Future of Brent Pk3?

[Anonymous]

Question for those that are against the change:

Why?

It seems like most of the "keep things the same" replies have been focused direct points posters have made in favor of going to only PK4. The one exception is it would block "at risk" students from getting services. Leaving the issues of the pro-crowd out of it, why do you not want the change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brent admins and parent leaders know that the PreK3 problem is steadily solving itself as affordable real estate inventory for young families shrinks slowly but steadily across the Hill. When we were looking to buy a place in the Brent District in 2010, like many of the current ECE and K parents, we visited a dozen suitable properties (2-3 bedrooms, under 900K) in the span of a month. Now you'd be lucky to visit a dozen such properties in the span of a year, in the same catchment area. As a result, there weren't nearly as many PreK3 applicants this year as last, and there weren't as many last year as there were in 2013 (this year's bumper K crop). I doubt that you're going to see younger siblings shut out from PreK3 again, or most of the in-boundary applicants (as in 2015) As pointed out, those shut out will be able to make do at AppleTree or wherever else. I was shut out for two years, know how it feels, and sympathize with those in the same boat. But at least market forces are mitigating the severity of the problem in the community.

I'm not entirely sure this is true. I agree regarding increasing house prices, but there are still loads of young marrieds who have bought in the past 5-10 years but are only now having kids. Add to that the fact that more families are staying, and more families are having 2+ kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for those that are against the change:

Why?

It seems like most of the "keep things the same" replies have been focused direct points posters have made in favor of going to only PK4. The one exception is it would block "at risk" students from getting services. Leaving the issues of the pro-crowd out of it, why do you not want the change?

I have mixed feelings about potentially dropping PK3.

Pro status-quo
- the teachers strongly advocated for keeping the mixed age classes as they were in the best interest of the students
- Brent captures at least some students at pk3 who might otherwise go charter/lottery
- The high number of PK3 applicants is relatively new and uncertain to last

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brent admins and parent leaders know that the PreK3 problem is steadily solving itself as affordable real estate inventory for young families shrinks slowly but steadily across the Hill. When we were looking to buy a place in the Brent District in 2010, like many of the current ECE and K parents, we visited a dozen suitable properties (2-3 bedrooms, under 900K) in the span of a month. Now you'd be lucky to visit a dozen such properties in the span of a year, in the same catchment area. As a result, there weren't nearly as many PreK3 applicants this year as last, and there weren't as many last year as there were in 2013 (this year's bumper K crop). I doubt that you're going to see younger siblings shut out from PreK3 again, or most of the in-boundary applicants (as in 2015) As pointed out, those shut out will be able to make do at AppleTree or wherever else. I was shut out for two years, know how it feels, and sympathize with those in the same boat. But at least market forces are mitigating the severity of the problem in the community.

I'm not entirely sure this is true. I agree regarding increasing house prices, but there are still loads of young marrieds who have bought in the past 5-10 years but are only now having kids. Add to that the fact that more families are staying, and more families are having 2+ kids.

+1

I know at least 6 siblings in the 12-24 month age group who have older siblings at Brent. There are also the siblings of those who didn't get into Brent (ie the Van Ness group).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for those that are against the change:

Why?

It seems like most of the "keep things the same" replies have been focused direct points posters have made in favor of going to only PK4. The one exception is it would block "at risk" students from getting services. Leaving the issues of the pro-crowd out of it, why do you not want the change?

I'm very much in favor of the change, but don't see a path forward with the current principal, and don't want to beat my head against a wall. Also, many of us who want change essentially lack credibility in this fight, now that we've taken advantage of PreK3 at Brent. The school is facing all kinds of other challenges I'm willing to get involved in addressing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those that are against the change:

Why?

It seems like most of the "keep things the same" replies have been focused direct points posters have made in favor of going to only PK4. The one exception is it would block "at risk" students from getting services. Leaving the issues of the pro-crowd out of it, why do you not want the change?

I'm very much in favor of the change, but don't see a path forward with the current principal, and don't want to beat my head against a wall. Also, many of us who want change essentially lack credibility in this fight, now that we've taken advantage of PreK3 at Brent. The school is facing all kinds of other challenges I'm willing to get involved in addressing.

My guess when another 5th grade class is needed, it will force his hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those that are against the change:

Why?

It seems like most of the "keep things the same" replies have been focused direct points posters have made in favor of going to only PK4. The one exception is it would block "at risk" students from getting services. Leaving the issues of the pro-crowd out of it, why do you not want the change?

I'm very much in favor of the change, but don't see a path forward with the current principal, and don't want to beat my head against a wall. Also, many of us who want change essentially lack credibility in this fight, now that we've taken advantage of PreK3 at Brent. The school is facing all kinds of other challenges I'm willing to get involved in addressing.

My guess when another 5th grade class is needed, it will force his hand.

Where are you getting your weed? Your not going to witness 30+ 5th Graders until there is a fix for Jefferson. Young and the rest of us will be long gone from Brent.

