Current parents at SWS Goding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We also have a good PK waitlist number for SWS and I'm wondering if someone can clarify the comments about overachievers and the kind of opportunities offered to advanced learners. I don't want my children to be drilled and killed, nor do I necessarily care about their scores on standardized tests so long as they "pass" and I know they are challenged, engaged, and learning what they need to be ready for middle school. So that leads to my question:

After elementary we would plan to send our kids to a middle school that is on par with a Latin or a Deal. I am assuming there are "advanced" classes in these middle schools. Does the SWS education prepare a student to qualify for and succeed in these "advanced" classes once he/she enters middle school?

And before anyone snarks, I am not assuming at this point that my PK student is going to be an advanced learner. I can't predict this any more than anyone else can for their child. But if he is, I want him to be in an elementary school that will set him up to thrive in the advanced classes in middle and high school. Is this mindset similar to the mindset of the typical SWS parent, or would we be in for culture shock?

Thanks!

Have you been to SWS? I ask that in the nicest possible way. I would guess that something like 80 percent of the parents there have advanced degrees. It isn't an extraordinarily wealthy student body but I'd say the parents there value education pretty highly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also have a good PK waitlist number for SWS and I'm wondering if someone can clarify the comments about overachievers and the kind of opportunities offered to advanced learners. I don't want my children to be drilled and killed, nor do I necessarily care about their scores on standardized tests so long as they "pass" and I know they are challenged, engaged, and learning what they need to be ready for middle school. So that leads to my question:

After elementary we would plan to send our kids to a middle school that is on par with a Latin or a Deal. I am assuming there are "advanced" classes in these middle schools. Does the SWS education prepare a student to qualify for and succeed in these "advanced" classes once he/she enters middle school?

And before anyone snarks, I am not assuming at this point that my PK student is going to be an advanced learner. I can't predict this any more than anyone else can for their child. But if he is, I want him to be in an elementary school that will set him up to thrive in the advanced classes in middle and high school. Is this mindset similar to the mindset of the typical SWS parent, or would we be in for culture shock?

Thanks!

Have you been to SWS? I ask that in the nicest possible way. I would guess that something like 80 percent of the parents there have advanced degrees. It isn't an extraordinarily wealthy student body but I'd say the parents there value education pretty highly.

+1 the parents are obsessed with education, though they play it off as being very relaxed in an artsy way, per Reggio

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also have a good PK waitlist number for SWS and I'm wondering if someone can clarify the comments about overachievers and the kind of opportunities offered to advanced learners. I don't want my children to be drilled and killed, nor do I necessarily care about their scores on standardized tests so long as they "pass" and I know they are challenged, engaged, and learning what they need to be ready for middle school. So that leads to my question:

After elementary we would plan to send our kids to a middle school that is on par with a Latin or a Deal. I am assuming there are "advanced" classes in these middle schools. Does the SWS education prepare a student to qualify for and succeed in these "advanced" classes once he/she enters middle school?

And before anyone snarks, I am not assuming at this point that my PK student is going to be an advanced learner. I can't predict this any more than anyone else can for their child. But if he is, I want him to be in an elementary school that will set him up to thrive in the advanced classes in middle and high school. Is this mindset similar to the mindset of the typical SWS parent, or would we be in for culture shock?

Thanks!

Have you been to SWS? I ask that in the nicest possible way. I would guess that something like 80 percent of the parents there have advanced degrees. It isn't an extraordinarily wealthy student body but I'd say the parents there value education pretty highly.

+1 the parents are obsessed with education, though they play it off as being very relaxed in an artsy way, per Reggio

I'm an SWS parent and this made me LOL. It's spot-on. Oh, well. I love it.

[Anonymous]

There is no data or precedent whatsoever to tell if SWS prepares its students well for academically rigorous middle schools. It is only in the last three years that SWS has had to teach children older than 5 or 6 years old. The oldest children at the school now are in 3rd grade. SWS has never sent a child to middle school.

So....that is a complete unknown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no data or precedent whatsoever to tell if SWS prepares its students well for academically rigorous middle schools. It is only in the last three years that SWS has had to teach children older than 5 or 6 years old. The oldest children at the school now are in 3rd grade. SWS has never sent a child to middle school.

So....that is a complete unknown.

