is to educate City kids. They are failing on their mission. Full stop.

Anyone commuting to SWS can just as easily get to (and into) JO Wilson, which is probably sufficiently focused on educating “city kids.”

I agree with you. The difference is that some (not all) Sws parents seem to think that being “joyful” is more important than all that. And they RAM it in the faces of those of us who need solid academics. Well that’s fine if you’re okay with mediocre academics and have the cash to supplement later on or pay for some expensive easy admit private college somewhere I suppose. However there are a lot of people who can’t afford mathnesium (like me for example) and are dependent on the school to do a good job teaching my kids. I’m super happy for the white parents who show off to their neighbors how they’re so super woke and belong to the white affinity group, but make no mistake- the resources and time wasted on making these white parents feel good is taken from resources which should be used to ensure a solid academic background for the kids. These parents could push for stronger academics instead of this nonsense. But then how could they brag about their wokeness at that ridiculous prom?

I sometimes wonder if kids at SWS even experience school as uniquely “joyful.” Some kids find real “joy” is mastering hard things and are turned off by to much airy-fairiness. Those kids are just as likely to become jaded and cynical about school. And I’d say that “joy” has a bit of gendered aspect to it that might not resonate with a big part of the student population (read: boys in the main). “Hey son, what did you find “joyful” about school today?” Seriously?!?!? It’s fine to ask the question, but clueless to expect a serious response.

I definitely get what you’re saying, but I’d wager that many parents would find that the marginally better academics at other schools they might have access to doesn’t outweigh the “joy” and “demographic” benefits of SWS. But to the extent they are hamstringing efforts to provide more rigorous academic opportunities for all, that is definitely problem (and frankly sick), especially if they have the luxury of giving their own kids sufficient supplemention (Mathnasium, AOPs, etc) to make up the difference.

As a former parent, I'll chime in that "Joy" was always conveniently used as a justification for everything about their approach that a critically thinking parent might question-- anything from academic standards to children's health and safety issues. Apparently now it is used to justify what sounds like an inordinate level of focus on race issues. Question anything SWS is doing, and the response is that if you don't like what they are doing, you must not care if your kids are joyful (and therefore you must be a terrible, heartless, parent).

I always felt like the concept of "joy" in a vacuum was misguided. I find that my kids are happy when they sense a purpose to what they are doing. In school, that could mean performing well academically, and getting recognized for that. Or being on good behavior and getting recognized for that, and seeing how your good work benefits you personally and helps your community. At SWS there was never a sense of purpose beyond the sole, vague, purpose of being joyful. Challenging academics were considered "not joyful," so academic standards were low. Tests were something to fear and for the school to apologize for. Challenging behaviors are meant to be diagnosed and medicated, not controlled by the child. The whole approach leaves so many children feeling infantilized and unempowered. And you see it in their behaviors and performance as they grow older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My primary resentment towards SWS is not that it's not black enough, too black, or doesn't teach kids.

It's that it's impossible to get into and you basically have to luck into it, and then looks down on us for sending our kid to our IB DCPS (which isn't Maury/Brent/L-T, we cannot afford to live IB for one of those schools). I get tired of hearing about the "SWS approach" because it's not something available to me as a family because we could not lottery in. I feel the same way about the Montessori schools and the immersion schools and the "good" DCPS schools. My kid goes to an okay DCPS that serves a large population of at risk kids, and we deal with all the challenges that come along with that. We've struck out in the lottery repeatedly.

I wish people at SWS and these other schools would just learn to SHUT UP about how great their school is, and that we could focus on doing something about the many people in this city with kids attending schools that can't raise a ton of money via the PTO, have to deal with DCPS stupidity every day, have no leeway in curriculum, and generally just kind of limp along.

Congrats, you won the lottery. Go away now.

