Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your friends must have lotteried into Yu Ying, so why did they feel the need to move? There is a Yu Ying bus from the Hill. I'm sure they didn't move closer to Yu Ying if they hadn't gotten in, and they definitely didn't move to Brookland for the DCPS options. So how is Cobbs to blame for them moving?

No brainer. They used L-T for preschool but didn't care for Cobbs (putting it mildly) or the PTA crowd. They used the YY bus for a year or two, but weren't crazy about the commute for the kids. They looked at the map and didn't like the idea of a worse commute to DCI down the road, and moved north. If L-T had been an option half as appealing as YY, they wouldn't have relocated (or so they say). Cobbs is the straw that breaks the camels back around here, or one anyway.

That makes perfect sense. It's a bit of a stretch to blame Cobbs for them moving, however. There are very few programs in the city that compete with YY +DCI, and I can understand people wanting to move closer and reduce commute time.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

#3 was an epic rant. The rest of the meeting was tame and predictable in comparison. There were a lot of neighbors there and they all seemed to have accepted that they were shooting for proximity, not boundary.

#3 was also juggling a fit-throwing toddler and late for another event, so I'm gonna cut her some slack...

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.

#3 was an epic rant. The rest of the meeting was tame and predictable in comparison. There were a lot of neighbors there and they all seemed to have accepted that they were shooting for proximity, not boundary.

I think SWS should stay a city wide lottery school. I know that there are many ways to look at this issue. I am merely suggesting another (hopefully more positive) lens through which to view it. SWS is a great school and will remain so regardless of how proximity preference comes out. LT is trying to become a great school and SWS proximity would hurt LT. So if keeping the city wide lottery would not hurt SWS, and would help LT, it seems like a reasonable approach to adopt the policy that would provide a net benefit to the schools.

Anonymous wrote:my only objection to the LT folks was the person who characterized all SWS famlies as "commuters" in relation to the LT OOB students. Many of us have followed the school to 3 different locations. We were prepared to follow it to SE waterfront if Van Ness was in play. I'm sure there's some limit at which the predominantly Cap Hill based school community would have travelled, but the core of the current school community is on or near the Hill with some exceptions. FWIW - SWS won the DCPS "Golden Bike" award for the highest % of students who biked/scooted to school on Bike to School Day this year.

The ANC Lady lost all credit with me the second she claimed the increase in diversity the school would see with a proximity preference. It's such a load of crap this line of reasoning -- there wasn't a single AA family whose hand's popped up when the DME asked who was a neighbor not at the school. Not one. (Then she stroked Tommy when he walked in ...eww.) There are plenty of reasons one could argue for proximity preference, but an increase in diversity is not it people, so let it rest.

I agree the LT parents were put on the spot, and they were perhaps a little crazed as a result. I disagree with the pp's assessment that 75% of the people in the room were for proximity. I'd say it was split down the middle based on whether or not you're currently enrolled. I only heard two SWS parents state they were supportive of proximity preference (one an immediate neighbor) - everyone else said their main concern was to maintain it as an opt-in school and one of the parents made what I thought was a very good point: that even with proximity acting as an opt-in solution vs. a finite boundary, the school would, for all intents, eventually become an IB school with proximity pref., and as such, this would degrade the curriculum over time.

The argument that RE isn't specialized doesn't hold water for me, and perhaps if you were all actually parents at the school it would be more clear that this place is unique. It's very different to have an isolated "RE" program in preschool than it is to have an entire culture who uses the same language, a whole environment thoughtfully constructed to teach children to make certain connections in their lives and the fact that SWS is attempting to carry that from one grade to the next. It's a very different model from the traditional, direct instruction environment that most of us grew up in, and many people need to adjust to it (parents that is.) I thought one of the most poignant moments of the meeting was when the Principal spoke at the end about how some people might think they want in "Oh, it's a successful, warm, fuzzy program - Let me in!" But when push comes to shove, when you find yourself at that 5th parent meeting/event/field trip/art display of the month, when you friend's Kindergartener from another school is rattling off sight words that your kindergartener has no clue what they are, it dawns on you just how unique, this type of education takes a commitment people. It IS specialized.

