Is the SWS waitlist moving for Pk3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, she's sharing because there was speculation that everyone who ranked SWS would rank it #1 or #2. We didn't rank it at all because I also wasn't convinced Reggio was great for upper elementary. Also we are concerned, like every Hill parent, about MS and HS.

So then you didn't apply to Maury or Brent or Two Rivers, for that matter.

We applied for Two Rivers, although I know some parents are not thrilled with the middle school differentiation. We are not IB for Brent or Maury, so of course we didn't apply there.

Didn't matter. Our numbers are terrible and we're staying with private preschool for another year.

+1

[Anonymous]

I swear to God - why are you are trying to start a fight when there isn't one? Seriously, can you enlighten us as to why you care so much about disparaging the program? Not buying it for a second that you just want to give "hope" to the people that are on the waitlist.

And it IS disparaging, I guess you're a "traditionalist-phile" or, more likely an "immersion-phile" - but please, don't think I'm being condescending when I use the term. Just stating my opinion...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, if the nonsibling got into SWS for Pk3 (or any grade for that matter), they must have had an amazing draw. If they listed SWS first, they won't be wait listed anywhere else. If they ranked a school higher than SWS, they will have a good waitlist number at those other schools. All this to say, you should be hoping those non sibs did not put SWS first if you're hoping for waitlist movement.

It's this, I'm betting most of the people who got in ranked it first (or second) -- I can't see many people ranking something else higher if they live in the neighborhood -- maybe MV or Montessori? I know it doesn't appeal to everyone, but those it does appeal to often rank it high like the other HRCSes. You'll have another shot in PK4? They add seats then... 8 I think (although there are usually a few parents who hold their 3 year olds out and start in PK4.)

A perspective from someone who didn't rank it #1 or #2. And this is not intended as a shot at SWS, just one person's observations. I would have been happy with SWS for PK3, PK4 or K. But I'm unconvinced that the education is to my standards for middle to upper ES. Reggio wasn't designed for that and there aren't a lot of exemplars out there showing success. So I ranked it behind schools at which my kid would stay through ES or MS. And we got very, very lucky in the lottery.

Again, I am NOT intending to start a discussion about whether my concerns or views are meritorious. Frankly, I could not care less what anonymous posters on DCUM think about my choices. I am simply posting this to illustrate that SWS isn't the end all be all for everyone who put it on their list, so there's hope. And if you love SWS and are offended then you should be happy that either (i) my kids won't be going to school with your kids and your committed Reggio family or (ii) my kid isn't taking a WL spot from you if you are in love with this school.

Please enlighten us about the shortcomings of its ES curriculum. You don't sound like someone with a kid either currently or previously enrolled in these grades

Well...I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. (If I wanted to be REALLY snarky I'd drop in a line about how that's apparently why you are ok with Reggio and I'm not). As I said in my post (above, for your easy reference), I have some serious doubts. And because I have doubts my kid isn't there. Do I need to connect those dots for your? And could you be any more defensive? It's not for me. That's ok, it doesn't have to be. As I said in my post (above, for your reference), I could not care less whether any other anonymous DCUM poster validates or approves of my choices. But, based on your defensive reply, I guess we can conclude that you seem to arae a great deal what others think and require external validation and approval. (And if I was being snarky I'd drop in a line here about how maybe that's why you want your kid in SWS, but doing so would be just trolling you since I'm not sure its accurate in the Reggio context, but you're so insecure and defensive you would probably reply.)

Yours truly,
In snark and condescension

I can randomly disparage any program I choose, but then again anyone can just consider the anonymous snarky source without firsthand knowledge. You waste a lot of words saying virtually nothing about the school you feel compelled to criticize. Glad you found a home elsewhere.

You are not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, huh? I know I'm not supposed to mess with the kid in the corner eating paste but I can't help myself - you're just too precious.

1. I guess that the only people who can have an opinion are people who experience something firsthand, right? And anyone who disagrees with your values or conclusions is "disparaging" you or your view? Not simply disagreeing? I also don't think that a KIPP school is right for my kid or is an educational environment that reflects my educational perspective. Do I have the right to express that opinion without first sending my kid there? That's a construct designed to protect you from ever having to question your loosely held and insecure world view. If you had any self confidence you'd be saying, "I'm happy there and my kid is happy so who cares." But, alas, that's not what you said...TWICE!

2. You either don't understand the meaning of the word "random" or you are simply misusing it. (Def: made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.) The fact that I have serious doubts about Reggio in upper ES is not in any way random. It's very specific, to a clearly articulated educational approach. I'm not sure how else to explain that concept. One might conclude that your use of the word "random" is yet another defensive mechanism designed to devalue the opinion of someone who caused you to question your own opinion. And furthermore one might observe the irony that your use of that concept deploys the very rhetorical device of which you accuse others; namely that instead of addressing the merits you devalue it without appreciating the substance(or possible substance of their argument).

3. YOU MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY!!! I'm thrilled that you love Reggio. Good for you. The point of my original post was to let those single-minded Reggio-philes know that not everyone views the world like that so there is actually more hope than someone who doesn't realize that people like me exist might otherwise understand.

4. For the record, my first post was sincere and straightforward and contained zero snark or condescension. But people like you bring out the worst in me. Your faux "open mindedness" is really the opposite; everyone has to agree with you and if they don't they are attacking you. That's not always the case. When you are being attacked it feels different. Case and point, my first post, an attack. The prior one and this one, probably legitimately perceived as attacks.

NP here. Stop. Just stop. This was a discussion about WAITLIST movement. Why does every thread on DCUM have to turn into an attack and then a counterattack?

[Anonymous]

It's a great question! But PP already explained herself, she's HELPING everyone. Don't you recognize compassion and help when you see it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a great question! But PP already explained herself, she's HELPING everyone. Don't you recognize compassion and help when you see it?