If you are willing to switch schools (and want to, which is obviously not necessarily the case), you have overwhelmingly good odds of getting into L-T for 3rd+. You also have decent odds of getting Brent (e.g., they offered 50%+ of their K waitlist last year). I totally get not wanting to play the lottery year after year and switch late in your kid's ES years, but it's just not true that most people are "stuck" at their IBs. Lotterying into schools gets much easier as kids get older. Not sure if you consider Watkins an upgrade from where you are, but FYI, they currently have empty space in every single grade. They did fill their seats in the lottery for any grade except 2nd, which had zero kids on the waitlist initially.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, they DIDN'T fill...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My primary resentment towards SWS is not that it's not black enough, too black, or doesn't teach kids.

It's that it's impossible to get into and you basically have to luck into it, and then looks down on us for sending our kid to our IB DCPS (which isn't Maury/Brent/L-T, we cannot afford to live IB for one of those schools). I get tired of hearing about the "SWS approach" because it's not something available to me as a family because we could not lottery in. I feel the same way about the Montessori schools and the immersion schools and the "good" DCPS schools. My kid goes to an okay DCPS that serves a large population of at risk kids, and we deal with all the challenges that come along with that. We've struck out in the lottery repeatedly.

I wish people at SWS and these other schools would just learn to SHUT UP about how great their school is, and that we could focus on doing something about the many people in this city with kids attending schools that can't raise a ton of money via the PTO, have to deal with DCPS stupidity every day, have no leeway in curriculum, and generally just kind of limp along.

Congrats, you won the lottery. Go away now.

If you are willing to switch schools (and want to, which is obviously not necessarily the case), you have overwhelmingly good odds of getting into L-T for 3rd+. You also have decent odds of getting Brent (e.g., they offered 50%+ of their K waitlist last year). I totally get not wanting to play the lottery year after year and switch late in your kid's ES years, but it's just not true that most people are "stuck" at their IBs. Lotterying into schools gets much easier as kids get older. Not sure if you consider Watkins an upgrade from where you are, but FYI, they currently have empty space in every single grade. They did fill their seats in the lottery for any grade except 2nd, which had zero kids on the waitlist initially.

I appreciate this. We have lotteried each year with no luck, entering 1st next year. I get we’ll probably get in somewhere else eventually. But it also sucks to have to move your kid in the middle of elementary. And the reason schools like Brent have spaces in 3-5 is because people leave for privates and charters. The real community building happens in ECE and early grades, and moving at that point is not the same as going all the way through.

Which, again, is why this whole conversation is annoying as hell. A bunch of people who either lucked out with the lottery early or can afford to buy IB for well-resources schools with strong communities, bickering about whether SWS’s Reggio approach is significantly academic enough. It’s obnoxious. Just be happy with what you have, it’s much more than most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My primary resentment towards SWS is not that it's not black enough, too black, or doesn't teach kids.

It's that it's impossible to get into and you basically have to luck into it, and then looks down on us for sending our kid to our IB DCPS (which isn't Maury/Brent/L-T, we cannot afford to live IB for one of those schools). I get tired of hearing about the "SWS approach" because it's not something available to me as a family because we could not lottery in. I feel the same way about the Montessori schools and the immersion schools and the "good" DCPS schools. My kid goes to an okay DCPS that serves a large population of at risk kids, and we deal with all the challenges that come along with that. We've struck out in the lottery repeatedly.

I wish people at SWS and these other schools would just learn to SHUT UP about how great their school is, and that we could focus on doing something about the many people in this city with kids attending schools that can't raise a ton of money via the PTO, have to deal with DCPS stupidity every day, have no leeway in curriculum, and generally just kind of limp along.

Congrats, you won the lottery. Go away now.

If you are willing to switch schools (and want to, which is obviously not necessarily the case), you have overwhelmingly good odds of getting into L-T for 3rd+. You also have decent odds of getting Brent (e.g., they offered 50%+ of their K waitlist last year). I totally get not wanting to play the lottery year after year and switch late in your kid's ES years, but it's just not true that most people are "stuck" at their IBs. Lotterying into schools gets much easier as kids get older. Not sure if you consider Watkins an upgrade from where you are, but FYI, they currently have empty space in every single grade. They did fill their seats in the lottery for any grade except 2nd, which had zero kids on the waitlist initially.

