Brent and SWS

[Anonymous]

Are there any current parents of middle elementary kids at SWS who can comment on how the curriculum/experience compares to that at a good, more "traditional" public school in DCPS? Maybe someone who has a younger child at SWS and an older at Watkins or somewhere else?

I'm asking in seriousness because I have always been one to say, I'm not 100% sold on Reggio beyond early childhood. We are currently at SWS, in early childhood. This is the third preschool/ECE program our family has experienced. All have been play-based, but this is the first "reggio." I honestly don't see much of a difference in the curriculum/approach between Reggio and other play-based programs (except that at SWS art seems to be integrated in the regular curriculum to a greater degree). I have heard at SWS the Reggio is lighter in the upper grades. If that is true, is it really that much different than a place like Brent? I don't have first-hand experience but have heard that even the "traditional" elementary schools don't have as much direct instruction as we had when we were kids. Not asking for comments on the culture. I'm wondering about the curriculum and approach to learning.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SWS has much better leadership than Brent, and parents who don't fight like cats and dogs. The SWS principal is a really good guy who's willing to stick his neck our for his kids and families. He's been around forever and you hear few complaints. Principal Young is a smiling conservative (with a small c) wimp you can't trust. You hear many complaints.

We're IB for Brent and I'd switch in a minute if I could lottery into SWS in the lower grades as long as Young stays at the helm.

Brent parent who agrees. Leadership matters and SWS has a good one.

[Anonymous]

Having experienced 3 different ECE programs as well, SWS stands out because of the documentation, the child-led exploration, and projects. It stands out even among other schools that implemented reggio in ECE. I think that reggio in elementary has been a lighter touch but there will now be an elementary altielier, which may make a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SWS has much better leadership than Brent, and parents who don't fight like cats and dogs. The SWS principal is a really good guy who's willing to stick his neck our for his kids and families. He's been around forever and you hear few complaints. Principal Young is a smiling conservative (with a small c) wimp you can't trust. You hear many complaints.

We're IB for Brent and I'd switch in a minute if I could lottery into SWS in the lower grades as long as Young stays at the helm.

Brent parent who agrees. Leadership matters and SWS has a good one.

+100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having experienced 3 different ECE programs as well, SWS stands out because of the documentation, the child-led exploration, and projects. It stands out even among other schools that implemented reggio in ECE. I think that reggio in elementary has been a lighter touch but there will now be an elementary altielier, which may make a difference.

I think PP meant "lighter" as in less rigorous, which isn't really the case. The core standards are taught everywhere and SWS is no exception. There's an emphasis on project based learning but academically the upper ES grades are comparable in many ways to other "traditional" elementary programs that focus on literacy, numeracy, science and social studies. In 1st grade the Mayan/Aztec themed exploration was the same used in a handful of DCPS schools including 1st grade at Janney. The teachers are fantastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Either one will be fine but keep playing the lottery since you will have to peel off for middle school.

Nothing personal against you PP, but can we stop using the phrase "peel off" when referring to kids switching schools? Something about it just bugs me. Why not just say "leave"?

[Anonymous]

Will there be some actual test data for Goding this summer? It will be interesting to see if it the test results are consistent with all the Goding hype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will there be some actual test data for Goding this summer? It will be interesting to see if it the test results are consistent with all the Goding hype.

is there test data for anyone from SY14-15? First testing grade completed last Fri. but you already know that. And if that's what you really value in a school a single year won't tell you anything because you need to look at yearly progress to measure success that way. I wouldn't brag on this board if the results are stellar any more than I'd criticize if the scores were disappointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will there be some actual test data for Goding this summer? It will be interesting to see if it the test results are consistent with all the Goding hype.

is there test data for anyone from SY14-15? First testing grade completed last Fri. but you already know that. And if that's what you really value in a school a single year won't tell you anything because you need to look at yearly progress to measure success that way. I wouldn't brag on this board if the results are stellar any more than I'd criticize if the scores were disappointing.

