Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is the European vacation poster really saying that they travel annually during the school year, which DCPS isn't that impressed by?
I am tired of the people who can afford private, but take advantage of public to save money, and then complain that the public schools have standards for attendance. if you want to be treated specially, you have to pay a premium for it!
But there isn't anything wrong with wanting high academic standards, even from a public school......![]()
Anonymous wrote:Ha, I remember in one of the older L-T threads there was a parent who was sure her child wouldn't fit in at Ludlow Taylor because she had her own Mac and they lived in an $800,000 house. I think she also played the violin. It's hilarious to me that all these sheep refuse to send their kids to a decent school down the street because none of the other fancy parents are doing it.
Anonymous wrote:So what are you planning for 1st grade? Jumping to L-T?
One of our concerns about Ludlow is the obvious remedial education orientation of the teachers. Those we talk to seem more interested in crusading to help low SES kids learn to read than relating to our child, who began reading toward the end of pres3, and not just sight words.
We travel to Europe to visit family and friends annually. We're not sure that she would fit in at LT for K, or that we'd feel welcome on the PTA.
Don't see proximity for SWS (which would benefit us even if the boundary were tiny) in the cards no matter what Bowser has to say on the subject of charters and neighborhood preference...
haha. douche.
Anonymous wrote:Ha, I remember in one of the older L-T threads there was a parent who was sure her child wouldn't fit in at Ludlow Taylor because she had her own Mac and they lived in an $800,000 house. I think she also played the violin. It's hilarious to me that all these sheep refuse to send their kids to a decent school down the street because none of the other fancy parents are doing it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is the European vacation poster really saying that they travel annually during the school year, which DCPS isn't that impressed by?
I am tired of the people who can afford private, but take advantage of public to save money, and then complain that the public schools have standards for attendance. if you want to be treated specially, you have to pay a premium for it!
But there isn't anything wrong with wanting high academic standards, even from a public school......![]()
Anonymous wrote:Is the European vacation poster really saying that they travel annually during the school year, which DCPS isn't that impressed by?
I am tired of the people who can afford private, but take advantage of public to save money, and then complain that the public schools have standards for attendance. if you want to be treated specially, you have to pay a premium for it!
Anonymous wrote:So what are you planning for 1st grade? Jumping to L-T?
One of our concerns about Ludlow is the obvious remedial education orientation of the teachers. Those we talk to seem more interested in crusading to help low SES kids learn to read than relating to our child, who began reading toward the end of pres3, and not just sight words.
We travel to Europe to visit family and friends annually. We're not sure that she would fit in at LT for K, or that we'd feel welcome on the PTA.
Don't see proximity for SWS (which would benefit us even if the boundary were tiny) in the cards no matter what Bowser has to say on the subject of charters and neighborhood preference...
Anonymous wrote:So what are you planning for 1st grade? Jumping to L-T?
One of our concerns about Ludlow is the obvious remedial education orientation of the teachers. Those we talk to seem more interested in crusading to help low SES kids learn to read than relating to our child, who began reading toward the end of pres3, and not just sight words.
We travel to Europe to visit family and friends annually. We're not sure that she would fit in at LT for K, or that we'd feel welcome on the PTA.
Don't see proximity for SWS (which would benefit us even if the boundary were tiny) in the cards no matter what Bowser has to say on the subject of charters and neighborhood preference...
Anonymous wrote:So what are you planning for 1st grade? Jumping to L-T?
One of our concerns about Ludlow is the obvious remedial education orientation of the teachers. Those we talk to seem more interested in crusading to help low SES kids learn to read than relating to our child, who began reading toward the end of pres3, and not just sight words.
We travel to Europe to visit family and friends annually. We're not sure that she would fit in at LT for K, or that we'd feel welcome on the PTA.
Don't see proximity for SWS (which would benefit us even if the boundary were tiny) in the cards no matter what Bowser has to say on the subject of charters and neighborhood preference...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Now that all these non-Hill people are in SWS, they think they own it. SWS owes something to the community in which it resides, and a proximity preference would be a start. We need to keep Hill kids on the Hill, and learning in safe environments. But this thread is about L-T, and its evolution into a neighborhood school.
And SWS remaining a specialized school does nothing to dimish LT as a neighborhood school. In fact, it provides LT an opportunity to better attract from its boundary catchment beyond K. That's up to the school to make that happen.
"all these non-Hill people"? SWS still draws heavily from Cap Hill - probably more than LT past K.