Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I really hope that SWS grants walking distance preferences at least, but a PP was very correct that the only 2 city-wide public schools share boundaries with LT and its very unfair given the state of LT. I emailed the chancellor about SWS but I guess Tommy Wells may be the best person to talk with.

Tommy Wells was not supportive of the SWS expansion. He recommended having it merge with Amidon Bowen. He hasn't lifted a finger to the benefit of SWS, so good luck there.

Why merge with Amidon? They're a tools of the mind school, not a Reggio school.

Good point -- you'd have to ask Tommy. I can't speak for the Councilman, but that proposal was notably tin eared. illogical, and DOA with SWS community

I am not sure about the metaphor with the anchors. Maybe like, why doesn't dcps make all of their boats seaworthy rather than offloading the passengers from a sound boat onto a leaky one. Because guess what? All those passengers may just decide they would rather fly.

^^ thus ensuring failure for all. A rising tide may lift all boats, but not if they have hundreds of anchors attached.

Because there seems to be some deeply held belief among most of our politicians and school officials that the answer to equity in educational opportunity and to closing the achievement gap is to take well functioning programs with well prepared students and active parents and pair them up with students and programs that have severe problems and hope that it all works out. Witness the desire to merge Sws with Amidon, witness the middle school feeder pattern in ward 6 and try to figure out what happened with making School Without Walls a PK - 12 school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I really hope that SWS grants walking distance preferences at least, but a PP was very correct that the only 2 city-wide public schools share boundaries with LT and its very unfair given the state of LT. I emailed the chancellor about SWS but I guess Tommy Wells may be the best person to talk with.

Tommy Wells was not supportive of the SWS expansion. He recommended having it merge with Amidon Bowen. He hasn't lifted a finger to the benefit of SWS, so good luck there.

Why merge with Amidon? They're a tools of the mind school, not a Reggio school.

14:40 again. Yes, good reason to pursue both, but who's up for the job? Admittedly, probably not me. We're playing the lottery this year, as per usual, hoping to move on before 1st grade, like almost all the other middle-class L-T families we talk to. It's every parent for him/herself this time of year. I don't like the vibe on the PTA and since it seems to predate me by several years, I harbor no illusions that I can alter it. The fact that SWS is landing in the L-T District without neighborhood preference speaks volumes about how dysfunctional the organization is. A tough-minded, unified, visionary PTA would have been on the stick, fighting a city-wide draw for SWS tooth and nail in league with the SWS parents. They aren't going to benefit from a city-wide draw and neither are we, yet natural allies failed to join hands. What you have on the L-T PTA are some very nice relative "newcomers" to the neighborhood who mean well, but aren't fighting for things that would work to keep the middle-class IB population onboard past K. I'm not in prescriptive mode here, not being entirely sure what actually would work (close L-T and go with SWS? merge with SWS? test-in gifted program at L-T? crack down on address cheating? openly fight the principal staying where she is? some combo?). But I know what isn't working, and what isn't going to work, at least not before our kids are in middle school: THIS.

Not 4:40, but neighborhood/walking distance preference does not guarnte admission, not by a long shot, so I see good reason to pursue both.

4:40, you seem to be talking about two conflicting goals--pursuing a neighborhood preference for SWS and breathing new life into LT. Don't you think these are mutually exclusive?

4:40, who/where are you planning to writing or speaking with. Let us know and I and hopefully others will do the same.

I completely agree that the current principal is better than past principal. But that it no way makes her an effective leader or the school the sort of warm, nuturing environment that exists at SWS. The schools will be just a few blocks apart but inside they will be worlds apart. Sad.

New poster. We we bought IB for LT a few years ago, there seemed to be some momentum for a cohort of middle class families to break into the testing grades there eventually. But when SWS moved to the trailers Logan in the fall, and many new PK4 spots opened at Peabody and a few at SWS as a result, more IB parents jumped ship between PS3 and PK4 than the year before.

The greater-than-usual IB exodus early on has taken the wind out of LT's reform momentum for now. DCPS doesn't just seem to be at odds with DCPC over what goes on at LT, but at odds with itself. Some of us are hoping that a new principal, the major infrastructure upgrades scheduled for the summer, and an increase in the number of young families coming into the neighborhood will breathe new life into LT within a few years.

In the meantime, all the LT IB parents aren't going to take SWS' citywide feed sitting down. This isn't the last you will hear about neighborhood preference, folks.

Anonymous wrote: LT in-bounds families are not willing to stay, we all know that, but more important that that, what could we voice to DCPS? That the current principal "doesn't support us"? Sounds too vague. Maybe the better approach is for all in-bounds LT families to continue to avoid the school and hope that it lands on the closure list.All I know is that I can see Prospect LC from my window, and I won't like having to pass it by each day on my way to LT...

Make it clear to DCPS that we want an IB school for IB families, who are mostly affluent vs. FARMS, a la Maury and Brent.

I note that high-SES have largely avoided L-T since I moved to the Stanton Park neighborhood a decade ago yet the practice hasn't landed it on the closure list, not even close. When the principal was selected in 2005 she represented a big improvement over her predecessor (no kidding! that bad! it used to be that if a white parent turned up to ask about enrolling the principal would say "you know, there are schools for children like yours") and our hopes were raised. A new principal picked with input from this particular PTA is unlikely to change much.

What incentive does Wells have to alter the status quo at L-T? The IB grandmothers who facilitate the address cheating vote and the yuppies almost always land somewhere else by K without complaint. The charter and OOB lottery works 95% of the time. Moving the Montessori from Watkins to the L-T District, and now an expanded SWS, has been to rub salt in our wounds. But then maybe we deserve it for having tolerated DCPS' shenanigans, which wouldn't fly in Upper NW. One great hurdle to clear is the big OOB special needs programs - the kids are bused in, no address cheating needed.

You gotta hand it to DCPS, they are holding the L-T families' feet to the fire. There's no doubt that if there was proximity preference at SWS that L-T PS and PK would empty out in a heartbeat. The least they could do at DCPS is get L-T families a decent principal to work with.

Anonymous wrote:
I really hope that SWS grants walking distance preferences at least, but a PP was very correct that the only 2 city-wide public schools share boundaries with LT and its very unfair given the state of LT. I emailed the chancellor about SWS but I guess Tommy Wells may be the best person to talk with.

Tommy Wells was not supportive of the SWS expansion. He recommended having it merge with Amidon Bowen. He hasn't lifted a finger to the benefit of SWS, so good luck there.

Hi, this is 11:23, and yes, I think that is most of the problem, which I am contributing too. I am sure this was the problem at Maury and other schools years ago and instead of walking away parents got together. I don't see why we can't get together and fight for a school that is ours even if we get out. Personally, we are happy where we are but may not continue to be and there is no fall back in LT, thats for sure. There are few of willing to have our child be the ginny pig by staying above K...and we shouldn't have to be.

I really hope that SWS grants walking distance preferences at least, but a PP was very correct that the only 2 city-wide public schools share boundaries with LT and its very unfair given the state of LT. I emailed the chancellor about SWS but I guess Tommy Wells may be the best person to talk with.