Win-win solutions for Brent?

[Anonymous]

I haven't read anything suggesting that current IB families be excluded. They just weren't the ones to start the conversation.

Why conclude Brent will become terribly over-crowded? So there's a bumper crop of 3 year olds this year. Probably another next year. But there won't necessarily be one every year from now on. I'd bet against it. Houses around Brent are generally small and expensive and good charters are opening all the time. Some IB families want language immersion and/or Montessori.

[Anonymous]

I have a general Q about school boundaries. Are they draw along main streets?

A PP asked if the southern border of the Brent district would be drawn along F. Wait a minute, F isn't a street in the district east of the intersection of F and S Carolina, at 3rd.

Going with F as the southern border would mean drawing an IMAGINARY LINE through 3/4 of the district over to 7th. Does DCPS using imaginary lines as borders, cutting through some houses? Anybody know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This exact same thing could be said of the small group of families advocating for SWS proximity preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a general Q about school boundaries. Are they draw along main streets?

A PP asked if the southern border of the Brent district would be drawn along F. Wait a minute, F isn't a street in the district east of the intersection of F and S Carolina, at 3rd.

Going with F as the southern border would mean drawing an IMAGINARY LINE through 3/4 of the district over to 7th. Does DCPS using imaginary lines as borders, cutting through some houses? Anybody know?

i just took a hard look at the hill boundaries and don't see any drawn along imaginary lines. cant say if this is a matter of policy or practice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This exact same thing could be said of the small group of families advocating for SWS proximity preference.

+1. at brent the advocating families include many who spent their lifesavings on down payments for 700k+ homes in the school district so their kids could attend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read anything suggesting that current IB families be excluded. They just weren't the ones to start the conversation.

Why conclude Brent will become terribly over-crowded? So there's a bumper crop of 3 year olds this year. Probably another next year. But there won't necessarily be one every year from now on. I'd bet against it. Houses around Brent are generally small and expensive and good charters are opening all the time. Some IB families want language immersion and/or Montessori.

This assumption runs contrary to DCPS projections. Given population trends this is only the begininning of a period of steady growth over the next 10 years. Despite the school closings, DCPS has retained most of the buildings to deal with projected space needs over the next decade +. The DCPS Consolidation Report released earlier this year <http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/COMMUNITY/CR/Consolidation%20Plan.pdf> projects a near doubling of the school age population in the next decade. Some of those students will land in charters, but that still places upward pressure on DCPS.

[Anonymous]

I tend to agree with 07:46. Most young couples thinking about starting a family are increasingly being priced out of the Brent market. This reality will almost certainly be exacerbated by further reducing the catchment zone. At the same time, established families with children aged five and above are wary about relocating to the Hill in general when there is no viable middle school and charters such as Latin and BASIS are becoming more and more difficult to enter via the lottery, assuming that they are even right for your child. While I may be wrong, I think the IB uptick that began in the PreS program around 2009 or 2010 will level off, and then start to trend downward, in a couple of years. At that point, most of the three or four-year olds will be siblings, keeping with recent history. Does it make sense to look at dropping PreS in a year or two in order to accommodate larger upper grades? Perhaps, and I am confident the LSAT and Principal Young will be taking a hard look at the issue. However, the roll-out of the RE-inspired program for PreS may make this less likely in the short-term.

Everyone needs to take a deep breath. The school administration is listening to parent concerns as it continues to implement a more robust and well-rounded academic program for the upper grades and ensuring that teachers have access to appropriate professional development, which are key in terms of continued academic success after leaving Brent. Isn't this -- as opposed to hand wringing about the need to bring in trailers -- truly what is most important and best for Brent and its student population? Sure, it sucks having topay a nanny for another year or two, or continue to write checks to a daycare, but this is no different than thousands of other DC residents who did not secure spots through the lottery. Heck, if you paid $1.5 plus, asopposed

The school also needs to have a frank discussion about diversity and finding ways to open spots up for OOB students beyond NCLB placements. Whether that is even possible with 14 rising four-year olds and 48-50 rising kindergarteners will have to sorted out in the short term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The school also needs to have a frank discussion about diversity and finding ways to open spots up for OOB students beyond NCLB placements. Whether that is even possible with 14 rising four-year olds and 48-50 rising kindergarteners will have to sorted out in the short term.

I agree that the limited diversity in the lower grades is, in some ways, unfortunate, but I don't agree that opening up spots for OOB students is the answer. The lack of OOB spots means that neighbors have confidence in the school which is definitely a good thing. DCPS operates neighborhood schools and having a school full of neighborhood kids seems like a success. It's more unfortunate that neighborhoods lack diversity.

Also, OOB students don't necessarily add diversity. A good portion of the OOB students in the lower grades are from other parts of the hill or SW and don't add SES or racial diversity. This is different in the upper grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read anything suggesting that current IB families be excluded. They just weren't the ones to start the conversation.