Because this is first year of PARCC (replacing DC CAS) we've been told not to expect any data until November/December of next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will there be some actual test data for Goding this summer? It will be interesting to see if it the test results are consistent with all the Goding hype.

is there test data for anyone from SY14-15? First testing grade completed last Fri. but you already know that. And if that's what you really value in a school a single year won't tell you anything because you need to look at yearly progress to measure success that way. I wouldn't brag on this board if the results are stellar any more than I'd criticize if the scores were disappointing.

Because this is first year of PARCC (replacing DC CAS) we've been told not to expect any data until November/December of next year.

I hope you mean this year, as in 2015. No?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will there be some actual test data for Goding this summer? It will be interesting to see if it the test results are consistent with all the Goding hype.

is there test data for anyone from SY14-15? First testing grade completed last Fri. but you already know that. And if that's what you really value in a school a single year won't tell you anything because you need to look at yearly progress to measure success that way. I wouldn't brag on this board if the results are stellar any more than I'd criticize if the scores were disappointing.

Because this is first year of PARCC (replacing DC CAS) we've been told not to expect any data until November/December of next year.

I hope you mean this year, as in 2015. No?

Yes. Sorry. Nov/Dec 2015 for tests given in SY 14-15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will there be some actual test data for Goding this summer? It will be interesting to see if it the test results are consistent with all the Goding hype.

is there test data for anyone from SY14-15? First testing grade completed last Fri. but you already know that. And if that's what you really value in a school a single year won't tell you anything because you need to look at yearly progress to measure success that way. I wouldn't brag on this board if the results are stellar any more than I'd criticize if the scores were disappointing.

I thought there were two rounds of testing this year - the main one mid-year, and the final one end-year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Brent is your IB school, then you really have nothing to lose by going to SWS. If it doesn't work out, go back to Brent.

+1 and to answer pp, the teachers at SWS really get children as learners

As long as they're 100% typical.

New poster here. I'm intrigued by this SWS comment, "so long as they're 100% typical." Could the poster elaborate?

Specifically, I've been thinking of enrolling my child with high-functioning autism into SWS' program for HFA, beginning in 1st grade (ie, one year from now). My child has already been evaluated for it. Would you NOT recommend SWS for my "non-typical" child?

I'm actually talking more about kids who aren't on the bell curve but who also DON'T have an IEP. I actually think the SpEd team there is excellent. I think the regular teachers aren't quite capable of dealing with kids who need something different than most kids (but not so different that they qualify for SpEd)

I agree with this. Kids that are slightly off or behind tend to get lost in the shuffle or not prioritized. I get that kids with an IEP need more; I'm just not sure that the supports given to them also allow teachers to focus on non-IEP kids who in the words of a PP are not 100% typical. I think it's hard when you've got a class that's 1/2 IEP kids - whether it's high-functioning autism or something else. Something has gotta give and it's usually the kids who are slightly off/behind who are the pressure valve. SWS doesn't have an aide per classroom after K; there are something like three aides that float around the 1st - 3rd grades as needed. It's only going to get worse as the school adds two grades but doesn't increase it's fundraising in order to be able to afford more aides.

Absolutely no class there has that many children with IEPs in it.

the school has 18% special ed, and that includes medically fragile classrooms, so no -- there is no 50% IEP classroom. Not even close

One solid reason to consider as to why a class could be approaching 50% IEP, and one less solid. I'm solid on the first point. The second on

Solid reason - depending on what works best in terms of scheduling hours for IEP kids, the school has opted to group all or most of the special ed kids in a grade in one class. This doesn't happen every year or at every grade, but it definitely happens. Talk to the parents of non-IEP kids who had particularly rough years when their child was in such a class.

Less solid - how about kids with 504s? are they included in the special ed percentage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Brent is your IB school, then you really have nothing to lose by going to SWS. If it doesn't work out, go back to Brent.

+1 and to answer pp, the teachers at SWS really get children as learners

As long as they're 100% typical.

New poster here. I'm intrigued by this SWS comment, "so long as they're 100% typical." Could the poster elaborate?

Specifically, I've been thinking of enrolling my child with high-functioning autism into SWS' program for HFA, beginning in 1st grade (ie, one year from now). My child has already been evaluated for it. Would you NOT recommend SWS for my "non-typical" child?

