Anonymous wrote:The SWS move has expanded the number of early childhood spots available at Peabody and at Logan Montessori (LM will be able to use the SWS rehabbed space). It also has expanded the elementary options on the Hilll - true, other children in DC will have greater access to SWS, but they were expanded nonetheless.

Anonymous wrote:I am so tired of this argument. More citywide elementary spots does those of us on the Hill very little good. We were somewhere around 350 on the Logan Montessori waitlist for PS3 - it's a total joke. Meanwhile, we at least had a shot with our IB school, although we still didn't get in for PS3. The SWS move boosters keep repeating this mantra that there are more EC spots, but I don't see that it does us much good with no preference in the lottery.

The principal said he thought siblings would take 10-15 slots at SWS, per year. So we've got 23-28 additional PS3 slots and have to compete with the entire city for them? Thanks a bunch.

Start a revolution at LT and make it work for you and your neighbors.

Anonymous wrote:The SWS move has expanded the number of early childhood spots available at Peabody and at Logan Montessori (LM will be able to use the SWS rehabbed space). It also has expanded the elementary options on the Hilll - true, other children in DC will have greater access to SWS, but they were expanded nonetheless.

I am so tired of this argument. More citywide elementary spots does those of us on the Hill very little good. We were somewhere around 350 on the Logan Montessori waitlist for PS3 - it's a total joke. Meanwhile, we at least had a shot with our IB school, although we still didn't get in for PS3. The SWS move boosters keep repeating this mantra that there are more EC spots, but I don't see that it does us much good with no preference in the lottery.

The principal said he thought siblings would take 10-15 slots at SWS, per year. So we've got 23-28 additional PS3 slots and have to compete with the entire city for them? Thanks a bunch.

The SWS move has expanded the number of early childhood spots available at Peabody and at Logan Montessori (LM will be able to use the SWS rehabbed space). It also has expanded the elementary options on the Hilll - true, other children in DC will have greater access to SWS, but they were expanded nonetheless. For the LT families who are fretting, waitlists move tremendously in PK. And there are more PK spots than PS because class size expands (from 15 to 20) and it expands again at kindergarten (25). The bottomline is that there will be a lot of families at SWS without any preference.

I think ultimately there will be a proximity preference but that won't encompass all of the families inbounds for LT. Those who are closer to Logan Montessori, for example, would not have proximity to Prospect. But it is my hope that there will be enough spaces for LT families who are unhappy to have additional options.

Montessori, when housed at Watkins, never was a cluster boundary school. There may have been Proximity preference, but it was citywide admissions. They merely used the Watkins building.

Anonymous wrote:Question: When SWS was part of the Cluster, did every family in the boundary have the automatic right to send their kids to SWS once they were four years old? Or were there set class sizes that required inboundary students to enter a lottery if more four year olds wanted to attend than were slots? How did it all work?

SWS was never an option by right, but having IB priority helped in the lottery, which determines all intake for PS/PK seats in DCPS. Between SWS and Peabody the IB families had improved odds for one or the other and could fall back to Peabody for K by right if they had no lottery luck for PS3/PK4 at Peabody or PK4 at SWS. There was no movement permitted between Peabody and SWS pre expansion, and SWS would accomodate new IB student intake for K if space was available (ie ahead of OOB and sibling).

Anonymous wrote:I will say that last year the SWS expansion "rescued" a lot of LT families. Some went to SWS, Peabody, some went to Logan, some went to Maury, some went to Brent. A few diehard fans stayed, but there was a lot of good movement. I think choice in education is a good thing and have been surprised by some of these posts. SWS is a great program, but not for every child. I don't think it would be a good neighborhood model, because for those kids who do not thrive in the reggio model, where would they go. That will matter more and more as it expands into higher grades.