[Anonymous]

Your= you're

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those that are against the change:

Why?

It seems like most of the "keep things the same" replies have been focused direct points posters have made in favor of going to only PK4. The one exception is it would block "at risk" students from getting services. Leaving the issues of the pro-crowd out of it, why do you not want the change?

I'm very much in favor of the change, but don't see a path forward with the current principal, and don't want to beat my head against a wall. Also, many of us who want change essentially lack credibility in this fight, now that we've taken advantage of PreK3 at Brent. The school is facing all kinds of other challenges I'm willing to get involved in addressing.

My guess when another 5th grade class is needed, it will force his hand.

Which won't happen until the middle school issue is fixed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your= you're

I think people getting shut out of the charters changes things. Not saying they will go to Jefferson but I could see people sticking around to delay the move/tuition one year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those that are against the change:

Why?

It seems like most of the "keep things the same" replies have been focused direct points posters have made in favor of going to only PK4. The one exception is it would block "at risk" students from getting services. Leaving the issues of the pro-crowd out of it, why do you not want the change?

I'm very much in favor of the change, but don't see a path forward with the current principal, and don't want to beat my head against a wall. Also, many of us who want change essentially lack credibility in this fight, now that we've taken advantage of PreK3 at Brent. The school is facing all kinds of other challenges I'm willing to get involved in addressing.

So, those who get in lack credibility after they take advantage of PK3 at Brent, and those who don't get in and want change don't have a seat at the table for two more years...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those that are against the change:

Why?

It seems like most of the "keep things the same" replies have been focused direct points posters have made in favor of going to only PK4. The one exception is it would block "at risk" students from getting services. Leaving the issues of the pro-crowd out of it, why do you not want the change?

I have mixed feelings about potentially dropping PK3.

Pro status-quo
- the teachers strongly advocated for keeping the mixed age classes as they were in the best interest of the students
- Brent captures at least some students at pk3 who might otherwise go charter/lottery
- The high number of PK3 applicants is relatively new and uncertain to last

Sibling preference also weighs heavily in the decision to retain PS3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your= you're

I think people getting shut out of the charters changes things. Not saying they will go to Jefferson but I could see people sticking around to delay the move/tuition one year.

I'm of the view that you'll actually start seeing families bailing earlier for private or decamping to Upper Caucasia or MD/VA burbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should Brent get special treatment? The overall point of PK in public schools is to provide quality preschool starting as early as possible for at risk kids. Gettong rid of PK3 because some families think it is unfair that they got "shut out" makes little sense. That is why DCPS does not care.

How is it special treatment? Under the current system, if that at risk student is the oldest, they have very poor odds of getting. By doing away with PS3, their odds improve greatly.

Three PK4 classes is the right number. That would allow 56-60 students in each year. That would provide room for 80% of the IB students during the big years. In the smaller years, that would all IB students in as well as 5 to 6 OB students.

Half of inbound students not getting in is unacceptable but 8 out of 10 is okay? Not sure I see the logic here.

Because 80% is larger than 50% by a statistically significant margin. If you can't see that, not sure how else to help you with the logic. It's hard to dumb it down any further.

I'm all in favor of maintaining the status quo if it serves to keep obnoxious b*tches like you out of the school for two years. With that said, the current system helps somewhat in terms of thinning the herd going into K, as opposed to having three PK4 classes which may necessitate having to open up seats to the lottery. I think we can acknowledge that each of the past three years was a very different experience for inbound families with three-year olds and the trend since 2013, when almost half of inbounds families were shut out, has demonstrated lesser demand even without taking boundary cheaters into account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should Brent get special treatment? The overall point of PK in public schools is to provide quality preschool starting as early as possible for at risk kids. Gettong rid of PK3 because some families think it is unfair that they got "shut out" makes little sense. That is why DCPS does not care.

How is it special treatment? Under the current system, if that at risk student is the oldest, they have very poor odds of getting. By doing away with PS3, their odds improve greatly.

Three PK4 classes is the right number. That would allow 56-60 students in each year. That would provide room for 80% of the IB students during the big years. In the smaller years, that would all IB students in as well as 5 to 6 OB students.

Half of inbound students not getting in is unacceptable but 8 out of 10 is okay? Not sure I see the logic here.

Because 80% is larger than 50% by a statistically significant margin. If you can't see that, not sure how else to help you with the logic. It's hard to dumb it down any further.

I'm all in favor of maintaining the status quo if it serves to keep obnoxious b*tches like you out of the school for two years. With that said, the current system helps somewhat in terms of thinning the herd going into K, as opposed to having three PK4 classes which may necessitate having to open up seats to the lottery. I think we can acknowledge that each of the past three years was a very different experience for inbound families with three-year olds and the trend since 2013, when almost half of inbounds families were shut out, has demonstrated lesser demand even without taking boundary cheaters into account.

Weren't almost half of IB families (or more) also shut out in 2015? Not sure of the trend you speak of.