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 to the 1st para, and mostly yes to the 2nd. There are NO PS3 classrooms at SWS. There haven't been any to date, and there will be none at the Annex. There MAY be PS3 at a future date, but it would not happen before the move to a permanent location. Peabody will have NO boundary preference for 2013-14 -- only sib priority.

Oh the Cluster distaste goes much deeper than any Watkins parent is willing to admit or see. Yes, they did lead the charge on suing Two Rivers. Plus now that Clusters have gladly gone ahead with pushing SH renovation date up while trying to leave the non-feeder schools behind.

The mentality that the Clusters are the only school on the Hill runs deep there. We are one of the many families who have tried the Clusters and run screaming to NW schools. It is so funny to look back and think about how we thought all of that was normal at one time.

+1. Yea, that about sums it up. If this long thread has accomplished nothing more, perhaps it will help parents, both IB and OOB, beating down the door to get into the LT preschool arrive, or move on, with their eyes wide open....

Cluster relations with other Hill schools have indeed improved, particularly in the last five years or so, but I still don't see SWS being housed at LT. The status quo would be v. difficult to change - not nearly enough IB parents pushing to do anything but vote with their feet after preS3, and not nearly enough interest by the SWS parents, yet anyway. Sorry to rain on the parade, but see LT being the same old same old school for a really long time, albeit, sooner or later, with a new principal and better looking building. DCPS almost certainly won't close LT, since it works for the population it primarily serves (especially the special needs program), and the pols can always point to IB enthusiasm for the preschool as a sign it is serving the neighborhood. And that's that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't the higher scores come from when they cheated?

Almost certainly from cheating, yes, but nobody knows for certain. As has been pointed out, no heads rolled, no investigation, none planned.

Right, the real question is how could the scores rise so rapidly, but no one asked that. The assumption was that the technique of demanding results from principals and teachers was working! Passing out bonuses to adults and claiming that reform was successful were more important than making sure the kids had actually improved.

Didn't the Cluster sue Two Rivers and try to stop it from even coming into existance?

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the idea that it would bode well for SWS to take root there will gain traction as parents weary of the trailers, but the Cluster has never had a great relationship with other Hill schools (long simmering Brent-Watkins tensions are testament to this).

Uh, Watkins parent here. You're entitled to your opinion, but I just don't see it. I won't bore you with all the ways the Cluster and other Hill schools are working together, but suffice it to say I see a lot more pooled grant applications, Hill-wide events and collaboration than I do sniping and divisiveness. And since SWS will be leaving the Cluster in 2 weeks, it's not particularly relevant.

This could save LT from being shuttered entirely, which would be a real tragedy for the surrounding neighborhood, and prevent SWS from getting sent God knows where.

Not sure it would be a tragedy if LT were to close. Having lived across the street for nearly a decade, I'd rather see a condo with retail go up on the site than for the school to continue to run as it has indefinitely. We're tired of the largely down-market crowd LT attracts and all those MD plate cars zipping up. DCPS doesn't seem to care if LT becomes a real neighborhood school (as opposed to merely an IB preschool). Maybe the idea that it would bode well for SWS to take root there will gain traction as parents weary of the trailers, but the Cluster has never had a great relationship with other Hill schools (long simmering Brent-Watkins tensions are testament to this).

Anonymous wrote:Don't the higher scores come from when they cheated?

Almost certainly from cheating, yes, but nobody knows for certain. As has been pointed out, no heads rolled, no investigation, none planned.

Don't the higher scores come from when they cheated?

How can a school's scores fall so rapidly?! Central Office proves yet again that they are incompetent by keeping this idiotic Cobbs woman still here:

DC CAS Math 2010: 75%
DC CAS Math 2011: 52%

DC CAS Reading 2010:74%
DC CAS Reading 2011:46%
http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Ludlow-Taylor+Elementary+School
Source:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, of course, the status quo isn't going to welcome a full re-boot in the form of SWS elbowing their way in. It would take a a huge lift from IB families who have already given up on LT (many already at SWS) seeing this as an opportunity to create a real neighborhood school their kids might actually attend. This could be a huge plus for SWS or at least one of the better options available to them (having been through a good half dozen DCPS Chancellors, I strongly suspect getting the school out of the trailers may be even harder than it was getting into them) and a huge plus for IB LT families.

DCPS is going to be closing schools. Period. Closures are coming. The Mayor has said it, the Chancellor has said it. This could save LT from being shuttered entirely, which would be a real tragedy for the surrounding neighborhood, and prevent SWS from getting sent God knows where. DCPS isn't biting on reopening Van Ness, so what's better than LT? Keeps SWS on the Hill, gives them a solid MS option, keeps Reggio at LT while providing the turnaround neighbors want to see in order to buy in.

so, at least we're only educating about 125 DC grandchildren, PG County residents!

Yes - 3 PS classes, 3 PK classes, 2K classes and 1 in the upper grades

LT enrolled students by grade level, from audit on OSSE site

pres: 47
preK: 54
K: 36
1: 22
2: 21
3: 25
4: 28
5: 27

do they have only one section of grades 1 to 5? 3 sections of PreS & PreK? 2 sections of K?