IB kids who don't thrive on the Reggio model are going to thrive, at least by upper-middle-class standards, at rough and tumble LT, Payne, Miner and Watkins? These schools offer the good neighborhood models? Or would they be found in Brookland, where kids are driven miles to sort of learn foreign languages and cultures their families generally aren't familiar with? Or at untested charters that haven't made it to 5th grade yet? Hill parents without cash to burn generally think in terms of thriving by living in the city and making do where schools are concerned. The "right" model is such a luxury at this juncture in Hill history that the concept is farcical.

I was never uncomfortable with the upstairs/downstairs division at Peabody myself. SWS' study body looked a lot more like that of my street/block/neighborhood than the other program's ever did.

Anonymous wrote:

Um, it was a neighborhood school until about four weeks ago. In fact, it is still a neighborhood school, since the last lottery was done with SWS with the Cluster school boundaries. It's only next year that it will be a citywide school.

But Peabody was another option for those neighborhood kids if they didn't want the SWS model, and many people were uncomfortable with the racial breakdowns of upstairs/downstairs SWS/Peabody.

I agree that SWS works better as a citywide option or proximity preference vs. an IB school.

Also, how did Montessori admissions work when it was part of the Cluster. Did inboundary parents have an automatic right to attend the Montessori?

Question: When SWS was part of the Cluster, did every family in the boundary have the automatic right to send their kids to SWS once they were four years old? Or were there set class sizes that required inboundary students to enter a lottery if more four year olds wanted to attend than were slots? How did it all work?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that last year the SWS expansion "rescued" a lot of LT families. Some went to SWS, Peabody, some went to Logan, some went to Maury, some went to Brent. A few diehard fans stayed, but there was a lot of good movement. I think choice in education is a good thing and have been surprised by some of these posts. SWS is a great program, but not for every child. I don't think it would be a good neighborhood model, because for those kids who do not thrive in the reggio model, where would they go. That will matter more and more as it expands into higher grades.

Um, it was a neighborhood school until about four weeks ago. In fact, it is still a neighborhood school, since the last lottery was done with SWS with the Cluster school boundaries. It's only next year that it will be a citywide school.

I still haven't heard any argument why they couldn't just keep the Cluster boundaries, at least until the citywide re-evaluation of boundaries is complete this spring, but I suppose that is water under the bridge now.

It's a citywide school for this year's lottery (2013-2014) which is mostly what matters for enrolling new students.

It was never a neighborhood school -- it shared the Cluster boundaries, but Peabody was the 'by right' school for K (both lottery for PS/PK). When housed at Peabody SWS was part of the Cluster and fed Watkins for 1st; SWS logically shared the Cluster's boundaries. I agree that the boundaries should have been retained pending the upcoming comprehensive boundary review. But the Cluster boundaries were only in place until a permanent home was determined, which happened ahead of the lottery when Prospect was officially closed. That's DCPS's rationale for taking away the old boundaries when it did even as they prepare to reexamine the boundaries and feeder patterns.

Anonymous wrote:I will say that last year the SWS expansion "rescued" a lot of LT families. Some went to SWS, Peabody, some went to Logan, some went to Maury, some went to Brent. A few diehard fans stayed, but there was a lot of good movement. I think choice in education is a good thing and have been surprised by some of these posts. SWS is a great program, but not for every child. I don't think it would be a good neighborhood model, because for those kids who do not thrive in the reggio model, where would they go. That will matter more and more as it expands into higher grades.

Um, it was a neighborhood school until about four weeks ago. In fact, it is still a neighborhood school, since the last lottery was done with SWS with the Cluster school boundaries. It's only next year that it will be a citywide school.

I still haven't heard any argument why they couldn't just keep the Cluster boundaries, at least until the citywide re-evaluation of boundaries is complete this spring, but I suppose that is water under the bridge now.

I will say that last year the SWS expansion "rescued" a lot of LT families. Some went to SWS, Peabody, some went to Logan, some went to Maury, some went to Brent. A few diehard fans stayed, but there was a lot of good movement. I think choice in education is a good thing and have been surprised by some of these posts. SWS is a great program, but not for every child. I don't think it would be a good neighborhood model, because for those kids who do not thrive in the reggio model, where would they go. That will matter more and more as it expands into higher grades.