LOL. I guess that is compassionate for this geographic (read: East Coast urban) area.

[Anonymous]

If anyone gets an offer off the waitlist at SWS, can you please post here and let those of us who are hoping for movement know? Thanks in advance!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I swear to God - why are you are trying to start a fight when there isn't one? Seriously, can you enlighten us as to why you care so much about disparaging the program? Not buying it for a second that you just want to give "hope" to the people that are on the waitlist.

And it IS disparaging, I guess you're a "traditionalist-phile" or, more likely an "immersion-phile" - but please, don't think I'm being condescending when I use the term. Just stating my opinion...

No one disparaged it!!!!!!!!!!!!! I said it wasn't for me. I didn't pick a fight. Someone replied defensively to something for which there was no reason to be defensive. At which point I admittedly decided to have a little fun. The term Reggio-phile (for which I feel strongly I should be paid a royalty every time it is used on DCUM) wasn't disparaging, it was word play, cause I'm the kind of person that likes to play with language. But let's explore why you feel that's disparaging, shall we? If I say nice things about the Washington Capitals and you accuse me of being a Capital-phile or a Caps lover, you'd be right. And if I got defensive about that then the issue might not be your use of language, but rather the sincerity of my level of commitment to the team. I am a traditionalist, BTW. As I said, I'm not sold on Reggio or Montessori beyond K. Call me a "Traditional-phile", I'll own it. It's an accurate description of the world view to which I subscribe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I swear to God - why are you are trying to start a fight when there isn't one? Seriously, can you enlighten us as to why you care so much about disparaging the program? Not buying it for a second that you just want to give "hope" to the people that are on the waitlist.

And it IS disparaging, I guess you're a "traditionalist-phile" or, more likely an "immersion-phile" - but please, don't think I'm being condescending when I use the term. Just stating my opinion...

No one disparaged it!!!!!!!!!!!!! I said it wasn't for me. I didn't pick a fight. Someone replied defensively to something for which there was no reason to be defensive. At which point I admittedly decided to have a little fun. The term Reggio-phile (for which I feel strongly I should be paid a royalty every time it is used on DCUM) wasn't disparaging, it was word play, cause I'm the kind of person that likes to play with language. But let's explore why you feel that's disparaging, shall we? If I say nice things about the Washington Capitals and you accuse me of being a Capital-phile or a Caps lover, you'd be right. And if I got defensive about that then the issue might not be your use of language, but rather the sincerity of my level of commitment to the team. I am a traditionalist, BTW. As I said, I'm not sold on Reggio or Montessori beyond K. Call me a "Traditional-phile", I'll own it. It's an accurate description of the world view to which I subscribe.

Oh, so sorry PP - I see now that I was missing the entire "fun" quotient of your postings all along here, Gosh I can be uptight sometimes! I mean it's not like you talked gravely of the "serious CONCERNS" you have about the educational model at the school. It's not as if you were just explaining for everyone (whose opinion you could care less about BTW) why the curriculum isn't right for you (when you've had what? A TOUR?) -- but no one else should take your opinion into account here, you were just highlighting yur lack of adoration for the school -- My bad! You're really just a bundle of laughs at heart! Look forward to more giggles from your future posts!!!

[Anonymous]

NP just weighing in to vote: I find the SWS defender way crazier and more unpleasant than the SWS questioner she is attacking. And I am pro-SWS. Carry on.

[Anonymous]

I find the SWS questioner more unpleasant, and I'm not for or again reggio, and have no involvement in the school. I do know parents who are happy there with mid elementary aged kids, and they are people with high standards (with the money for privates).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find the SWS questioner more unpleasant, and I'm not for or again reggio, and have no involvement in the school. I do know parents who are happy there with mid elementary aged kids, and they are people with high standards (with the money for privates).

Oh, people with money for privates love non-traditional elementary schools because they know their kids will learn to read and count just fine and would prefer for them to be doing art and music all day.

[Anonymous]

NP here, one who missed the boat in applying to SWS back when it first broke away and gave proximity preference. Frankly, the whole Reggio approach turned me off. I opted for Peabody instead.

Honestly I think one of the main reasons SWS has become so insanely popular is because it's a public option on the Hill which, for a host of reasons, has "better demographics" than a lot of the nearby inbound schools.

While I'm sure some people are invested in Reggio, I don't think that accounts for SWS' waitlist numbers.

[Anonymous]

lots of trolls here -- if it's not your thing, why weigh in. Judging by the waitlist, plenty of people are interested in SWS. Like all schools, anyone without firsthand knowledge of the school or its culture is blowing smoke

[Anonymous]

There's a demographic appeal when you compare to some other Ward 6 ESes, sure. And I don't know if all of the parents can afford private or even adore the Reggio component (to traditional-phile PP: the upper classes are less Reggio than traditional, but whatever, you must know something I don't) but the teachers and staff are truly amazing. I find it tough to envision a place where DS would have had such a lovely experience at a public school in DC. You can come to whatever conclusion you want about the curriculum and I get why the school doesn't appeal to all, but maybe PP is right. My kids are going to learn to read and write, I WOULD rather them doing art and music all day. This "Reggio" thing that everyone is afraid of is about establishing a sense of community that I haven't seen any other school do, including privates we have toured. But again, to each his own.

In my many years on DCUM I've never once seen a booster for SWS say the school was perfection and didn't have issues, but I've never seen anyone say their kid didn't want to go to school. So, there's that.

[Anonymous]

I wish women who are trained as lawyers and then drop off the fast track could use their considerable education and energies in productive and useful enterprises such as fundraising for their chosen schools, rather than trying to find fulfillment and validation by arguing on electronic forums. So much of this on Capitol Hill!