Anonymous
Post 01/24/2013 09:34     Subject: SWS moving to Prospect LC building?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:L-T families have only lost what they never had. The real losers are the Cluster families who thought they were going to have preference for SWS and now won't.


This. I bought into the Cluster 3 years ago hoping to eventually send my kid to SWS, and now I'm totally screwed. This is BS. Too bad Cluster parents just can't get it together. Imagine if DCPS tried to make Brent into a city-wide school. The moaning would never end.


Me too. But the current Cluster parents DID get together. They are the ones who screwed us. They didn't want to send their kids to Watkins, so they lobbied to expand SWS to higher grades. Note that they also got to keep sibling preference. They didn't care (much) about the boundaries because they're all in.

The people who did not successfully get together are the *future* SWS/Cluster parents. Like you and me.


First of all, the current Cluster and SWS are not the same thing, and even when they shared a building and feeder they were separate entities. In the initial SWS expansion there was a one time allowance for movement between Peabody and SWS -- families moved both ways on that front.

There's an outsider and an insider perspective to this. Some families may feel left out, but they are probably not aware taht SWS was close to being shuttered outright by DCPS within the past 2 1/2 years. IB or otherwise , it wouldn't even exist as a future option for your infants and toddlers if that threat was realized. It had to move/expand or cease to exist. DCPS made the call on boundaries, not the school.


I am aware that current SWS parents say they were fearful of being closed. Do I think DCPS would have actually closed this high-performing, highly-successful program? Not a chance in hell. I noticed you didn't acknowledge the reality that SWS parents were looking for a way out of Watkins. They got it. Well done. Those of us who bought in the Cluster bounds with the specific goal of attending SWS were the casualty here.


Why would you buy a house based on a potential two years of early childhood education? I get buying to get into the Cluster, but SWS was never a huge part of that. And FWIW, when SWS exited the cluster, more kids moved from SWS to Peabody than vice versa. SWS was never everyone's preference for EC, even within the Cluster.

Also, it's not like pre-k or k slots were lost in the move--Peabody added slots to fill the SWS space. I totally agree that the move last year was pretty ill-planned and ill-communicated, mostly because it was so sudden. But it was actually executed pretty well. And as an SWS parent, I can assure you that most parents at the meeting with DCPS were very vocal about wanting to keep it a neighborhood school. It just didn't make sense for DCPS to do so.
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2013 06:27     Subject: SWS moving to Prospect LC building?
The problem will become, like Brent, what MS does SWS feed into? If the MS option isn't acceptable, then parents will begin the lottery out process in 3rd, 4th, 5th, grade to have certain, and avoid the most likely MS feeder -- Eliot Hine
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2013 04:21     Subject: SWS moving to Prospect LC building?
Anonymous wrote:I don't remember a financial disclosure statement requirement upon enrolling for my child's public education and I'm sure many of my fellow SWS parents will be thrilled to learn of their affluence. SWS is primarily a labor of love for many families who've bought in and fought for the school's survival. Granted it's not the most racially diverse school even with a physical IB extending across much of Hill East, but there's not a lot of ostentatious wealth either. You sound like someone with little if any firsthand knowledge of the school.

Anyone can cherry pick numbers from the DCPS website (which shows SWS at 60% white for SY11-12 fwiw) and it doesn't substantiate your faulty premise. I'm pretty certain if you took a cross section of any number of Hill schools and compared their PK4, K and 1st grades only you would find pretty similar family demographics.


I'm an outsider to all this, but this PP inadvertently points up some interesting issues relating to race and class. S/he is surely right that the cross section in the lower grades is comparable to that of some of the other Hill elementary schools, notably Watkins, 2 Rivers, Maury and Tyler SI. What parents are going to beat down the door for at an expanded SWS is the POTENTIAL to keep the school largely high-SES (if not wealthy! this is a government town) up to 4th or 5th grade, like the Logan Montessori, Brent and maybe Maury in a few years. Such a small program with such an effective PTA has a shot. For the most part, parents who want this aren't racist (or they wouldn't live on the Hill), they're pragmatists trying to meet their kids needs in a city school system that doesn't do much at all for advanced learners/gifted students, which high-SES kids so often are...
Anonymous
Post 01/23/2013 23:32     Subject: SWS moving to Prospect LC building?
Pre expansion SWS offered a whopping 2 years of EC, after which it fed to ... Watkins. The SWS community wanted to extend SWS more than avoid Watkins. Plenty of SWS kids have older siblings at Watkins, so there are families vested in both schools.

