Brent and SWS

[Anonymous]

We were shut out for ECE but come on people, this whole talk is truly insane. It's a lottery, move on. Either choose to get excited about your child starting Brent at K or find another school and get involved. Enough said. Geez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We got a Brent PreK3 spot for the fall which I'd gladly give up for one at Van Ness or Tyler, despite sibling drop-off and pick-up hassles, if nobody in-boundary could have one. The current system is unfair and fairness matters.

+1

Fairness does matter.

The other Brent parent who said Get Over It is representative of the sentiments expressed by the rest of the posters.


Right size ECE to suit the building and community. Only implement sibling preference for K rather than discriminate against your neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here.

At least the SWS parents get to talk!!! At Brent, we get talked at by pushy school leaders (admins and parents armed with bullet points). Oh, and we get to complete surveys designed to tease out answers supporting forgone conclusions....

Yes. This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the needing hand-holding accusation. The PreK3 lottery situation creates winners and losers clubs, and not just for the two years of tot exile. There's an in-crowd and an out crowd at Brent from the get go, and the fault lines won't be erased later. We got lucky two years ago; many friends and neighbors didn't. They ask us for basic info, everything from where can I buy Brent t-shirts, to can I vote in the PTA election, to who's teaching what, to prepare to join for K because they're not in the info loop and feel like chopped liver at Brent.

Is it a crisis? No. Is it good for the neighborhood and school? No.

If there are "fault lines" in the Brent community, perhaps you should blame the parents, not the lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got a Brent PreK3 spot for the fall which I'd gladly give up for one at Van Ness or Tyler, despite sibling drop-off and pick-up hassles, if nobody in-boundary could have one. The current system is unfair and fairness matters.

+1

Fairness does matter.

The other Brent parent who said Get Over It is representative of the sentiments expressed by the rest of the posters.


Right size ECE to suit the building and community. Only implement sibling preference for K rather than discriminate against your neighbors.

You seem to misunderstand the point of sibling preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got a Brent PreK3 spot for the fall which I'd gladly give up for one at Van Ness or Tyler, despite sibling drop-off and pick-up hassles, if nobody in-boundary could have one. The current system is unfair and fairness matters.

+1

Fairness does matter.

The other Brent parent who said Get Over It is representative of the sentiments expressed by the rest of the posters.


Right size ECE to suit the building and community. Only implement sibling preference for K rather than discriminate against your neighbors.

You're not being discriminated against. Your first born has the same chance of getting in as anyone else's first born.

[Anonymous]

Yes, but my child does not have equal opportunity when trying for pk4. You are granted an unfair advantage by having more than one child.

Sibling preference for ECE is not equitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but my child does not have equal opportunity when trying for pk4. You are granted an unfair advantage by having more than one child.

Sibling preference for ECE is not equitable.

None of the lottery preferences are equitable. Why don't we just eliminated all boundaries and make every school lottery based?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but my child does not have equal opportunity when trying for pk4. You are granted an unfair advantage by having more than one child.

Sibling preference for ECE is not equitable.

None of the lottery preferences are equitable. Why don't we just eliminated all boundaries and make every school lottery based?

I'm game. Believe this is how San Francisco schools are now done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but my child does not have equal opportunity when trying for pk4. You are granted an unfair advantage by having more than one child.

Sibling preference for ECE is not equitable.

Uh ... yes, your child does. He or she has the same odds as any other first born child who didn't get in for PK3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least rank and file parents at SWS seem to have a say in how their school runs. I've watched with dismay as Brent's clubby PTA has become less and less representative since Young arrived four years ago. Brent could challenge DCPS on sticking with PreK3, like the JKLM schools did years back. DCPS doesn't seem to grasp how the arrangement is creating rifts within the school community.

I sat through several -- mostly pointless -- PTA meetings during which parents were made aware of the upcoming Board election and advised that they could put their names in the hat. Sounds like you couldn't be bothered and prefer to bitch about the parents who have stepped up and make significant sacrifices in term of time and energy. Step up or shut up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got a Brent PreK3 spot for the fall which I'd gladly give up for one at Van Ness or Tyler, despite sibling drop-off and pick-up hassles, if nobody in-boundary could have one. The current system is unfair and fairness matters.

+1

Fairness does matter.

The other Brent parent who said Get Over It is representative of the sentiments expressed by the rest of the posters.


