Brent parents: Give me the lowdown on the school

[Anonymous]

I think some of the PPs are looking for bogeymen where none truly exist. Last year tbe ECE program consisted of two PS classes, two PK classes, and one blended PS/PK class. I might be slightly off, but as best as i can recall, there were at least 38 PS-age lottery seats. There also may have been a couple of students placed directly by DCPS through Early Stages or other programs. In any event, there were approximately 16 students in each of the two PS classes, with the remainder filling out the blended class. I should add that each of the three PS-age teachers is excellent.

With the change to the new ECE structure this year, Brent had to transition to four mixed age classrooms of 17 students. My understanding is that these classes are split 10:7 between four-year olds and three-year olds (although that ratio could change to 9:8 next year). This necessitated "reshuffling the decks." In other words, because there were 16 students in each of the two PS classes last year, six of those students (i.e., a total of 12 students) had to be switched to a new classroom in order to accommodate the incoming three-year olds and achieve the 10:7 ratio dictated by DCPS.

From what I know, teachers discussed this with many parents toward the latter part of the school year. While I have no first-hand knowledge of this, I have heard that some parents may have requested that children be separated, something which is not infrequent at Brent.

Some parents undoubtedly were unhappy that their four-year old was one of the dozen who had been selected to change to a different teacher. However, there are both positives and negatives associated with being moved. For example, that child gets the opportunity to bond with other four-year olds not in their class. Also, because each teacher is different, a new pairing might work better for some students, while in other cases, a strong bond my have developed between a child and teacher.

I can certainly empathize with parents who would have preferred that their child remain with the same teacher, as the goal of the ECE program going forward, but to think that some students were "cherry-picked" while others were "rejected" has no basis in fact. Again, from what I heard from parents over the summer, the process of shuffling was ongoing until virtually the last day of school, which left some parents upset/disappointed/angry that what they had been told previously was no longer the case. You also may want to remain mindful that some of the students who were moved to a new classroom have older siblings at Brent and were thrilled to have the opportunity to reconnect with the person who taught their older child.

Was this the smoothest transition? Undoubtedly not, but as the saying goes, you have to break eggs in order to cook an omelette (unless you use Eggbeaters). Could communication have been better? As always, yes, because many parents were seemingly unaware that a reshuffling would follow from the restructuring. One takeaway from all of this would be that, with the exception of a handful of students in the blended age classroom, your rising PKer would have changed teachers in any event under the former ECE structure and I have yet to see any evidence that they were any worse off as a result. Take that for what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The IB waitlist for PK3 and PK4 and the Principal allowing his teachers OOB kids to enroll in PK3 has divided the community.

What's the point of attempting to reopen a banal debate about principal discretion? I mean, wasn't this very topic beaten to death in its own thread a couple of weeks ago? Unfortunately, it seems you just dont get it. Brent is all about building a community of families, which should include teachers and their families. I might very well be pissed if my child didn't get in, even though I knew full well that the number of IB students was going to exceed the number of spaces available. But life is unfair and it's time for you to move on. The fact is that it is remarkably difficult to attract and retain highly-effective teachers like those now at Brent. If the cost is a couple of preschool or PK spaces from time to time, then so be it. In the meantime, perhaps you can reach out to the Rev. Jesse Jacksom to see if he can heal this purported divide. Better yet, just have the balls to stand up and say sometimg at the next PTA meeting, as opposed to trying to stir the pot anonymously on DCUM by singling out some three-year olds who happen to have a parent who teaches at the school. It's cowardly and shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The universe does not revolve around you and your precious child. I too disagree with some recent decisions handed down at Brent, but you can hardly criticize the Administration and LSAT just because you didn't get what you wanted in the end. There was no clear consensus regarding the structure of the ECE program (full disclosure: I was in favor of dropping PS3 so that more IB families could have been enrolled in PK, as were many families with whom I had spoken). Based on what i heard while attending LSAT and other meetings, and discussions with staff, I truly believe that the Administration and LSAT were open to input from the public, even if Mr. Young may have leaning in favor of the blended age ECE structure implemented for this year. There was a well-publicized and attended meeting open to the community at which a variety of viewpoints were offered. In hindsight, that was probably a mistake because it gave a ray of hope to families shut out of PS in the 2013 lottery. You also need to remember that the process was short-tracked as the result of a DCPS decision requiring schools to submit lottery numbers by early November. If you can't get past sour grapes then try to find a greener pasture. The school community doesn't need or benefit from people with nothing better to do than spend the past two two years stewing in their own bile. The school also could do without more assholes threatening to not make a meaningful contribution to the PTA because of some perceived slight. After all, these parent contributions go a long way toward making Brent the great school it has become. It's called cutting off your nose despite your face.

Yes-this is true. Early Childhood teachers essentially "draft" pick the students they want in their class. It's ridiculous and yet again, another example of how principal is pushed around by teachers/parents. We got a teacher that we like but it still should not be allowed.

We're happy where we've landed for PS3 and PK4 and don't see ourselves as part of the sour grapes bunch. I make a point of attending both Brent general PTA meetings and those at our current school. I'm not sure what you mean about assholes threatening not to contribute but the school community would benefit from efforts to heal rifts and prevent new ones from developing. Friends tell me that the mixed-age classes didn't get off on the right foot because the early childhood teachers were allowed to openly cherry pick the PS3 kids they wanted back for their own classes, with about half the kids rejected. Predictably parents of the rejected were up in arms. Some of these processes could be handled better. School communities benefit when stakeholders feel included and valued.

QOTD: "Friends tell me . . . ". Would you care to share with us what your friends had to say about classes not getting off on the right foot? What, in particular, did they find lacking so that it could be potentially corrected next year?