This is not *completely* true. When SWS fed to the Cluster, kids from SWS for the most part did fine in Watkins first grade, although there were always some rumor/grumblings from Watkins teachers that a significant portion of SWS kids were not reading. By the time these kids finished first grade and up, I would say that they fell into the top third or higher of performance. I think that is dictated, however, almost entirely by the relatively high SES of SWS families for decades.

[Anonymous]

^^^Sorry. First grade is not middle school. The rigors of a primary education do nor equal what it means to thrive in middle school. The small ones left SWS at age 5!!!! Watkins had 5 years with them after that where their actual academic education happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no data or precedent whatsoever to tell if SWS prepares its students well for academically rigorous middle schools. It is only in the last three years that SWS has had to teach children older than 5 or 6 years old. The oldest children at the school now are in 3rd grade. SWS has never sent a child to middle school.

So....that is a complete unknown.

This is not *completely* true. When SWS fed to the Cluster, kids from SWS for the most part did fine in Watkins first grade, although there were always some rumor/grumblings from Watkins teachers that a significant portion of SWS kids were not reading. By the time these kids finished first grade and up, I would say that they fell into the top third or higher of performance. I think that is dictated, however, almost entirely by the relatively high SES of SWS families for decades.

Kids are innate learners and that's encouraged more than somewhat arbitrary benchmarks. That said, most of the kids reach and exceed those benchmarks. There are numerous kids reading and doing math multiple grade levels advanced for age and like any other school there some struggle to reach their level. All of the kids get the appropriate focus from the school and the teachers are actively engaged with the families.

I'm a parent with an advanced learner and the school has the right focus and level of challenge. it doesn't mean DC is sitting there bored, doing work that's too easy or being constrained. If anything that may happen for advanced kids around K and early 1st when there's a wider range of developing skills. There's a lot that parents can and should do to supplement and encourage independent learning in addition to classroom learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no data or precedent whatsoever to tell if SWS prepares its students well for academically rigorous middle schools. It is only in the last three years that SWS has had to teach children older than 5 or 6 years old. The oldest children at the school now are in 3rd grade. SWS has never sent a child to middle school.

So....that is a complete unknown.

This is not *completely* true. When SWS fed to the Cluster, kids from SWS for the most part did fine in Watkins first grade, although there were always some rumor/grumblings from Watkins teachers that a significant portion of SWS kids were not reading. By the time these kids finished first grade and up, I would say that they fell into the top third or higher of performance. I think that is dictated, however, almost entirely by the relatively high SES of SWS families for decades.

Respectfully, I think you are missing the point. I for one don't question the effectiveness of Reggio for PK3, PK4 or K. And there's no doubt that there is decades of data suggesting it prepares kids to learn at higher levels, but they don't do Reggio at higher levels. And that's the point. No doubt Watkins picked up and taught the kids, then Peabody did their piece, etc. But the upper levels are not Reggio. I didn't put SWS on my list because I am not comfortable that above K it is going to provide academic rigor. Candidly, I have the same concerns about Logan's curriculum; beyond me how that will work in middle school. JM2C

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no data or precedent whatsoever to tell if SWS prepares its students well for academically rigorous middle schools. It is only in the last three years that SWS has had to teach children older than 5 or 6 years old. The oldest children at the school now are in 3rd grade. SWS has never sent a child to middle school.

So....that is a complete unknown.

This is not *completely* true. When SWS fed to the Cluster, kids from SWS for the most part did fine in Watkins first grade, although there were always some rumor/grumblings from Watkins teachers that a significant portion of SWS kids were not reading. By the time these kids finished first grade and up, I would say that they fell into the top third or higher of performance. I think that is dictated, however, almost entirely by the relatively high SES of SWS families for decades.

Respectfully, I think you are missing the point. I for one don't question the effectiveness of Reggio for PK3, PK4 or K. And there's no doubt that there is decades of data suggesting it prepares kids to learn at higher levels, but they don't do Reggio at higher levels. And that's the point. No doubt Watkins picked up and taught the kids, then Peabody did their piece, etc. But the upper levels are not Reggio. I didn't put SWS on my list because I am not comfortable that above K it is going to provide academic rigor. Candidly, I have the same concerns about Logan's curriculum; beyond me how that will work in middle school. JM2C

That's not really an accurate description of Reggio. The idea that children are natural learners is entirely compatible with the increasing rigor required as children age past ECE. The academic underpinning is no different in that sense than other elementary curricula in DC and sometimes there is common focus (last year's 2nd grade had the same focus on Mayan and Aztec culture as Janney's 2nd). The classroom structure, project focus, nature as classroom, and school philosophy may be different than other schools, but the basic educational structure is consistent with other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no data or precedent whatsoever to tell if SWS prepares its students well for academically rigorous middle schools. It is only in the last three years that SWS has had to teach children older than 5 or 6 years old. The oldest children at the school now are in 3rd grade. SWS has never sent a child to middle school.