I appreciate this. We have lotteried each year with no luck, entering 1st next year. I get we’ll probably get in somewhere else eventually. But it also sucks to have to move your kid in the middle of elementary. And the reason schools like Brent have spaces in 3-5 is because people leave for privates and charters. The real community building happens in ECE and early grades, and moving at that point is not the same as going all the way through.

Which, again, is why this whole conversation is annoying as hell. A bunch of people who either lucked out with the lottery early or can afford to buy IB for well-resources schools with strong communities, bickering about whether SWS’s Reggio approach is significantly academic enough. It’s obnoxious. Just be happy with what you have, it’s much more than most.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My primary resentment towards SWS is not that it's not black enough, too black, or doesn't teach kids.

It's that it's impossible to get into and you basically have to luck into it, and then looks down on us for sending our kid to our IB DCPS (which isn't Maury/Brent/L-T, we cannot afford to live IB for one of those schools). I get tired of hearing about the "SWS approach" because it's not something available to me as a family because we could not lottery in. I feel the same way about the Montessori schools and the immersion schools and the "good" DCPS schools. My kid goes to an okay DCPS that serves a large population of at risk kids, and we deal with all the challenges that come along with that. We've struck out in the lottery repeatedly.

I wish people at SWS and these other schools would just learn to SHUT UP about how great their school is, and that we could focus on doing something about the many people in this city with kids attending schools that can't raise a ton of money via the PTO, have to deal with DCPS stupidity every day, have no leeway in curriculum, and generally just kind of limp along.

Congrats, you won the lottery. Go away now.

This comes across to me as too hard on the lottery winners when the real issue is that DCPS doesn't offer enough supply to meet the demand. I've of course met many in DC (and on DCUM) who could be more tactful on lots of subjects, so i don't doubt they're annoying. But as you are seeing with the SWS thread, many don't embrace everything where they "win" but it's still a good decision vs their "by right" school.

[Anonymous]

Why did you do this to your children? It’s unforgivable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My primary resentment towards SWS is not that it's not black enough, too black, or doesn't teach kids.

It's that it's impossible to get into and you basically have to luck into it, and then looks down on us for sending our kid to our IB DCPS (which isn't Maury/Brent/L-T, we cannot afford to live IB for one of those schools). I get tired of hearing about the "SWS approach" because it's not something available to me as a family because we could not lottery in. I feel the same way about the Montessori schools and the immersion schools and the "good" DCPS schools. My kid goes to an okay DCPS that serves a large population of at risk kids, and we deal with all the challenges that come along with that. We've struck out in the lottery repeatedly.

I wish people at SWS and these other schools would just learn to SHUT UP about how great their school is, and that we could focus on doing something about the many people in this city with kids attending schools that can't raise a ton of money via the PTO, have to deal with DCPS stupidity every day, have no leeway in curriculum, and generally just kind of limp along.

Congrats, you won the lottery. Go away now.

If you are willing to switch schools (and want to, which is obviously not necessarily the case), you have overwhelmingly good odds of getting into L-T for 3rd+. You also have decent odds of getting Brent (e.g., they offered 50%+ of their K waitlist last year). I totally get not wanting to play the lottery year after year and switch late in your kid's ES years, but it's just not true that most people are "stuck" at their IBs. Lotterying into schools gets much easier as kids get older. Not sure if you consider Watkins an upgrade from where you are, but FYI, they currently have empty space in every single grade. They did fill their seats in the lottery for any grade except 2nd, which had zero kids on the waitlist initially.