And I'm sorry, but if you don't believe SWS was on the chopping block after having its budget slashed you seriously don't know what you're talking about.
Anonymous
Post 01/23/2013 22:37     Subject: Re:SWS moving to Prospect LC building?
I'm a Payne IB parent about to close on a house in the Peabody/Watkins district so we have an acceptable K+ IB school. If it's true that a group of Peabody and Watkins parents helped save SWS so they could avoid Watkins for higher grades, can we expect the middle-class population at Watkisn to...dip shortly? If that happens, really hope we get into a charter!
Anonymous
Post 01/23/2013 22:04     Subject: Re:SWS moving to Prospect LC building?
How many future slots are we taking about at SWS anyway, 2 pres3 classes of 16 each, 2 prek4 class of 16 each and one k of around 25 and one elementary class per grade?

Sounds like almost all the 2013-2014 slots are already spoken for by Watkins younger siblings and SWS younger siblings. Hence the school's expansion sounds even more irrelevant to the LT IB than the ongoing expansion of the logan montessori.
Anonymous
Post 01/23/2013 22:04     Subject: SWS moving to Prospect LC building?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:L-T families have only lost what they never had. The real losers are the Cluster families who thought they were going to have preference for SWS and now won't.


This. I bought into the Cluster 3 years ago hoping to eventually send my kid to SWS, and now I'm totally screwed. This is BS. Too bad Cluster parents just can't get it together. Imagine if DCPS tried to make Brent into a city-wide school. The moaning would never end.


Me too. But the current Cluster parents DID get together. They are the ones who screwed us. They didn't want to send their kids to Watkins, so they lobbied to expand SWS to higher grades. Note that they also got to keep sibling preference. They didn't care (much) about the boundaries because they're all in.

The people who did not successfully get together are the *future* SWS/Cluster parents. Like you and me.


First of all, the current Cluster and SWS are not the same thing, and even when they shared a building and feeder they were separate entities. In the initial SWS expansion there was a one time allowance for movement between Peabody and SWS -- families moved both ways on that front.

There's an outsider and an insider perspective to this. Some families may feel left out, but they are probably not aware taht SWS was close to being shuttered outright by DCPS within the past 2 1/2 years. IB or otherwise , it wouldn't even exist as a future option for your infants and toddlers if that threat was realized. It had to move/expand or cease to exist. DCPS made the call on boundaries, not the school.


I am aware that current SWS parents say they were fearful of being closed. Do I think DCPS would have actually closed this high-performing, highly-successful program? Not a chance in hell. I noticed you didn't acknowledge the reality that SWS parents were looking for a way out of Watkins. They got it. Well done. Those of us who bought in the Cluster bounds with the specific goal of attending SWS were the casualty here.
Anonymous
Post 01/23/2013 18:02     Subject: SWS moving to Prospect LC building?
PWT?
Anonymous
Post 01/23/2013 17:52     Subject: SWS moving to Prospect LC building?
SWS excludes PWT. How did they manage that???
Anonymous
Post 01/23/2013 17:47     Subject: SWS moving to Prospect LC building?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:L-T families have only lost what they never had. The real losers are the Cluster families who thought they were going to have preference for SWS and now won't.


This. I bought into the Cluster 3 years ago hoping to eventually send my kid to SWS, and now I'm totally screwed. This is BS. Too bad Cluster parents just can't get it together. Imagine if DCPS tried to make Brent into a city-wide school. The moaning would never end.


Me too. But the current Cluster parents DID get together. They are the ones who screwed us. They didn't want to send their kids to Watkins, so they lobbied to expand SWS to higher grades. Note that they also got to keep sibling preference. They didn't care (much) about the boundaries because they're all in.

The people who did not successfully get together are the *future* SWS/Cluster parents. Like you and me.


First of all, the current Cluster and SWS are not the same thing, and even when they shared a building and feeder they were separate entities. In the initial SWS expansion there was a one time allowance for movement between Peabody and SWS -- families moved both ways on that front.

There's an outsider and an insider perspective to this. Some families may feel left out, but they are probably not aware taht SWS was close to being shuttered outright by DCPS within the past 2 1/2 years. IB or otherwise , it wouldn't even exist as a future option for your infants and toddlers if that threat was realized. It had to move/expand or cease to exist. DCPS made the call on boundaries, not the school.
Anonymous
Post 01/23/2013 16:59     Subject: SWS moving to Prospect LC building?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:L-T families have only lost what they never had. The real losers are the Cluster families who thought they were going to have preference for SWS and now won't.


This. I bought into the Cluster 3 years ago hoping to eventually send my kid to SWS, and now I'm totally screwed. This is BS. Too bad Cluster parents just can't get it together. Imagine if DCPS tried to make Brent into a city-wide school. The moaning would never end.


