SWS - as an IB School? L-T prospects?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only issue here, is how do our elementary school students get to school? This morning I was packing my pre-schooler and his nap roll in a car, to drive him to school, and another parent was unloading his pre-schooler with his nap roll to go to SWS. How on Earth does this make any sense? The Ann Goding, Ludlow Taylor, and Logan schools were boundary schools for decades, until the child population dropped. Now that the old buildings have been re-opened as public schools, they should be boundary schools. Take a look at the old boundary map, the 3 schools coexisted just fine! If SWS and Logan insist on staying lottery schools, then they should become charters. In meeting with parents of SWS, they said that they get 'better' kids using the lottery system. I found that a sickening concept. One parent actually said, that if all of the kids were in-bounds, that the school would be 'ruined'. I am not making this up.

Weren't these schools boundary schools in the segregation era? Not quite the same.

In any case. Dead. Horse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only issue here, is how do our elementary school students get to school? This morning I was packing my pre-schooler and his nap roll in a car, to drive him to school, and another parent was unloading his pre-schooler with his nap roll to go to SWS. How on Earth does this make any sense? The Ann Goding, Ludlow Taylor, and Logan schools were boundary schools for decades, until the child population dropped. Now that the old buildings have been re-opened as public schools, they should be boundary schools. Take a look at the old boundary map, the 3 schools coexisted just fine! If SWS and Logan insist on staying lottery schools, then they should become charters. In meeting with parents of SWS, they said that they get 'better' kids using the lottery system. I found that a sickening concept. One parent actually said, that if all of the kids were in-bounds, that the school would be 'ruined'. I am not making this up.

No one has ever said this. If you were at the DME meeting, the most you heard was arguments for city-wide because o the diversity.

And - just calm down OK. Why are you DRIVING your kid 3 blocks to Ludlow-Taylor?

[Anonymous]

SWS was an IB originally. Why would DCPS want it to go back to being an IB school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live near Stanton Park and now my in-bounds elementary school is Watkins, which is far away and has a lot of troubled students. SWS should have a boundary that includes Stanton Park, or else Ludlow's boundary should move north to include Stanton (or Maury move west to include Stanton).

LOL! SWS's boundary *used* to include Stanton Park! Where were you when it was moved away from the Cluster???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only issue here, is how do our elementary school students get to school? This morning I was packing my pre-schooler and his nap roll in a car, to drive him to school, and another parent was unloading his pre-schooler with his nap roll to go to SWS. How on Earth does this make any sense? The Ann Goding, Ludlow Taylor, and Logan schools were boundary schools for decades, until the child population dropped. Now that the old buildings have been re-opened as public schools, they should be boundary schools. Take a look at the old boundary map, the 3 schools coexisted just fine! If SWS and Logan insist on staying lottery schools, then they should become charters. In meeting with parents of SWS, they said that they get 'better' kids using the lottery system. I found that a sickening concept. One parent actually said, that if all of the kids were in-bounds, that the school would be 'ruined'. I am not making this up.

Isn't the upside that you're not sharing a school with the SWS parents?

[Anonymous]

PP, it must be awful to know that you have shelled out all the $$ for private. I can't imagine an SWS parent saying something like that, but I can imagine your sour grapes at not being able to buy your way in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only issue here, is how do our elementary school students get to school? This morning I was packing my pre-schooler and his nap roll in a car, to drive him to school, and another parent was unloading his pre-schooler with his nap roll to go to SWS. How on Earth does this make any sense? The Ann Goding, Ludlow Taylor, and Logan schools were boundary schools for decades, until the child population dropped. Now that the old buildings have been re-opened as public schools, they should be boundary schools. Take a look at the old boundary map, the 3 schools coexisted just fine! If SWS and Logan insist on staying lottery schools, then they should become charters. In meeting with parents of SWS, they said that they get 'better' kids using the lottery system. I found that a sickening concept. One parent actually said, that if all of the kids were in-bounds, that the school would be 'ruined'. I am not making this up.

No one has ever said this. If you were at the DME meeting, the most you heard was arguments for city-wide because o the diversity.

And - just calm down OK. Why are you DRIVING your kid 3 blocks to Ludlow-Taylor?

This family is not driving to LT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correction ---- I live near Stanton Park and now my in-bounds elementary school is Watkins, which is far away and has a lot of troubled students. SWS should have a boundary that includes Stanton Park, or else Ludlow's boundary should move SOUTH to include Stanton (or Maury move west to include Stanton).

Curious how you know/discern this? Watkins does have high OOB and a significant FARMS. Is that what you are equating with troubled? It is a large elementary school, I think largest in Ward 6. But that of itself doesn't shed any light on why you perceive it as having troubled kids. I am in-bounds and a long-time Peabody/SWS (when it was in the Cluster) and Watkins parent. FWIW, Watkins white students have some of the highest achievement in DC-CAS in the city. Again, if you are drawing conclusions just from the racial/SES make-up of the school. And many OOB are actually Hill kids.