I appreciate this. We have lotteried each year with no luck, entering 1st next year. I get we’ll probably get in somewhere else eventually. But it also sucks to have to move your kid in the middle of elementary. And the reason schools like Brent have spaces in 3-5 is because people leave for privates and charters. The real community building happens in ECE and early grades, and moving at that point is not the same as going all the way through.

Which, again, is why this whole conversation is annoying as hell. A bunch of people who either lucked out with the lottery early or can afford to buy IB for well-resources schools with strong communities, bickering about whether SWS’s Reggio approach is significantly academic enough. It’s obnoxious. Just be happy with what you have, it’s much more than most.

+1

I feel the same way about people who lucked into Latin middle school, then tell me they don’t like private schools because they aren’t available to everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My primary resentment towards SWS is not that it's not black enough, too black, or doesn't teach kids.

It's that it's impossible to get into and you basically have to luck into it, and then looks down on us for sending our kid to our IB DCPS (which isn't Maury/Brent/L-T, we cannot afford to live IB for one of those schools). I get tired of hearing about the "SWS approach" because it's not something available to me as a family because we could not lottery in. I feel the same way about the Montessori schools and the immersion schools and the "good" DCPS schools. My kid goes to an okay DCPS that serves a large population of at risk kids, and we deal with all the challenges that come along with that. We've struck out in the lottery repeatedly.

I wish people at SWS and these other schools would just learn to SHUT UP about how great their school is, and that we could focus on doing something about the many people in this city with kids attending schools that can't raise a ton of money via the PTO, have to deal with DCPS stupidity every day, have no leeway in curriculum, and generally just kind of limp along.

Congrats, you won the lottery. Go away now.

If you are willing to switch schools (and want to, which is obviously not necessarily the case), you have overwhelmingly good odds of getting into L-T for 3rd+. You also have decent odds of getting Brent (e.g., they offered 50%+ of their K waitlist last year). I totally get not wanting to play the lottery year after year and switch late in your kid's ES years, but it's just not true that most people are "stuck" at their IBs. Lotterying into schools gets much easier as kids get older. Not sure if you consider Watkins an upgrade from where you are, but FYI, they currently have empty space in every single grade. They did fill their seats in the lottery for any grade except 2nd, which had zero kids on the waitlist initially.

I appreciate this. We have lotteried each year with no luck, entering 1st next year. I get we’ll probably get in somewhere else eventually. But it also sucks to have to move your kid in the middle of elementary. And the reason schools like Brent have spaces in 3-5 is because people leave for privates and charters. The real community building happens in ECE and early grades, and moving at that point is not the same as going all the way through.

Which, again, is why this whole conversation is annoying as hell. A bunch of people who either lucked out with the lottery early or can afford to buy IB for well-resources schools with strong communities, bickering about whether SWS’s Reggio approach is significantly academic enough. It’s obnoxious. Just be happy with what you have, it’s much more than most.

I realize this just sour grapes complaining by you, but I feel like I need to respond. We joined SWS because of the school's strong PARCC scores. Those scores have plummeted in the time we have been there, as the school has focused more and more on race and less and less on academics. I don't think our lottery luck should preclude us from objecting to this trend, even if there are crappier schools elsewhere. That kind of thinking is the reason people tolerate "honors for all" at JR or subpar sports offerings at BASIS. Demand excellence from your school, wherever you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My primary resentment towards SWS is not that it's not black enough, too black, or doesn't teach kids.

It's that it's impossible to get into and you basically have to luck into it, and then looks down on us for sending our kid to our IB DCPS (which isn't Maury/Brent/L-T, we cannot afford to live IB for one of those schools). I get tired of hearing about the "SWS approach" because it's not something available to me as a family because we could not lottery in. I feel the same way about the Montessori schools and the immersion schools and the "good" DCPS schools. My kid goes to an okay DCPS that serves a large population of at risk kids, and we deal with all the challenges that come along with that. We've struck out in the lottery repeatedly.