So....that is a complete unknown.

This is not *completely* true. When SWS fed to the Cluster, kids from SWS for the most part did fine in Watkins first grade, although there were always some rumor/grumblings from Watkins teachers that a significant portion of SWS kids were not reading. By the time these kids finished first grade and up, I would say that they fell into the top third or higher of performance. I think that is dictated, however, almost entirely by the relatively high SES of SWS families for decades.

Respectfully, I think you are missing the point. I for one don't question the effectiveness of Reggio for PK3, PK4 or K. And there's no doubt that there is decades of data suggesting it prepares kids to learn at higher levels, but they don't do Reggio at higher levels. And that's the point. No doubt Watkins picked up and taught the kids, then Peabody did their piece, etc. But the upper levels are not Reggio. I didn't put SWS on my list because I am not comfortable that above K it is going to provide academic rigor. Candidly, I have the same concerns about Logan's curriculum; beyond me how that will work in middle school. JM2C

That's not really an accurate description of Reggio. The idea that children are natural learners is entirely compatible with the increasing rigor required as children age past ECE. The academic underpinning is no different in that sense than other elementary curricula in DC and sometimes there is common focus (last year's 2nd grade had the same focus on Mayan and Aztec culture as Janney's 2nd). The classroom structure, project focus, nature as classroom, and school philosophy may be different than other schools, but the basic educational structure is consistent with other schools.

^^ sorry -- 1st grade

[Anonymous]

PP here, with the middle school question. I understand what everyone is saying about SWS being untested for middle school, because no one has gone to middle school directly from SWS yet. I also share some of the same concerns about whether Reggio is the best approach for grades 1-5 (without questioning its merits for ECE). Even though we don't have middle school results yet, at this point parents should be able to tell whether it is even the school's goal to get kids ready for the advanced middle school classes, for the students with that potential. One thing that is odd to me about SWS is that they say they do pull-outs for kids who are behind, but not kids who are advanced. Yet at schools with more SES diversity (read: not as heavily high-SES), there seem to be pull-outs at both ends. Why is that? Are the "average" kids at SWS doing the same stuff as the "advanced" kids at other schools (by virtue of SES)? Or are the advanced kids at SWS challenged/engaged in other ways, but not necessarily "academic" ones?

[Anonymous]

Look. There is no Reggio beyond K and maybe 1st grade at SWS. The school has a lovely culture that is Reggio-infused but there has been to Reggio principles applied in 2nd and 3rd grades. It is just a normal math, reading, smattering of social studies, science in the form of FoodPrints kind of experience in the upper grades. The closest I have seen to a project-based student-curiosity centered activity was not even led by a classroom teacher, it was the awesome librarian who put on a show that the kids wrote and put together all on their own. There are no special programs ( book clubs, pull outs ) for advanced readers and no advanced math. The math is actually solid but pretty slow in the 3rd grade. My student could be doing a lot more, but hasn't been asked to. This is the first time Sws has ever done 3rd grade, it will take a while to get it all together and figure out how it becomes Reggio. One thing I can say is that the building is chock full of dedicated, talented and creative educators and that's all I care about. Kids will do fine at Latin and Basis with a basic ( doesn't need to be advanced ) elementary education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look. There is no Reggio beyond K and maybe 1st grade at SWS. The school has a lovely culture that is Reggio-infused but there has been to Reggio principles applied in 2nd and 3rd grades. It is just a normal math, reading, smattering of social studies, science in the form of FoodPrints kind of experience in the upper grades. The closest I have seen to a project-based student-curiosity centered activity was not even led by a classroom teacher, it was the awesome librarian who put on a show that the kids wrote and put together all on their own. There are no special programs ( book clubs, pull outs ) for advanced readers and no advanced math. The math is actually solid but pretty slow in the 3rd grade. My student could be doing a lot more, but hasn't been asked to. This is the first time Sws has ever done 3rd grade, it will take a while to get it all together and figure out how it becomes Reggio. One thing I can say is that the building is chock full of dedicated, talented and creative educators and that's all I care about. Kids will do fine at Latin and Basis with a basic ( doesn't need to be advanced ) elementary education.

can't speak beyond my child's classroom, there is a "project day" every week and ongoing investigation related to it. Beyond Food Prints there is a dedicated science teacher with an entirely different focus than Food Prints. All children have studio, music, and movement (plus PE). They also have strategies and counselors who work closely with the teachers to help kids navigate social and emotional issues.