Me too. But the current Cluster parents DID get together. They are the ones who screwed us. They didn't want to send their kids to Watkins, so they lobbied to expand SWS to higher grades. Note that they also got to keep sibling preference. They didn't care (much) about the boundaries because they're all in.

The people who did not successfully get together are the *future* SWS/Cluster parents. Like you and me.
Anonymous
Post 01/23/2013 16:48     Subject: SWS moving to Prospect LC building?
I don't remember a financial disclosure statement requirement upon enrolling for my child's public education and I'm sure many of my fellow SWS parents will be thrilled to learn of their affluence. SWS is primarily a labor of love for many families who've bought in and fought for the school's survival. Granted it's not the most racially diverse school even with a physical IB extending across much of Hill East, but there's not a lot of ostentatious wealth either. You sound like someone with little if any firsthand knowledge of the school.

Anyone can cherry pick numbers from the DCPS website (which shows SWS at 60% white for SY11-12 fwiw) and it doesn't substantiate your faulty premise. I'm pretty certain if you took a cross section of any number of Hill schools and compared their PK4, K and 1st grades only you would find pretty similar family demographics.
Anonymous
Post 01/23/2013 16:07     Subject: Re:SWS moving to Prospect LC building?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Speaking as an SWS parent I think you'd be disappointed in the SWS family community. It's pretty inclusive and not as "yuppy" as you seem to think. There's nothing "loosey goosey" about the curriculum either -- it's just a different educational model. From my experience, SWS is more about the kids than the parents anyway.


Not as yuppie as we seem to think? How much more yuppie can you get with SWS nearly three-quarters white + Asian (with many of the Asian children adopted by white parents). That's the highest percentage of high-SES families of any DCPS school EotP, and by a long shot. It's not just a different educational model, it's an affluent enclave open to some diversity. So, for the most part, is the surrounding neighborhood, whether that's around Peabody, or Logan, or Prospect LC. Who can argue that upper-middle-class DC families are entitled to neighborhood schools in which they feel comfortable?
Anonymous
Post 01/23/2013 15:43     Subject: SWS moving to Prospect LC building?
Anonymous wrote:We're squared away elsewhere for school; it's the neighborhood's fortunes that are of concern. Yea, sure, it's all about the kids, but having high-SES parents raising money, keeping DCPS from pulling any fast ones, and pushing for quality doesn't hurt.

If the LT IB population wants more appealing options in the ES choice aisle, they must collectively lobby the pols for them, like the Maury and Brent parents have done, and the Cluster parents did in the early 90s. Maury would have closed in 2004 if Lincoln Park parents hadn't challenged DCPS as a group. Or hope for lottery luck, or pay tuition, or move....

I'm not talking about parents giving $ to the school or parents lobbying DCPS -- I'm talking about engagement of time, attention and interest in their children's education. SWS fundraising grant solicitation happens to be a strength. There's no universal agreement among SWS families on city vs. neighborhood, but the neighborhood advocates just want to retain the community connection, which is an important Reggio principle. I get the impression the SWS community is ambivalent about how those lines are drawn and whether or not they include Ludlow Tayor or Cluster boundaries as much as including the Capitol Hill community connection. Proximity would not entirely serve LT or Cluster IB, as proximity would extend equally to the north and east around PLC. DCPS isn't looking at boundaries or revisiting feeder patterns until its pending comprehensive review.
Anonymous
Post 01/23/2013 15:43     Subject: Re:SWS moving to Prospect LC building?
Anonymous wrote:We're squared away elsewhere for school; it's the neighborhood's fortunes that are of concern. Yea, sure, it's all about the kids, but having high-SES parents raising money, keeping DCPS from pulling any fast ones, and pushing for quality doesn't hurt.

If the LT IB population wants more appealing options in the ES choice aisle, they must collectively lobby the pols for them, like the Maury and Brent parents have done, and the Cluster parents did in the early 90s. Maury would have closed in 2004 if Lincoln Park parents hadn't challenged DCPS as a group. Or hope for lottery luck, or pay tuition, or move....

I'm not talking about parents giving $ to the school or parents lobbying DCPS -- I'm talking about engagement of time, attention and interest in their children's education. SWS fundraising grant solicitation happens to be a strength. There's no universal agreement among SWS families on city vs. neighborhood, but the neighborhood advocates just want to retain the community connection, which is an important Reggio principle. I get the impression the SWS community is ambivalent about how those lines are drawn and whether or not they include Ludlow Tayor or Cluster boundaries as much as including the Capitol Hill community connection. Proximity would not entirely serve LT or Cluster IB, as proximity would extend equally to the north and east around PLC. DCPS isn't looking at boundaries or revisiting feeder patterns until its pending comprehensive review.