I wish people at SWS and these other schools would just learn to SHUT UP about how great their school is, and that we could focus on doing something about the many people in this city with kids attending schools that can't raise a ton of money via the PTO, have to deal with DCPS stupidity every day, have no leeway in curriculum, and generally just kind of limp along.

Congrats, you won the lottery. Go away now.

If you are willing to switch schools (and want to, which is obviously not necessarily the case), you have overwhelmingly good odds of getting into L-T for 3rd+. You also have decent odds of getting Brent (e.g., they offered 50%+ of their K waitlist last year). I totally get not wanting to play the lottery year after year and switch late in your kid's ES years, but it's just not true that most people are "stuck" at their IBs. Lotterying into schools gets much easier as kids get older. Not sure if you consider Watkins an upgrade from where you are, but FYI, they currently have empty space in every single grade. They did fill their seats in the lottery for any grade except 2nd, which had zero kids on the waitlist initially.

I appreciate this. We have lotteried each year with no luck, entering 1st next year. I get we’ll probably get in somewhere else eventually. But it also sucks to have to move your kid in the middle of elementary. And the reason schools like Brent have spaces in 3-5 is because people leave for privates and charters. The real community building happens in ECE and early grades, and moving at that point is not the same as going all the way through.

Which, again, is why this whole conversation is annoying as hell. A bunch of people who either lucked out with the lottery early or can afford to buy IB for well-resources schools with strong communities, bickering about whether SWS’s Reggio approach is significantly academic enough. It’s obnoxious. Just be happy with what you have, it’s much more than most.

I disagree with this. My kids started at L-T in middle grades and we had no trouble becoming part of the community. There is so much aggressive community building via school events that it is very easy to meet people and find your place if you're willing to volunteer at them. For my kids, it was even easier. Both were immediately accepted into loosely established friend groups where some prior members had left the school for various reasons and some other new kids joined too. DC is transient from top to bottom, so everyone is used to the churn. My experience is that these elementary schools are really not cliquey and kids are always looking for new friends at those ages. It's really not like middle school in that respect.

Anyway, that's just to say that I understand the pain of moving your kids. We moved from another less well regarded Hill elementary that we loved in many respects but which basically fell apart during COVID. I was honestly surprised by how seamless the transition was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My primary resentment towards SWS is not that it's not black enough, too black, or doesn't teach kids.

It's that it's impossible to get into and you basically have to luck into it, and then looks down on us for sending our kid to our IB DCPS (which isn't Maury/Brent/L-T, we cannot afford to live IB for one of those schools). I get tired of hearing about the "SWS approach" because it's not something available to me as a family because we could not lottery in. I feel the same way about the Montessori schools and the immersion schools and the "good" DCPS schools. My kid goes to an okay DCPS that serves a large population of at risk kids, and we deal with all the challenges that come along with that. We've struck out in the lottery repeatedly.

I wish people at SWS and these other schools would just learn to SHUT UP about how great their school is, and that we could focus on doing something about the many people in this city with kids attending schools that can't raise a ton of money via the PTO, have to deal with DCPS stupidity every day, have no leeway in curriculum, and generally just kind of limp along.

Congrats, you won the lottery. Go away now.

If you are willing to switch schools (and want to, which is obviously not necessarily the case), you have overwhelmingly good odds of getting into L-T for 3rd+. You also have decent odds of getting Brent (e.g., they offered 50%+ of their K waitlist last year). I totally get not wanting to play the lottery year after year and switch late in your kid's ES years, but it's just not true that most people are "stuck" at their IBs. Lotterying into schools gets much easier as kids get older. Not sure if you consider Watkins an upgrade from where you are, but FYI, they currently have empty space in every single grade. They did fill their seats in the lottery for any grade except 2nd, which had zero kids on the waitlist initially.