Why conclude Brent will become terribly over-crowded? So there's a bumper crop of 3 year olds this year. Probably another next year. But there won't necessarily be one every year from now on. I'd bet against it. Houses around Brent are generally small and expensive and good charters are opening all the time. Some IB families want language immersion and/or Montessori.

This assumption runs contrary to DCPS projections. Given population trends this is only the begininning of a period of steady growth over the next 10 years. Despite the school closings, DCPS has retained most of the buildings to deal with projected space needs over the next decade +. The DCPS Consolidation Report released earlier this year <http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/COMMUNITY/CR/Consolidation%20Plan.pdf> projects a near doubling of the school age population in the next decade. Some of those students will land in charters, but that still places upward pressure on DCPS.

I have reviewed the Office of Planning projections but remain doubtful that the Brent district will grow in the manner predicted for the cluster as a whole. The housing stock is finite and many properties will never revert to residential use.. By this I am generally referring to the influx of lobbying firms, properties owned or rented by Members of Congress, and group rentals for Hill staffers. Gosh, ther have to be several hundred of these within the Brent confines alone. Wee these row houses used as intended by families, Brent would have a real quandary.

[Anonymous]

10:41 should have continued

Heck, if you paid $1.5 plus to live in Woodley Park, as opposed to $700,000 plus on the Hill, all things being equal, you still would find yourself shut out of DCPS for PreS and playing the lottery for PreK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This exact same thing could be said of the small group of families advocating for SWS proximity preference.

+1. at brent the advocating families include many who spent their lifesavings on down payments for 700k+ homes in the school district so their kids could attend

Newsflash: everyone spends their savings on down payments for the best houses they can afford. This is not a phenomenon only relevant to families near Brent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school also needs to have a frank discussion about diversity and finding ways to open spots up for OOB students beyond NCLB placements. Whether that is even possible with 14 rising four-year olds and 48-50 rising kindergarteners will have to sorted out in the short term.

I agree that the limited diversity in the lower grades is, in some ways, unfortunate, but I don't agree that opening up spots for OOB students is the answer. The lack of OOB spots means that neighbors have confidence in the school which is definitely a good thing. DCPS operates neighborhood schools and having a school full of neighborhood kids seems like a success. It's more unfortunate that neighborhoods lack diversity.

Also, OOB students don't necessarily add diversity. A good portion of the OOB students in the lower grades are from other parts of the hill or SW and don't add SES or racial diversity. This is different in the upper grades.

The fact that OOB students in lower grades do not necessarily add diversity may in large part be a vestige of the days when OOB siblings could obtain admittance through the lottery or student withdrawals. I know that Brent is committed to accommodating siblings if at all possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This exact same thing could be said of the small group of families advocating for SWS proximity preference.

+1. at brent the advocating families include many who spent their lifesavings on down payments for 700k+ homes in the school district so their kids could attend

Newsflash: everyone spends their savings on down payments for the best houses they can afford. This is not a phenomenon only relevant to families near Brent.

Just goes to show that families renting IB may have outsmarted Brandon, Dave and all of their affluent white lawyer neighbors. The type A's at Lafayeete who are at norisk of being redistricted and thus losing their precious feeds to Deal and Wilson -- setting aside whether this is the gold standard to which to aspire -- are hardly a shing example to emulate. At least we are not being urged to sign meaningless petitions, yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read anything suggesting that current IB families be excluded. They just weren't the ones to start the conversation.

Why conclude Brent will become terribly over-crowded? So there's a bumper crop of 3 year olds this year. Probably another next year. But there won't necessarily be one every year from now on. I'd bet against it. Houses around Brent are generally small and expensive and good charters are opening all the time. Some IB families want language immersion and/or Montessori.

This assumption runs contrary to DCPS projections. Given population trends this is only the begininning of a period of steady growth over the next 10 years. Despite the school closings, DCPS has retained most of the buildings to deal with projected space needs over the next decade +. The DCPS Consolidation Report released earlier this year <http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/COMMUNITY/CR/Consolidation%20Plan.pdf> projects a near doubling of the school age population in the next decade. Some of those students will land in charters, but that still places upward pressure on DCPS.

I have reviewed the Office of Planning projections but remain doubtful that the Brent district will grow in the manner predicted for the cluster as a whole. The housing stock is finite and many properties will never revert to residential use.. By this I am generally referring to the influx of lobbying firms, properties owned or rented by Members of Congress, and group rentals for Hill staffers. Gosh, ther have to be several hundred of these within the Brent confines alone. Wee these row houses used as intended by families, Brent would have a real quandary.

These types of housing arrangements are common throughout Cap Hill and nothing unique to Brent. The housing has always been finite yet more families are living on the Hill and likely there to stay. More Hill houses were once chopped into apartments or used for group houses. The trend has shifted decidedly towards single family homes (in some cases basements providing multi family dwellings). Not all of DC's population growth is families and it's distributed throughout various parts of town. The Hill will remain a popular landing spot for families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? Four blocks from the Red Line (Union Station) and three blocks from the H Street trolley. And we wonder why DCPS can't produce results. Profiles in stupidity.

It's to make it more "walkable" you understand.