SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Starting a new thread off the Brent one.
Have the local parents teamed up on this? If so, how are you lobbying before the lines are redrawn? Is there any chance of L-T's pricipal making a departure - which will hopefully allow for some changes there? (Based on previous threads this appears to be a combination of illegal MD students, a lack of flexibility, and general disinterest?) Just curious what the immediate neighborhood to the new Prospect building's current vibe is. |
Anonymous
| I'd be interested in teaming up. How to go about it? At the very least there should be a proximity preference. |
Anonymous
| SWS wants this, IB LT parents want this, it will just come down to figuring out next steps. Request a community meeting with DCPS for SWS parents and Prospect neighbors before the boundary process kicks off? |
Anonymous
|
As an SWS parent, I'm all for it, but I have to say, if the ball doesn't get momentum like NOW, I'm feeling it's not going to happen.
I'm sure that SWS will advocate, as they have, and I'm certainly not the mouthpiece for the school or the administration on this matter, but my gut says there may be a conflict of interest over the next few months as we negotiate with DCPS for the resources we will need to expand the school and to make the new space work with our Reggio desires (in school kitchen? Additional atelieristas? Roof top play ground?) if it becomes an either/or discussion, well... (this all being stated by someone with no insight at all as to how those discussions are currently flowing, and perhaps there isn't any real negotiating room on many of these issues?) Please keep any plans public so that current parents can partake though? I'm rooting for all of you! |
Anonymous
|
SWS parent who just doesn't see it happening. At most there could be proximity, which will not satisfy many in LT catchment, but at least allow SWS to retain ceiling on class size, which is more important than drawing neighborhood families.
PP is right -- SWS needs a lot from DCPS in the next year, and DCPS has been adamant about city draw. DCPS will also be co-locating a new special ed classroom at SWS next fall. |
Anonymous
| So it needs to be Prospect neighbors leading the charge, not SWS. That should be do-able. And I think it's clear there won't be a true IB catchment option, just a proximity preference which helps keep SWS a Hill school but also gives them more control over enrollment. Yes? |
Anonymous
But if there's proximity preference, then essentially it will become in IB school for everyone around LT. You're making a distinction without a difference. |
Anonymous
That was going to be my question, wouldn't proximity mean that it would essentially be filled exclusively with siblings and neighbors? |
Anonymous
| Why do I keep hearing about a rooftop playground? So it can be even closer to the burning sun in August and June? The one in the back can be changed/improved and the front yard has lots of room for things like sandboxes. Give the neighbors proximity preference and you won't hear a peep abut the kids being noisy outside. |
Anonymous
That's a big "who cares." First of all, not much playground time to worry about in August & June. Second, why would the neighbors complain about kids being noisy outside? What is different about having city-wide children from SWS vs. city-wide children from Prospect. Why should the neighbors around SWS/Prospect be accommodated any differently from the neighbors around Brent or E.L. Haynes or Lafayette, etc.? Finally, if the neighbors get proximity preference, it A) will no longer be a city-wide school, and B) will undermine L-T. |
Anonymous
| What in the world is not going to undermine LT until they get a principal that wants to be part of the community, the CURRENT community? |
Anonymous
|
Come on. She's a Rhee rockstar principal. The best and the brightest. Whatever could be the problem?
|
Anonymous
Oh, but there is a difference. Whatever is ultimately going to happen with LT to either fix it, close it, or leave it to linger as is in perpetuity is going to happen with or without a proximity preference for SWS and it isn't going to happen soon. For those of us IB who are tired of waiting around for a new principal or something else to bring drastic change to that school, there's a real opportunity now to have at least increased access to a successful ES that wants to continue its long tradition as part of the Hill community. No one wants to have the fight with LT, Maury, the Cluster or any other school whose boundaries would be impacted by carving out a neighborhood catchment for Prospect. Proximity is a win-win for neighbors and SWS, and LT will continue being what LT has been for decades and DCPS seems perfectly happy with. |
Anonymous
There was a community meeting a few months ago about putting in a new playground on the grounds of Sherwood Rec Center, which is right next to Prospect. Wouldn't a playground a few hundred feet from the school be good enough for the school to use during the day? Why would the school need another rooftop playground? There didn't seem to be much community opposition to a playground at Sherwood and there is a community group already organized to get money for this from the city. This would be one less thing that the parents at SWS would have to try to secure funding for from the city. |
Anonymous
|
My egotistical point of view is this: As a potential proximity parent, I don't really care for SWS to become an IB school (next year). My back-of-the-envelope calculation already gives me about 60 kids for 30 spots; 22 of which were taken by siblings in the 2013 lottery (don't think there is a good reason to assume that'll be different in 2014). So making SWS an IB school would likely increase the number of potential kids vying for the 8-10 spots that won't be taken by siblings.
Now for when DC goes to Kindergarten and we were not successful to get DC into P3/P4 at SWS, I am all for IB. |