Right size ECE to suit the building and community. Only implement sibling preference for K rather than discriminate against your neighbors.

I am left baffled by your post. It seems to be a matter of my way or the highway for you. Remember, there were something like nine families with siblings already at Brent whose three-year olds didn't get a lottery seat. You don't hear them whining about unfairness, supposed back-of-the-bus status, and some of the other nonsense posted above, such as the lack of communication with parents whose kids don't actually attend Brent. What do you folks think you're missing out on? The Fall Festival and XMas tree sale are well publicized on MOTH and other fora, as is the annual RocknoscerosConcert. If you want to stay more informed then take the initiative. There's plenty of information on the Brent website about the Spring Gala, Annual Capital Campaign, strategic planning process and what Brent will look like next year. Oh yeah, just to clarify, sibling preference isn't applicable to K, which anyone living IB can attend as a matter of right without regard to the lottery.

[Anonymous]

I still haven't heard anyone say why starting the Brent program at preK 4 is a bad outcome. I don't live IB for Brent, so wouldn't personally be affected one way or another, but what is the reason for not doing this? If the choice is between half the kids starting at 3 and half starting at 5 or all the kids starting at 4, what is the advantage of not eliminating preK 3 and just having the school start at preK 4? No one seems to be providing an answer to this question. The NW schools with overcrowding problems did just this and it seems to work fine. People who really want preK 3 can lottery into the open seats at other Hill schools for a year or go to a private preschool.

[Anonymous]

Yes, of course. The crux of the problem is that Brent invested heavily in the Reggio Emilia approach to its early childhood program, which promotes arts integration and mixed-age classes, right before a big wave of in-boundary 3 year olds hit the 2012-2013 PreK3 lottery. The ECE teachers pushed for the investment. Arguably, it was a short-sighted decision born of school leaders and DCPS not being on top of baby boom trends. Apparently, they weren't expecting nearly as many as the 70+ IB applicants they got in the 2012-2013 lottery, or in the 2014-2015 lottery either. Many in the neighborhood had seen the demographic writing on the wall and wondered why Brent hadn't.

Brent then cut the number of PreK3 spots from 38 to 30. Now the school is in a situation in which the majority of in-boundary families have been turned away for PreK3 for the first time without school leaders being amenable to a new community conversation on the future of preschool, despite mounting demand for one. Dialogue isn't taking place because Young, the ECE teachers, and PTA Board and LSAT leaders have decided that the ECE classes configuration should stay the way it is for years to come. The school has run out of real estate to add classroom space, at least without using portables on the cramped grounds, at a time when DCPS is renewing its committment to preschool all around the city.

I have no idea where Brent is going with PreK3. Just thought you might like some background.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, of course. The crux of the problem is that Brent invested heavily in the Reggio Emilia approach to its early childhood program, which promotes arts integration and mixed-age classes, right before a big wave of in-boundary 3 year olds hit the 2012-2013 PreK3 lottery. The ECE teachers pushed for the investment. Arguably, it was a short-sighted decision born of school leaders and DCPS not being on top of baby boom trends. Apparently, they weren't expecting nearly as many as the 70+ IB applicants they got in the 2012-2013 lottery, or in the 2014-2015 lottery either. Many in the neighborhood had seen the demographic writing on the wall and wondered why Brent hadn't.

Brent then cut the number of PreK3 spots from 38 to 30. Now the school is in a situation in which the majority of in-boundary families have been turned away for PreK3 for the first time without school leaders being amenable to a new community conversation on the future of preschool, despite mounting demand for one. Dialogue isn't taking place because Young, the ECE teachers, and PTA Board and LSAT leaders have decided that the ECE classes configuration should stay the way it is for years to come. The school has run out of real estate to add classroom space, at least without using portables on the cramped grounds, at a time when DCPS is renewing its committment to preschool all around the city.

I have no idea where Brent is going with PreK3. Just thought you might like some background.

Maybe the IB parents of rising prek3ers should bypass the Brent admin and PTA and start a campaign directly with the Mayor's office and DCPS. Plenty of schools do Reggio Emilia very well (SWS, LT) with single grade classrooms and there is no reason for keeping them if it has the affect of preventing them from right-sizing the preschool to the existing building. The investment in RE wouldn't be lost or even significantly damaged since it would still be implemented with the 4 year olds.