Anonymous wrote:12:27, you have me worried! Not that I wasn't already, but I have been feeling hopeful that LT would be a nice fit for 2 years of needed. Do you mind if I ask where this punching happened? Aftercare, during class, etc? This is all just so hard, way harder than it should be.

Will you be at LT next year, or were you able to transition elsewhere?

It was hush hush after the punching incident, with the principal quietly ejecting the culprit from the preschool. The parents of the punched boy are IB PTA boosters, so didn't want to call attention to it (which "could have happened at any school" as the refrain went). If I hadn't seen the victim's purple cheek and asked my child if she knew what had happened, I wouldn't have known about it. I think it was in aftercare, but am not sure. My own skinny/short 4 year old has been knocked around on the playground too much. We're on our way to Maury, thank goodness.

Anonymous wrote:If I was an IB parent with younger kids dead set on a fast turnaround at LT, I would become SWS's new best friend and start organizing around that arranged marriage and pronto.

DCPS is not sending out any warm and fuzzy vibes on reopening Van Ness so it's likely they're strongly considering other long-term placements. SWS wants to stay on the Hill. LT needs a total re-boot. HUGE number of LT IB parents among the SWS parent population. Would solve the SWS middle school feeder pattern question. Cluster would support since it would recapture those SWS families at 6th grade, many of whom have long-term roots in the Cluster.

Someone should make this happen!

You're right, it's a fine idea. The problem is that the PTA leadership and principal remain difficult to deal with, and would almost certainly would be hostile to the idea of having SWS rock onto LT's shores. Hence, most of us who've found an "out" are simply counting our lucky stars (we're going to Peabody). With young children and a job, I'm tired after a year of tangling with defensive administrators and PTA leaders. The parents with deep neighborhood ties, particularly the MD address cheaters, would surely fight a move to bring SWS in, seeing such a major change as a threat to their power (since the IB parents in the SWS population are mostly newcomers/middle-class types). Moreover, some of the IB parents on the PTA are LT diehards, who don't see a need for a total re-boot, low as the IB population remains. The tyranny of a minority would be a hard nut to crack. I'll try to steer some SWS parents to the discussion at any rate; hoping that somebody else has it in them to run with the ball on this.

Anonymous wrote:

SY13/14, DCPS has said that SWS will continue to use the Cluster boundaries, but the Cluster is insane if they let that happen. I would consider that in play. And your guess is as good as mine as to when and where SWS moves. I think in 2014 they could find themselves in the midst of the city transitioning to a new mayor and new chancellor and could be left cooling their heels in trailers for quite some while as that gets sorted out.

This is incorrect. The maximum time SWS will be at Logan Annex is 2 years. DCPS has already committed to a self contained SWS by SY2014-15 at the latest (with no boundary preference much like CH Montessori). The Annex may not be able to accomodate the planned 2nd grade class and the move could happen in 2013-2014. SWS is also planning to add PS3, but only for the new location. SWS has no plans to merge with Ludlow Taylor, but given the parallel Reggio inspired educational philosophy, SWS may be an attractive alternative to LT families looking for other options.

12:27, you have me worried! Not that I wasn't already, but I have been feeling hopeful that LT would be a nice fit for 2 years of needed. Do you mind if I ask where this punching happened? Aftercare, during class, etc? This is all just so hard, way harder than it should be.

Will you be at LT next year, or were you able to transition elsewhere?

I hope that you're right. My spouse and I came in ready to push to make LT a better place a year ago, at the start of PreS3, but already feel burned out. With most of our child's middle-class classmates hitting the road, it seems prudent to do the same. LT just doesn't have the feel of a neighborhood school. I sympathize with those wondering if it might be best to reinvent it somehow to draw in, and keep, a lot more IB families. A montessori or even charter with proximity preference (seems like this will soon become reality, with support from Gray and the city council for this change to the charter law) might work really well. The strange principal and PTA were only half the story for us - LT didn't feel like fertile ground for a child like mine, who is shy and can already read a little. There were some pretty rough OOB kids, even in preschool. One of her IB classmates, age 3, was punched so hard in the face that he developed a tooth abscess.

If I was an IB parent with younger kids dead set on a fast turnaround at LT, I would become SWS's new best friend and start organizing around that arranged marriage and pronto.

