Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Making SWS a neighborhood school is not the answer. There are too many elementary schools on the Hill. That's the issue. The reason you see such large numbers of OOB is because (as in the case of L-T) the school has space for them. With fewer schools, the nucleus of IB families would grow and sustain itself. As of now the IB nucleus at a school like L-T just can't get up to the tipping point.

To play devil's advocate - Why not make L-T a city-wide school? It basically is already since it has so many OOB students. Although given the discussion earlier, it seems like any city-wide school option without proximity preference might be a violation of the law.

How would DCPS gain by making LT city-wide? All schools that aren't full with IB students already are effectively city-wide anyway, without DCPS having to create any new categories, regulations, etc. There's absolutely no benefit to this proposal.

Anonymous wrote:Making SWS a neighborhood school is not the answer. There are too many elementary schools on the Hill. That's the issue. The reason you see such large numbers of OOB is because (as in the case of L-T) the school has space for them. With fewer schools, the nucleus of IB families would grow and sustain itself. As of now the IB nucleus at a school like L-T just can't get up to the tipping point.

To play devil's advocate - Why not make L-T a city-wide school? It basically is already since it has so many OOB students. Although given the discussion earlier, it seems like any city-wide school option without proximity preference might be a violation of the law.

+1

Making SWS a neighborhood school is not the answer. There are too many elementary schools on the Hill. That's the issue. The reason you see such large numbers of OOB is because (as in the case of L-T) the school has space for them. With fewer schools, the nucleus of IB families would grow and sustain itself. As of now the IB nucleus at a school like L-T just can't get up to the tipping point.

Anonymous wrote:Then there lies the rub. There's a great school right there in SWS, but it's locked up, and you probably aren't going to have a shot in hell now anyway, with sib pref.

So, is the effort to get proximity much better spent on getting LT principal canned? I've heard direct reports on numerous occasions of how clueless this woman is.

What can be done here? How did Brent do it? Did they have a new principal? Fire a host of teachers? Can you approach principal and convince her to,carve out a language immersion space like Tyler?

This may true for the people who would get proximity preference who are IB for L-T. But, it doesn't address the issue for those people who would get proximity preference who are IB at Maury, Miner, J.O. Wilson, and Peabody. Prospect Learning Center actually sits near an odd juncture of all of these attendance zones, clipping each one, although the biggest chunk is in the L-T boundary area. While the folks with guaranteed seats at K at Peabody and Maury are probably most concerned with wait list issues at PS and PK, the folks IB to Miner and J.O. Wilson may want SWS as an option through 5th. Without an IB area for SWS, the two issues, quality at L-T and proximity preference at SWS, are related but not identical. For some people they are quite separate.

The justification with Montessori is that it's a unique pedagogical approach that builds on growth year to year, and that they need an unusual degree of control over enrollment to ensure that their students are progressing through the curriculum as intended. Reggio has no such strictures and the school is not asking for that type of control. They support a proximity preference. The only reason it would not be enacted is because the central office has their own ideas of what they want SWS to be -- their own little charter.

I get that I'm a PK4 parent, and I don't want to risk my own child's education/experience by going to 1st. Totally understandable. But, isn't there a critical mass of ps/Pk kids from inbounds who, are literally alreadynenrolled there, and if they stuck together, with their preference at the school, be able to force DCPS to listen to them?

Make a list of distinct requests/demands. Be specific. What would it take for you to keep your kids there through 1st? (let's just focus on 1st)...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ludlow-Taylor is 21 percent in-boundary, JO Wilson is 35 percent. Miner - 34 percent in-boundary, Tyler is 26 percent. It's hard to argue that the Hill needs another school.

Since SWS is basically all Hill kids now because of the old IB cluster preference and the current sibling preference, is it really an issue of adding another Hill school? It may be only a semantic difference, but would keeping SWS local really change the IB numbers at the other Hill schools since it is Hill kids already?

SWS is expanding all the way up to 5th grade, so there will be quite a few new seats overall. This year it added PS-3. Neighborhood proximity would effectively create a new Hill school.

Anonymous wrote:A huge problem with LT and a difference between them and other schools who have succeeded in getting new administration, is that most of LT likes the principal and the school just as it is, so there is no unified support of this from the school or PTA. These parents, however, are not IB. IB families mostly leave and once they're out stop fighting the fight, us included, although if there was a meeting to attend, petition to sign, email to send that I could help with I'd be all in. I think its absurd that our neighborhood school does not serve our neighborhood.

That's essentially the battle that Key parents fought over the Principal Pope at Hardy, and he got canned. There was quite a public row over it, if you recall. The Key parents were all outsiders who wouldn't go to Hardy because they felt it wasn't welcoming to IB families.

A huge problem with LT and a difference between them and other schools who have succeeded in getting new administration, is that most of LT likes the principal and the school just as it is, so there is no unified support of this from the school or PTA. These parents, however, are not IB. IB families mostly leave and once they're out stop fighting the fight, us included, although if there was a meeting to attend, petition to sign, email to send that I could help with I'd be all in. I think its absurd that our neighborhood school does not serve our neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:Ludlow-Taylor is 21 percent in-boundary, JO Wilson is 35 percent. Miner - 34 percent in-boundary, Tyler is 26 percent. It's hard to argue that the Hill needs another school.

Since SWS is basically all Hill kids now because of the old IB cluster preference and the current sibling preference, is it really an issue of adding another Hill school? It may be only a semantic difference, but would keeping SWS local really change the IB numbers at the other Hill schools since it is Hill kids already?

Then there lies the rub. There's a great school right there in SWS, but it's locked up, and you probably aren't going to have a shot in hell now anyway, with sib pref.

So, is the effort to get proximity much better spent on getting LT principal canned? I've heard direct reports on numerous occasions of how clueless this woman is.

What can be done here? How did Brent do it? Did they have a new principal? Fire a host of teachers? Can you approach principal and convince her to,carve out a language immersion space like Tyler?

We need to improve the ones we have and thats not an easy task. Tyler Spanish does very well with Hill kids but not sure if any of the others are even close to acceptable for upper elementary.

. . .and that's what a principal who hates "newcomers" gets you.

Ludlow-Taylor is 21 percent in-boundary, JO Wilson is 35 percent. Miner - 34 percent in-boundary, Tyler is 26 percent. It's hard to argue that the Hill needs another school.