BTW, "Parents of the rejected" is an awesome name for an indie band! I might need to apply for a trademark. Our first album would be entitled "Up in Arms."

[Anonymous]

I can't wait to see what happens when these SAHMs discover that little Eleanor or Justin didn't get into Brent because the DME pushed through set-asides for at risk OOB students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait to see what happens when these SAHMs discover that little Eleanor or Justin didn't get into Brent because the DME pushed through set-asides for at risk OOB students.

You have to throw in a nasty dig at SAHMs? That is irrelevant, plus the sour grapes PPs who are mad that their child didn't get into PS are probably working parents. Parents who stay at home anyway are much less likely to care that their child didn't get two free years of child care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the plan is to return to Brent for K, then, yes, you should support your neighborhood school knowing that it will inure to the benefit your family in a year or two at most. However, you are content to stay at Tyler past PK--- ROTFLMAO --- then by all means keep trying to make it work for you. I'm sure your smug, bitchy attitude has worked,agc on the Potomac Gardens folk.

Wow. Brent parents.... keeping it classy.

[Anonymous]

As a parent with children in both upper and lower grades and someone whose time at Brent predates the tenure of Principal Young, I have not seen any real evidence of parents pushing him around. While I may have my own criticisms, which need not be aired in this forum, Brent has larger and more pressing issues to overcome than some parents being unhappy over a decision to allow a couple of teachers to enroll their own children outside the lottery process. I can't speak directly to the issue of him routinely letting teachers get their way. Parent morale seems to have improved from the situation as it existed just two years ago when then-Third Grade parent were very unhappy as a result of a variety of issues, and PTA fundraising results suggests this to be the case. I also credit him for taking the lead on adding new classrooms for 1st, 2nd and 3rd Grades over the past three years, not to mention K, which he had to do in light of enrollment numbers and trends, and ultimately finding high-quality teachers. Naturally, there were a few bumps in the road along the way, but this is to be expected. I can't speak directly to the issue of teachers pushing him around, even though I feel that I try to keep abreast of information shared provately by PTA members. What I fail to understand is the proclivity to take cheap shots at teachers and the principal on an anonymous forum, as seen in this thread, as well as those discussing Watkins and Ludlow-Taylor.

[Anonymous]

It would be nice if PK3 was eliminated from school since Brent parents can afford other options. Then the Principal could focus on the real core needs of an elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait to see what happens when these SAHMs discover that little Eleanor or Justin didn't get into Brent because the DME pushed through set-asides for at risk OOB students.

LOL. I have no dog in this fight but when I read this my first thought is that no high SES parent onthe Hill would name their kid Justin...too low class. thats like finding a Brayden...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be nice if PK3 was eliminated from school since Brent parents can afford other options. Then the Principal could focus on the real core needs of an elementary school.

Completely agree. If space is an issue, early childhood classes should be eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be nice if PK3 was eliminated from school since Brent parents can afford other options. Then the Principal could focus on the real core needs of an elementary school.

I'm pretty sure the principal isn't focusing all that much on PK3. Then again, I'm not sure what he is focused on.

[Anonymous]

I would like to hear that the Administration is exploring implementation of options like the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) or Primary Years Program (PYP) instead of encouraging parents to piss away time and energies on completing surveys, convening committees and formulating a five-year plan. Honestly, a five-year plan for a public elementary school. P&G doesn't even bother with this anymore. What in the hell are they thinking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be nice if PK3 was eliminated from school since Brent parents can afford other options. Then the Principal could focus on the real core needs of an elementary school.

I'm pretty sure the principal isn't focusing all that much on PK3. Then again, I'm not sure what he is focused on.

I'm guessing he is focused on hiring and retaining great teachers and staff.

[Anonymous]

The school made a short-sighted decision several years ago: to invest heavily in the Emilia Reggio-inspired early childhood curriculum, which promotes mixed-age classes of 3-5 year olds. This was done during a real estate boom in the little Brent District fueled by the parents of babies, which the school missed, hence the shock when 72 names went into the PS3 hat in 2013 (two dozen more than the previous year). Real estate is the problem - Brent is running out of classroom space.

So instead of making the tough decision to eliminate PS3 early this year, as the JKLM schools, Hearst and Eaton did when first pressed for space 15-20 years ago, Brent kept it at the expense of including all IB comers for PS4. The problem may be that parents who've been excluded for both early childhood years are unlikely to be predisposed to knocking themselves out for Brent later on, which is likely to hurt community cohesion and fund-raising efforts long-term. Unfortunately, Brent can't order parents to give generously of time and money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The school made a short-sighted decision several years ago: to invest heavily in the Emilia Reggio-inspired early childhood curriculum, which promotes mixed-age classes of 3-5 year olds. This was done during a real estate boom in the little Brent District fueled by the parents of babies, which the school missed, hence the shock when 72 names went into the PS3 hat in 2013 (two dozen more than the previous year). Real estate is the problem - Brent is running out of classroom space.

So instead of making the tough decision to eliminate PS3 early this year, as the JKLM schools, Hearst and Eaton did when first pressed for space 15-20 years ago, Brent kept it at the expense of including all IB comers for PS4. The problem may be that parents who've been excluded for both early childhood years are unlikely to be predisposed to knocking themselves out for Brent later on, which is likely to hurt community cohesion and fund-raising efforts long-term. Unfortunately, Brent can't order parents to give generously of time and money.

Once again. A couple of parents who are angry that their child didn't get in before K does not equal a problem with "community cohesion" or fundraising. We get it. You're mad. That isn't a "long-term" problem for the school or a short-term one. Brent does fine with current parents' support.