Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!

That was my feeling too. Seems like the sent the three wicked witches of the West. Too bad it was acoustically difficult to understand what they were rambling on about, but one even dropped the word "gerrymandering" somehow into her tirade. Maybe somebody else can elaborate how that fit into the discussion.

I understand their frustration somehow. They worked hard to make LT better and they are succeeding. But their success shouldn't be based on SWS not giving proximity preference to the neighbors. I think their success should come from parents wanting to have their kids go to LT for the long-haul because it is on par with some of the best schools in the city. Their goal should be to be the #1 choice for parents in the neighborhood and have a clear strategy/timeline how to get their. Getting rid of the competition has never really helped anyone to improve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who was there tell us what was discussed? It's hard to discern any real content from the postings so far.

Smith was late and the LT parents had to go to their school performance, so they got to speak first and then leave. #1 was rambly and seemed awfully earnest, but very green. #2 has a 2nd grader, so has seen the changes at LT. #3 was scary, bitter, threatening and I took a mental photo to stay far away from her on the neighborhood playgrounds. All hated SWS and wanted it and it's neighboring families to die. They left. Tommy Wells showed up and eventually spoke in a very vague way in opposition to proximity. Smith revealed nothing and moved the mike around. Then the discussion became a meeting about boundaries, with about 75% of the parents and neighbors at the meeting for proximity (not boundary) and 25% opposed. Middle school feed was barely discussed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you got your wish

Hardly. We'd much rather walk to school, and keep beloved neighbors who hit the road for greener elementary pastures. Friends on our block just bought closer to Yu Ying and DCI to avoid L-T. Their house is under contract by suburban empty nesters. Score another one for Cobbs and DCPs.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who was there tell us what was discussed? It's hard to discern any real content from the postings so far.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!

That was my feeling too. Seems like the sent the three wicked witches of the West. Too bad it was acoustically difficult to understand what they were rambling on about, but one even dropped the word "gerrymandering" somehow into her tirade. Maybe somebody else can elaborate how that fit into the discussion.

I understand their frustration somehow. They worked hard to make LT better and they are succeeding. But their success shouldn't be based on SWS not giving proximity preference to the neighbors. I think their success should come from parents wanting to have their kids go to LT for the long-haul because it is on par with some of the best schools in the city. Their goal should be to be the #1 choice for parents in the neighborhood and have a clear strategy/timeline how to get their. Getting rid of the competition has never really helped anyone to improve.

Anonymous wrote:Yikes -- there are some BITTER Ludlow-Taylor folks!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you got your wish

Hardly. We'd much rather walk to school, and keep beloved neighbors who hit the road for greener elementary pastures. Friends on our block just bought closer to Yu Ying and DCI to avoid L-T. Their house is under contract by suburban empty nesters. Score another one for Cobbs and DCPs.

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you got your wish

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the person who said the "agitator" was ridiculous and it was my only comment on the forum until now. I also wanted to add, as a person who lives very near the school but has no direct stake since my kids are older, that the whole proximity-preference debate is not helping SWS's reputation as the whitest school in town -- even if (as is my understanding) it's less current families who are demanding it than people who happen to live nearby. I was at a party where a mom of a younger kid mentioned it and said, "Oh, yeah, those people just don't want to send their kids to school with black people," and about 5 people nodded in agreement. I understand that the majority of the SWS community doesn't feel that way, but the people clamoring for proximity preference aren't doing the school any favors in this respect.

OH come on. This is absurd.
IF I lived across the street from SWS (and I don't), I'd rather send my kid there than to Ludlow Taylor. That's all this is. Parents who want the best possible school for their kids. I can't really blame them.

I am a current SWS parent, and I initially felt strongly that there should be some sort of proximity preference. I have somewhat modified my stance, but I do think it is important for schools to be neighborhood-based. I think it makes a stronger school community, is healthier for the kids, and is good for the neighborhood. However, SWS is sort of a by-default Hill school now, so I am not sure a preference is necessary.

And if you lived across the street from Walls or the Cathedral schools you might feel the same way. It doesn't mean you have a right to them.

My comment was only to refute the point that neighbors' motives are racist. But, to your point, at almost every other NON-CHARTER DCPS, if you live across the street from an elementary school, you DO have the right to attend it. Thanks for the eyeroll, though.