I appreciate this. We have lotteried each year with no luck, entering 1st next year. I get we’ll probably get in somewhere else eventually. But it also sucks to have to move your kid in the middle of elementary. And the reason schools like Brent have spaces in 3-5 is because people leave for privates and charters. The real community building happens in ECE and early grades, and moving at that point is not the same as going all the way through.

Which, again, is why this whole conversation is annoying as hell. A bunch of people who either lucked out with the lottery early or can afford to buy IB for well-resources schools with strong communities, bickering about whether SWS’s Reggio approach is significantly academic enough. It’s obnoxious. Just be happy with what you have, it’s much more than most.

I disagree with this. My kids started at L-T in middle grades and we had no trouble becoming part of the community. There is so much aggressive community building via school events that it is very easy to meet people and find your place if you're willing to volunteer at them. For my kids, it was even easier. Both were immediately accepted into loosely established friend groups where some prior members had left the school for various reasons and some other new kids joined too. DC is transient from top to bottom, so everyone is used to the churn. My experience is that these elementary schools are really not cliquey and kids are always looking for new friends at those ages. It's really not like middle school in that respect.

Anyway, that's just to say that I understand the pain of moving your kids. We moved from another less well regarded Hill elementary that we loved in many respects but which basically fell apart during COVID. I was honestly surprised by how seamless the transition was.

Well that is nice to hear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My primary resentment towards SWS is not that it's not black enough, too black, or doesn't teach kids.

It's that it's impossible to get into and you basically have to luck into it, and then looks down on us for sending our kid to our IB DCPS (which isn't Maury/Brent/L-T, we cannot afford to live IB for one of those schools). I get tired of hearing about the "SWS approach" because it's not something available to me as a family because we could not lottery in. I feel the same way about the Montessori schools and the immersion schools and the "good" DCPS schools. My kid goes to an okay DCPS that serves a large population of at risk kids, and we deal with all the challenges that come along with that. We've struck out in the lottery repeatedly.

I wish people at SWS and these other schools would just learn to SHUT UP about how great their school is, and that we could focus on doing something about the many people in this city with kids attending schools that can't raise a ton of money via the PTO, have to deal with DCPS stupidity every day, have no leeway in curriculum, and generally just kind of limp along.

Congrats, you won the lottery. Go away now.

If you are willing to switch schools (and want to, which is obviously not necessarily the case), you have overwhelmingly good odds of getting into L-T for 3rd+. You also have decent odds of getting Brent (e.g., they offered 50%+ of their K waitlist last year). I totally get not wanting to play the lottery year after year and switch late in your kid's ES years, but it's just not true that most people are "stuck" at their IBs. Lotterying into schools gets much easier as kids get older. Not sure if you consider Watkins an upgrade from where you are, but FYI, they currently have empty space in every single grade. They did fill their seats in the lottery for any grade except 2nd, which had zero kids on the waitlist initially.

I appreciate this. We have lotteried each year with no luck, entering 1st next year. I get we’ll probably get in somewhere else eventually. But it also sucks to have to move your kid in the middle of elementary. And the reason schools like Brent have spaces in 3-5 is because people leave for privates and charters. The real community building happens in ECE and early grades, and moving at that point is not the same as going all the way through.

Which, again, is why this whole conversation is annoying as hell. A bunch of people who either lucked out with the lottery early or can afford to buy IB for well-resources schools with strong communities, bickering about whether SWS’s Reggio approach is significantly academic enough. It’s obnoxious. Just be happy with what you have, it’s much more than most.

I realize this just sour grapes complaining by you, but I feel like I need to respond. We joined SWS because of the school's strong PARCC scores. Those scores have plummeted in the time we have been there, as the school has focused more and more on race and less and less on academics. I don't think our lottery luck should preclude us from objecting to this trend, even if there are crappier schools elsewhere. That kind of thinking is the reason people tolerate "honors for all" at JR or subpar sports offerings at BASIS. Demand excellence from your school, wherever you are.

What brought about this sudden change of course? Back when we were playing the school lottery SWS was well-regarded for their academics.