There is plenty for advanced learners -- if your child isn't showing initiative that's not on the school to "push". Leveled and partnered reading is by ability, both with same level and differing ones, and math is grouped similarly. My child learns as much by applying concepts beyond classroom as any in-class pedagogy. Upper grades get "homework" of daily reading and math/project work which is logged and submitted weekly, as well as access to online supplemental resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no data or precedent whatsoever to tell if SWS prepares its students well for academically rigorous middle schools. It is only in the last three years that SWS has had to teach children older than 5 or 6 years old. The oldest children at the school now are in 3rd grade. SWS has never sent a child to middle school.

So....that is a complete unknown.

This is not *completely* true. When SWS fed to the Cluster, kids from SWS for the most part did fine in Watkins first grade, although there were always some rumor/grumblings from Watkins teachers that a significant portion of SWS kids were not reading. By the time these kids finished first grade and up, I would say that they fell into the top third or higher of performance. I think that is dictated, however, almost entirely by the relatively high SES of SWS families for decades.

Respectfully, I think you are missing the point. I for one don't question the effectiveness of Reggio for PK3, PK4 or K. And there's no doubt that there is decades of data suggesting it prepares kids to learn at higher levels, but they don't do Reggio at higher levels. And that's the point. No doubt Watkins picked up and taught the kids, then Peabody did their piece, etc. But the upper levels are not Reggio. I didn't put SWS on my list because I am not comfortable that above K it is going to provide academic rigor. Candidly, I have the same concerns about Logan's curriculum; beyond me how that will work in middle school. JM2C

That's not really an accurate description of Reggio. The idea that children are natural learners is entirely compatible with the increasing rigor required as children age past ECE. The academic underpinning is no different in that sense than other elementary curricula in DC and sometimes there is common focus (last year's 2nd grade had the same focus on Mayan and Aztec culture as Janney's 2nd). The classroom structure, project focus, nature as classroom, and school philosophy may be different than other schools, but the basic educational structure is consistent with other schools.

So that's why there are so many Reggio schools that go through 5 and why the Italians use it past early childhood...Oh wait. Nevermind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look. There is no Reggio beyond K and maybe 1st grade at SWS. The school has a lovely culture that is Reggio-infused but there has been to Reggio principles applied in 2nd and 3rd grades. It is just a normal math, reading, smattering of social studies, science in the form of FoodPrints kind of experience in the upper grades. The closest I have seen to a project-based student-curiosity centered activity was not even led by a classroom teacher, it was the awesome librarian who put on a show that the kids wrote and put together all on their own. There are no special programs ( book clubs, pull outs ) for advanced readers and no advanced math. The math is actually solid but pretty slow in the 3rd grade. My student could be doing a lot more, but hasn't been asked to. This is the first time Sws has ever done 3rd grade, it will take a while to get it all together and figure out how it becomes Reggio. One thing I can say is that the building is chock full of dedicated, talented and creative educators and that's all I care about. Kids will do fine at Latin and Basis with a basic ( doesn't need to be advanced ) elementary education.

can't speak beyond my child's classroom, there is a "project day" every week and ongoing investigation related to it. Beyond Food Prints there is a dedicated science teacher with an entirely different focus than Food Prints. All children have studio, music, and movement (plus PE). They also have strategies and counselors who work closely with the teachers to help kids navigate social and emotional issues.

There is plenty for advanced learners -- if your child isn't showing initiative that's not on the school to "push". Leveled and partnered reading is by ability, both with same level and differing ones, and math is grouped similarly. My child learns as much by applying concepts beyond classroom as any in-class pedagogy. Upper grades get "homework" of daily reading and math/project work which is logged and submitted weekly, as well as access to online supplemental resources.

This is pp: hello fellow parent. Your child sounds great. Mine is too. It's a great school. Simply trying to draw an accurate picture. By the way, if you ever had kids in another elementary 3rd grade you would know that the homework required by SWS is extremely limited--which is probably a good thing.