No, Tyler is the largest in Ward 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, it must be awful to know that you have shelled out all the $$ for private. I can't imagine an SWS parent saying something like that, but I can imagine your sour grapes at not being able to buy your way in.

I'm the PP, and we didn't shell out anything for private. We love our Mandarin Immersion school, and the families that we share it with.

I'm merely commenting on the nastiness posed in the quote. It must be nice to not have to go to school with families that would say such things. Don't you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correction ---- I live near Stanton Park and now my in-bounds elementary school is Watkins, which is far away and has a lot of troubled students. SWS should have a boundary that includes Stanton Park, or else Ludlow's boundary should move SOUTH to include Stanton (or Maury move west to include Stanton).

Curious how you know/discern this? Watkins does have high OOB and a significant FARMS. Is that what you are equating with troubled? It is a large elementary school, I think largest in Ward 6. But that of itself doesn't shed any light on why you perceive it as having troubled kids. I am in-bounds and a long-time Peabody/SWS (when it was in the Cluster) and Watkins parent. FWIW, Watkins white students have some of the highest achievement in DC-CAS in the city. Again, if you are drawing conclusions just from the racial/SES make-up of the school. And many OOB are actually Hill kids.

No, Tyler is the largest in Ward 6.

Where are you getting up to date numbers for Tyler over Watkins? Last year Tyler was 507 and Watkins 545 according to DCPS. I know Watkins has shrunk the number of children - at least the number of classrooms - and Tyler has grown some this year. Peabody-Watkins together dwarfs all the other Ps3-5 in Ward 6. There may be something to the question of troubled kids while Tyler and Watkins are roughly the same number of kids but Tyler is PS3-5 but Watkins is 1-5 only. The older cohort could account for that perception, whether based on actual facts or not. I seem to recall when someone posted the data in the Watkins thread on homeless children in various schools, Tyler exceeded Watkins. Not that homelessness = troubled by definition.

The SWS argument for IB is over. Get over it. I am also a long-time Watkins parent with kids who were both in SWS and Peabody. My kids are too old to have been able to continue with SWS as it grows grades. But I am not crying about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only issue here, is how do our elementary school students get to school? This morning I was packing my pre-schooler and his nap roll in a car, to drive him to school, and another parent was unloading his pre-schooler with his nap roll to go to SWS. How on Earth does this make any sense? The Ann Goding, Ludlow Taylor, and Logan schools were boundary schools for decades, until the child population dropped. Now that the old buildings have been re-opened as public schools, they should be boundary schools. Take a look at the old boundary map, the 3 schools coexisted just fine! If SWS and Logan insist on staying lottery schools, then they should become charters. In meeting with parents of SWS, they said that they get 'better' kids using the lottery system. I found that a sickening concept. One parent actually said, that if all of the kids were in-bounds, that the school would be 'ruined'. I am not making this up.

No one has ever said this. If you were at the DME meeting, the most you heard was arguments for city-wide because o the diversity.

And - just calm down OK. Why are you DRIVING your kid 3 blocks to Ludlow-Taylor?

This family is not driving to LT.

#mypoint I smell a little hypocrisy. And let's not call is "a quote" from SWS parents shall we? It's the view of a disgruntles neighbor who never had anything taken away from her but has somehow convinced herself that she's being unfairly treated. SWS parents are AWFUL aren't they? For wanting to give your child's birth-right spot to the kid from Ward 8. A--holes.

[Anonymous]

Oh, yeah, the SWS parents are just dying to welcome more Ward 8 families into their United Colors of Bennetton school community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, yeah, the SWS parents are just dying to welcome more Ward 8 families into their United Colors of Bennetton school community.

Hey - disgruntled neighbor SAID SO - so ya know... they sure haven't made HER feel welcome.

Can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, it must be awful to know that you have shelled out all the $$ for private. I can't imagine an SWS parent saying something like that, but I can imagine your sour grapes at not being able to buy your way in.

I'm the PP, and we didn't shell out anything for private. We love our Mandarin Immersion school, and the families that we share it with.

I'm merely commenting on the nastiness posed in the quote. It must be nice to not have to go to school with families that would say such things. Don't you think?

I do not want to get in the middle of a slap fight between Yu Ying and SWS parents Yikes!

You pps should all go enjoy some decaf green tea and relax, comforted by the fact that your children are receiving quality specialized public education.

[Anonymous]

I think you missed the point. The poster who revived this thread was a neighbor who both bemoaned the fact that she couldn't attend SWS and that the SWS parents were mean and rude. I don't think any SWS parents posted at all, and the YY poster only said that the complainer should be happy that she didn't have to attend SWS with the mean parents.

Every parent I have met at SWS and YY have seemed perfectly nice and also very happy with their schools.