DCPS is not sending out any warm and fuzzy vibes on reopening Van Ness so it's likely they're strongly considering other long-term placements. SWS wants to stay on the Hill. LT needs a total re-boot. HUGE number of LT IB parents among the SWS parent population. Would solve the SWS middle school feeder pattern question. Cluster would support since it would recapture those SWS families at 6th grade, many of whom have long-term roots in the Cluster.

Someone should make this happen!

Honestly - the Capitol Hill community at large would support fundraising efforts, but it will take a lot of commitment and leadership from parents to make that happen. The problem is that many parents feel burned by the principal and the crazy PTA leadership and are unwilling to invest that level of effort. I think that families really need to complain about this principal - not sure why she is still here.

That said, there are a lot of inboundary families coming into PS3 this year and many of them are ready to really push to make the school a better place.

Anonymous wrote:So, I think this is how it goes.

For 2012-13 admission, if you are in boundary for cluster, you are in bounds for SWS AND Peabody. So there are 2 PreS3 classrooms at SWS and 4 PreS3 at Peabody.

For 2013-14 admission, if you are inboundary for cluster, you will only be in bounds for Peabody, so only the Peabody PreS3 and Peabody PreK4 have in bounds preference. SWS will be off on its own somewhere. . . . boundary preference as of yet unknown.

Is this right?

No. SY12/13... SWS does not and will not have PK3 classes. The only PK3 seats available IB for the Cluster are 3 classrooms at Peabody. At PK4, there will be 4 at Peabody and I believe 2 at SWS. K, 5 at Peabody and 2 at SWS (except virtually no seats are available as their 2 PK4 classes move up to 2 K classes).

SY13/14, DCPS has said that SWS will continue to use the Cluster boundaries, but the Cluster is insane if they let that happen. I would consider that in play. And your guess is as good as mine as to when and where SWS moves. I think in 2014 they could find themselves in the midst of the city transitioning to a new mayor and new chancellor and could be left cooling their heels in trailers for quite some while as that gets sorted out.

So sounds like the LT parents on the southwest side of their district will continue to have a better shot of getting in OOB at Peabody/Watkins, with proximity preference, than in 2010 and 2011, particularly if they try to lottery in for PreS4 and/or K and 1st. And it's not out of the question that SWS program will land somewhere with proxmity preference for them. With LT as almost nobody's first choice IB past PreS3, or where the majority is staying past PreS4, the great challenge of getting more high-SES families into K and the grades will probably remain, an obstacle to the PTA to raising money etc.

So, I think this is how it goes.

For 2012-13 admission, if you are in boundary for cluster, you are in bounds for SWS AND Peabody. So there are 2 PreS3 classrooms at SWS and 4 PreS3 at Peabody.

For 2013-14 admission, if you are inboundary for cluster, you will only be in bounds for Peabody, so only the Peabody PreS3 and Peabody PreK4 have in bounds preference. SWS will be off on its own somewhere. . . . boundary preference as of yet unknown.

Is this right?

There will be an additional classroom's worth of openings at both PK4 & K (3 PK3 classes moving up to 4 PK4 classes & 4 PK4 classes moving up to 5 K classes), but since there's still a waiting list of IB kids at PK3, I would say it's unclear how many OOB spots will be open year to year. Also, next year SWS will use the Cluster boundaries again so that will complicate the math on predicting the IB/OOB split.

Anonymous wrote: Next year Peabody will have 5 K classes, 4 PK, and 3 PK3. I believe PK3 will be entirely IB next year, but lots of OOB spots in K, fewer in PK4. And definitely spaces available in 1st at Watkins with SWS's departure. Kind of a one-off situation this year, though. It will be harder to lottery in after this.

Thanks for this info. This helps explain why the LT parents leaving for K at Peabody did very well, and those leaving for PK4 did almost as well. But I don't get the one-off situation - won't those SWS slots be open from now on? With LT as a good IB option for PK3, perhaps it will continue to be used mainly as a springboard for Peabody PreK 4 and K by the better-off IB group. Most of the low-SES parents seem to like LT all the way up and don't try to move. As has been pointed out, they tend to have strong family ties in the district.