Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live w/in a couple blocks of Hobson and have been witness to low-grade hooliganism from the red polo crowd for years, let us know. If not, don't judge us.

Not just a dozen kids rampaging. At least the cops don't swoop on the SH playground nearly as much as they did a decade ago, to bust up fights between 8th grade boys.

Yea, the older girls' outfits can border on slutty. Draw your own conclusions.

I have lived half a block from SH for 10 years and I have never had a problem with the SH kids. Maryland cars blocking the alley to drop their kids - yes. Behavior problems, no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live w/in a couple blocks of Hobson and have been witness to low-grade hooliganism from the red polo crowd for years, let us know. If not, don't judge us.

Not just a dozen kids rampaging. At least the cops don't swoop on the SH playground nearly as much as they did a decade ago, to bust up fights between 8th grade boys.

Yea, the older girls' outfits can border on slutty. Draw your own conclusions.

I have lived half a block from SH for 10 years and I have never had a problem with the SH kids. Maryland cars blocking the alley to drop their kids - yes. Behavior problems, no.

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love those metal detectors at the front door; that about says it all. OP, if I could transfer to you my IB spots, I would. This isn't a neighborhood school. Safety isn't a priority with DCPS EotP, and so there's no way my kids will attend.

Anonymous wrote:If you live w/in a couple blocks of Hobson and have been witness to low-grade hooliganism from the red polo crowd for years, let us know. If not, don't judge us.

Not just a dozen kids rampaging. At least the cops don't swoop on the SH playground nearly as much as they did a decade ago, to bust up fights between 8th grade boys.

Yea, the older girls' outfits can border on slutty. Draw your own conclusions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, if student behaviour outside the school was a good advertisement for SH, some of us living in-boundary would be more favorably disposed toward enrolling our children.

Agree. We are inbound for the Cluster but at SWS. Unfortunately my daughter has had repeated bad incidents with SH kids hanging out at the Sherwood/SWS playground during aftercare hours, plus witnessed some problems with SH kids near the 7-11. The upshot is that she is now campaigning against going to S-H, asserting that "she does not want to go to a school with bullies, like those at S-H."

I've reassured her that not all of the kids at S-H are like that, and that kids often behave worse when they're not at school, but the truth is these constant run-ins with misbehaving S-H kids make the school a really tough sale to my future middle-schooler.

SH has tons of afterschool programming at no cost. Students bothering 7-11 year olds at Sherwood are the exception. Go to SH afterschool iand you'll see a much bigger group of engaged and well behaved kids doing sports, theater and other clubs. Every school has bad apples.

Right, but the bad apples have been rampaging through my back alley in packs in red polo shirts on a regular basis ever since the shirts arrived, what, four years ago? I was just out collecting candy wrappers they'd strewn down the alley, for the 3rd or 4th time since Halloween, along with their soda bottles. I'm not surprised to hear that the daughter of the PP above has been campaigning against going to to SH. I'm tired of girls in red polo shirts, tight hooker-short skirts and giant loopy earrings shrieking obscenities within earshot of my 5 year old.

Every time we've gone to the school and complained over the the last few years (several times), some admin has assured us that the problem is "in hand." It's not in hand. The only way we seem to get the school's attention is to involve the cops (after the gang becomes a fight club). SH pretty clearly needs to institute some sort of incentive system for the kids to behave well outside the school while in uniform. Not holding my breath.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, if student behaviour outside the school was a good advertisement for SH, some of us living in-boundary would be more favorably disposed toward enrolling our children.

Agree. We are inbound for the Cluster but at SWS. Unfortunately my daughter has had repeated bad incidents with SH kids hanging out at the Sherwood/SWS playground during aftercare hours, plus witnessed some problems with SH kids near the 7-11. The upshot is that she is now campaigning against going to S-H, asserting that "she does not want to go to a school with bullies, like those at S-H."

I've reassured her that not all of the kids at S-H are like that, and that kids often behave worse when they're not at school, but the truth is these constant run-ins with misbehaving S-H kids make the school a really tough sale to my future middle-schooler.

SH has tons of afterschool programming at no cost. Students bothering 7-11 year olds at Sherwood are the exception. Go to SH afterschool iand you'll see a much bigger group of engaged and well behaved kids doing sports, theater and other clubs. Every school has bad apples.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, if student behaviour outside the school was a good advertisement for SH, some of us living in-boundary would be more favorably disposed toward enrolling our children.

Agree. We are inbound for the Cluster but at SWS. Unfortunately my daughter has had repeated bad incidents with SH kids hanging out at the Sherwood/SWS playground during aftercare hours, plus witnessed some problems with SH kids near the 7-11. The upshot is that she is now campaigning against going to S-H, asserting that "she does not want to go to a school with bullies, like those at S-H."

I've reassured her that not all of the kids at S-H are like that, and that kids often behave worse when they're not at school, but the truth is these constant run-ins with misbehaving S-H kids make the school a really tough sale to my future middle-schooler.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure one reason parents choose schools that are far away is for a good reason to lull themselves into thinking the kids behave better there. (Out of sight, out of mind.) Sure, some schools are owning up to it a little better than others, but MS is a bit of a zoo wherever you go, including Deal, where I go by on a regular basis. You just might not see it.

Consider this: I've had my otherwise untroubled and near straight A student reported to me by neighbors about a loitering incident. There is no way that I would have known about it, had it not been for someone I know, who knows my child, and his friends bringing it to my attention. And I we put an end to it. Not only that, it gave us a welcome and very specific chance to have a conversation that you will otherwise simply not have, as much as you may try something like "tell me about what you do after school". I something of a free-range parent but care very much that my kids take ownership of their whereabouts and surroundings, and that they do so in disregard of other bad apples (including parents crossing streets while the walk sign is on red). Having them at school in the neighborhood is invaluable, protects them too in so many lasting ways.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, if student behaviour outside the school was a good advertisement for SH, some of us living in-boundary would be more favorably disposed toward enrolling our children.