Win-win solutions for Brent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1. the boundary review is a wake up call brent needs. where's the capacity planning? who's thinking in terms of managing steady increases in the k pop?

Give me a f'n break. If you think Brent needs a wake up call, then it probably is not the right place for your family anyway? What do you think parents and the school have been doing prior to January 2013? Among other things, we have been trying to manage class size by several means, including adding a PreS-PreK multi-age class in 2010, adding a K-1 multi-age class in 2012, adding a third class for First and Second Grades in 2013, dedicating PTA funds to hire aides and math specialists, taking steps to retain full-time music and art teachers. We haven't been running around Turtle Park counting IB toddlers who may or may not attend Brent in a year or two. And what were you doing last March when 14 IB three-year olds were waitlisted? Did you sound the alarm and come to the rescue, or at least attempt to speak with the Principal or LSAT? In any event, DCPS has allocated the same number k spots (50) for the past several years and next year's Second Grade will actually be the largest cohort (57). get your facts straight or shut up.

[Anonymous]

^ Why don't you shut up period rather than spoil and interesting discussion.

[Anonymous]

I am still waiting for the Redistricting Crusader to back up her assertion the EYA and other developers are pressuring DCPS to open VanNess, thus necessitating redrawing the southern Brent boundary to reseed VanNess, as a precondition to building new townhouses. As has been pointed out, all 323 CQ townhouses have been built and sold. Also, as far as I can tell, not new town homes are planned (although there may be new apartments and condos down the road which pushes off DCPS/OP enrollment projections for several years). She additionally asserts that Tommy Wells favors this result. I call BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ Why don't you shut up period rather than spoil and interesting discussion.

Truthiness is only interesting for those who chose to remain willfully ignorant. That way you never have to worry about facts getting in the way of an otherwise compelling premise, such as those who had the misfortune to lose out in the lottery will miraculously save Brent from its imminent demise, like a Phoenix from ashes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1. the boundary review is a wake up call brent needs. where's the capacity planning? who's thinking in terms of managing steady increases in the k pop?

Insult and alienate Brent staff and parents. Check.

[Anonymous]

Can 18:10 let us know exactly what s/he has done for Brent up to this point, other than moving IB? Attended LSAT or PTA meetings? Made a meaningful contribution to the PTA? Volunteered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am still waiting for the Redistricting Crusader to back up her assertion the EYA and other developers are pressuring DCPS to open VanNess, thus necessitating redrawing the southern Brent boundary to reseed VanNess, as a precondition to building new townhouses. As has been pointed out, all 323 CQ townhouses have been built and sold. Also, as far as I can tell, not new town homes are planned (although there may be new apartments and condos down the road which pushes off DCPS/OP enrollment projections for several years). She additionally asserts that Tommy Wells favors this result. I call BS.

I didn't see a post about Wells favoring this result, only one mentioning that it's "on the table."

Why is ths surprising when Henderson has backed re-opening VanNess and got a 10 million $ line item to do it without, apparently, enough little kids in the Capitol Riverfront area to seed the school.

[Anonymous]

05/08/2013 06:17

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Van Ness will have no trouble filling up--there are a ton of families in SW who don't see Amidon as an option, and don't have any closer OOB schools or charters starting in kindergarten. And since those homes are (at least currently) zoned for Wilson, they won't be particularly worried about feeder patterns out of Van Ness.

I would not count Amidon out since they have a very strong PTA this year. I know several families who are opting for Amidon and it appears that there is a contingency of folks in SW who want to see Amidon become a great neighborhood school.

How old are the children in these families? I know that there are some DCPS schools where DCUM parents send their children there for preschool/prek and maybe kindergarten before sending them elsewhere but that doesn't seem to be happening at Amidon. Maybe Apple tree siphons those parents off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am still waiting for the Redistricting Crusader to back up her assertion the EYA and other developers are pressuring DCPS to open VanNess, thus necessitating redrawing the southern Brent boundary to reseed VanNess, as a precondition to building new townhouses. As has been pointed out, all 323 CQ townhouses have been built and sold. Also, as far as I can tell, not new town homes are planned (although there may be new apartments and condos down the road which pushes off DCPS/OP enrollment projections for several years). She additionally asserts that Tommy Wells favors this result. I call BS.

I didn't see a post about Wells favoring this result, only one mentioning that it's "on the table."

Why is ths surprising when Henderson has backed re-opening VanNess and got a 10 million $ line item to do it without, apparently, enough little kids in the Capitol Riverfront area to seed the school.

The DCPS budget document appears to indicate that construction at VanNess will commence on June 30, 2015 and will be completed by August 31, 2015. Pretty ambitious.

[Anonymous]

The problem with this whole "fighting the boundary changes" is that is it not motivated on what is best for Brent, Ward 6 or the entire school system. Rather the motivation is for a small number of families to get a seat at Brent.

What is best for Brent is a smaller boundary for a couple of reasons. First, Brent can accommodate more OOB families. Second, Brent can better control class sizes while keeping the playground and great specials spaces. And third, families who did not get seats at Brent can be motivated to put in some good hard work at other elementary schools.

Many families went to Brent when Brent was a Title 1 school (and not really all that well run) and worked tirelessly to improve the school. This new/current preschool cohort can certainly do the same.

[Anonymous]

^ I'm way down the preschool waiting list yet, believe it or not, don't disagree.

The issue with shrinking the boundaries is that DCPS is really unlikely to approach the problem of Brent becoming over-crowded logically. The logical blocks to go are not the southern blocks, no more than 1500 ft from the school & are separated from VanNess by major thoroughfares (I & Virginia) feeding into the highway.

The blocks that should go are the northern blocks, from Pennsylvania or Independence up, explaining why many parents in the northern section have been half expecting to be pushed into the Cluster for years now. But, no, Peabody doesn't have room for all IB families applying &, apparently, nobody with the authority to shape boundary changes is talking about moving kindergarten from Peabody to Watkins, which is mostly OOB. The obnoxious Cluster leadership is, yet again, receiving preferential treatment from pols to go its own way, probably to Brent's detriment in the long-term.

I'm hoping that the boundary battle drags on long enough to see both Kaya Henderson & Wells out of it one way or the other (she wont last if Gray goes; he can't run for both mayor & DC City Council). With a new Chancellor & Ward 8 CM involved, we might have leaders willing to consider sensible Hill-wide solutions. Nasty PPs can continue to slam every smart suggestion on DCUM without that changing anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The DCPS budget document appears to indicate that construction at VanNess will commence on June 30, 2015 and will be completed by August 31, 2015. Pretty ambitious.

Thanks for pointing this out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hear hear. Not to mention many may have younger siblings that will be affected by boundaries in the future.

No, almost no chance that the younger siblings will be effected. Zero political support for that, re Mary Cheh's bill (which grandfathers younger sibs). IB parents with kids at Brent have better things to to worry about.

[Anonymous]

Probably true but younger sibs may miss out on PS3. Anyway, my point was that current IB families do indeed have a dog in this fight and should be included.