I'm actually talking more about kids who aren't on the bell curve but who also DON'T have an IEP. I actually think the SpEd team there is excellent. I think the regular teachers aren't quite capable of dealing with kids who need something different than most kids (but not so different that they qualify for SpEd)

I agree with this. Kids that are slightly off or behind tend to get lost in the shuffle or not prioritized. I get that kids with an IEP need more; I'm just not sure that the supports given to them also allow teachers to focus on non-IEP kids who in the words of a PP are not 100% typical. I think it's hard when you've got a class that's 1/2 IEP kids - whether it's high-functioning autism or something else. Something has gotta give and it's usually the kids who are slightly off/behind who are the pressure valve. SWS doesn't have an aide per classroom after K; there are something like three aides that float around the 1st - 3rd grades as needed. It's only going to get worse as the school adds two grades but doesn't increase it's fundraising in order to be able to afford more aides.

Absolutely no class there has that many children with IEPs in it.

the school has 18% special ed, and that includes medically fragile classrooms, so no -- there is no 50% IEP classroom. Not even close

One solid reason to consider as to why a class could be approaching 50% IEP, and one less solid. I'm solid on the first point. The second on

Solid reason - depending on what works best in terms of scheduling hours for IEP kids, the school has opted to group all or most of the special ed kids in a grade in one class. This doesn't happen every year or at every grade, but it definitely happens. Talk to the parents of non-IEP kids who had particularly rough years when their child was in such a class.

Less solid - how about kids with 504s? are they included in the special ed percentage?

504s won't show up in percentages getting special ed.

BTW parents of kids WITH IEPs don't like when too many are in one classroom - not good for anyone except, perhaps for a support services provider who can theoretically give services to many at once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Brent is your IB school, then you really have nothing to lose by going to SWS. If it doesn't work out, go back to Brent.

+1 and to answer pp, the teachers at SWS really get children as learners

As long as they're 100% typical.

New poster here. I'm intrigued by this SWS comment, "so long as they're 100% typical." Could the poster elaborate?

Specifically, I've been thinking of enrolling my child with high-functioning autism into SWS' program for HFA, beginning in 1st grade (ie, one year from now). My child has already been evaluated for it. Would you NOT recommend SWS for my "non-typical" child?

I'm actually talking more about kids who aren't on the bell curve but who also DON'T have an IEP. I actually think the SpEd team there is excellent. I think the regular teachers aren't quite capable of dealing with kids who need something different than most kids (but not so different that they qualify for SpEd)

I agree with this. Kids that are slightly off or behind tend to get lost in the shuffle or not prioritized. I get that kids with an IEP need more; I'm just not sure that the supports given to them also allow teachers to focus on non-IEP kids who in the words of a PP are not 100% typical. I think it's hard when you've got a class that's 1/2 IEP kids - whether it's high-functioning autism or something else. Something has gotta give and it's usually the kids who are slightly off/behind who are the pressure valve. SWS doesn't have an aide per classroom after K; there are something like three aides that float around the 1st - 3rd grades as needed. It's only going to get worse as the school adds two grades but doesn't increase it's fundraising in order to be able to afford more aides.

Absolutely no class there has that many children with IEPs in it.

the school has 18% special ed, and that includes medically fragile classrooms, so no -- there is no 50% IEP classroom. Not even close

One solid reason to consider as to why a class could be approaching 50% IEP, and one less solid. I'm solid on the first point. The second on

Solid reason - depending on what works best in terms of scheduling hours for IEP kids, the school has opted to group all or most of the special ed kids in a grade in one class. This doesn't happen every year or at every grade, but it definitely happens. Talk to the parents of non-IEP kids who had particularly rough years when their child was in such a class.

Less solid - how about kids with 504s? are they included in the special ed percentage?

I think you might not understand the term Medically Fragile. Once you look it up you will understand that, unfortunately, these IEP kids will never be able to be integrated with "normal" kids. Hence your fear of a 50/50 ratio is unfounded unless there are kids in my kids class that are secretly IEP.