The argument that it will be a commuter school without proximity is a total falsehood as well, as most of the parents who won spots this year are from the hill - if not the immediate neighborhood! That stated the only valid argument I have yet to hear is the one that the neighbors are in a special position to benefit the school. I agree with this, wholeheartedly. I'm just not convinced it's enough to override the benefits of the school remaining a true city-wide school, especially with the new lottery process.

To the neighbor at the end, saying "we won't ruin your school" -- I beg to differ. If you're using false logic, such as an increase in diversity, and if you want to argue that the curriculum is not unique, in my opinion you WILL hurt the program and I'd rather not have you around.

mmusselman wrote:What if we look at this issue from a big picture approach and ask what is best for our kids, our schools and the Hill (and the city really) as a whole? LT is on the up, but it needs help. SWS is already up, and will continue to be a great school no matter what. Don't we all benefit from having another good school? Shouldn't we support all schools? Attacking parents who are trying to create another good public school option (despite what appears to be a difficult principal) seems very counterproductive. Shouldn't we be supporting one another in these efforts?

what do you recommend?

Oops, meant to sign that last one as the Rambly Green Wicked Witch.

What if we look at this issue from a big picture approach and ask what is best for our kids, our schools and the Hill (and the city really) as a whole? LT is on the up, but it needs help. SWS is already up, and will continue to be a great school no matter what. Don't we all benefit from having another good school? Shouldn't we support all schools? Attacking parents who are trying to create another good public school option (despite what appears to be a difficult principal) seems very counterproductive. Shouldn't we be supporting one another in these efforts?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your friends must have lotteried into Yu Ying, so why did they feel the need to move? There is a Yu Ying bus from the Hill. I'm sure they didn't move closer to Yu Ying if they hadn't gotten in, and they definitely didn't move to Brookland for the DCPS options. So how is Cobbs to blame for them moving?

No brainer. They used L-T for preschool but didn't care for Cobbs (putting it mildly) or the PTA crowd. They used the YY bus for a year or two, but weren't crazy about the commute for the kids. They looked at the map and didn't like the idea of a worse commute to DCI down the road, and moved north. If L-T had been an option half as appealing as YY, they wouldn't have relocated (or so they say). Cobbs is the straw that breaks the camels back around here, or one anyway.

my only objection to the LT folks was the person who characterized all SWS famlies as "commuters" in relation to the LT OOB students. Many of us have followed the school to 3 different locations. We were prepared to follow it to SE waterfront if Van Ness was in play. I'm sure there's some limit at which the predominantly Cap Hill based school community would have travelled, but the core of the current school community is on or near the Hill with some exceptions. FWIW - SWS won the DCPS "Golden Bike" award for the highest % of students who biked/scooted to school on Bike to School Day this year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Correct. And that's why this whole discussion about public schools being citywide is so wrong: Public schools are either neighborhood schools (or at least proximity) or test-in schools. The whole citywide concept is reserved for Charter schools. And it works find there.

Logan seems to manage it just fine. Why don't they have this problem there?

who says they don't have this problem there? any decision that is made for SWS is likely to impact Logan as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Correct. And that's why this whole discussion about public schools being citywide is so wrong: Public schools are either neighborhood schools (or at least proximity) or test-in schools. The whole citywide concept is reserved for Charter schools. And it works find there.

Logan seems to manage it just fine. Why don't they have this problem there?

I think it was really unfortunate the way that the LT parents had to present their case. They seemed a bit stressed, it was rushed, and I think they came across more hostile than they seemed. Perhaps they were reading this board and came ready to fight. But most of the meeting managed to avoid the "town hall" feel so their presentations ultimately were out of place. Too bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confused non-hill poster here.

So the women were arguing that by giving SWS proximity preference it would do what to L-T exactly?

That it would keep LT IB high SES families from going to LT. Which they aren't doing in most cases anyways. My LT IB neighbors are at private, parochial, charter, and other DCPS.

Huh. Not sure I see how that changes anything.

Anonymous wrote:This is a bit tangential, but I'm a soon-to-be Maury PreK-3 parent and didn't realize that the boundaries are changing...what does this mean? Overcrowding? And I was feeling so self-satisfied for lotterying into my own neighborhood school! Help!

The extended boundaries for Maury won't sweep in many new families. That being said, Maury is getting a little crowded already. E.g., the kindergarten classes this year had about 28 students each, Spanish is being dropped next year because there is no room for it.