Brent and SWS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree with your point, but just to be clear, since this is the second post that suggests NW schools eliminated or opted out of PK3: the NW schools that do not have PK3 never had PK3, and there are years when not everyone IB gets a PK4 spot. Some of the schools have been trying to get PK3 and have been denied.

[Anonymous]

^Over the winter, parents did bypass the Brent admin and PTA to start a campaign to beat back Latin instruction. They won by convincing DCPS not to grant Young a waiver to teach a dead language half-time. But the leaders, who organized meetings at their homes, had been involved in the school for years.

Parents of rising PreK3ers are tough to find and even tougher to organize in a neighborhood. The rising parents who asked DCPS not to alter with Brent's boundary found this out two years ago, and they were permitted to meet at Brent.

It could be done, but it would be an uphill struggle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This sort of myopia doesn't help Brent. You either run for the PTA Board or the LSAT and, with luck, join the cabal, or you have no say in much of anything. Cabal parents tend to think in terms of sacrificing time and energy in a big way, according them the right to squelch others in a big way. This is what SWS has on Brent - time-strapped parents at the former can get involved in a small way on various committees. One really good thing about the Strategic Plan development is that there were committees parents could join for a change, and people joined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

There are no WOTP schools that eliminated PK3. There are schools that never had it, but as someone who attended 2 of these schools in the 70's, worked at one in the 80's (as an unpaid middle school intern) and sent my own kids to one in the 90's, I can attest that there was never any PK3 during all that time.

PK3 kids WOTP with IEPs have no inclusive options anywhere close by. Allowing kids with disabilities to attend their least restrictive environment, that is their home school, may be one factor in why DCPS is committed to keeping PK3 options at Brent.

[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.

This is very interesting. Unfortunately it isn't accurate. If someone wants to reopen the discussion they can approach the PTA leadership and loop I. The LSAT. The fact is that most parents at Brent are focused on academic issues, not the self-styled second class citizens who feel slighted. Also, for the record, not all parents felt that keeping PK3 was the best course of action and most of those shut out of the lotteries in the Spring of 2013 were pushing to eliminate Pk3 at the community forum held that Fall. If you want change then you need to advocate for it, not sit around and wait for the "many in the neighborhood" who were blessed with the clairvoyance necessary to have foreseen what happened in this year's lottery. Whining on an anonymous forum isn't going to get you very far.

[Anonymous]

^^^ were NOT pushing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is very interesting. Unfortunately it isn't accurate. If someone wants to reopen the discussion they can approach the PTA leadership and loop I. The LSAT. The fact is that most parents at Brent are focused on academic issues, not the self-styled second class citizens who feel slighted. Also, for the record, not all parents felt that keeping PK3 was the best course of action and most of those shut out of the lotteries in the Spring of 2013 were pushing to eliminate Pk3 at the community forum held that Fall. If you want change then you need to advocate for it, not sit around and wait for the "many in the neighborhood" who were blessed with the clairvoyance necessary to have foreseen what happened in this year's lottery. Whining on an anonymous forum isn't going to get you very far.

Give us a break; it's no secret that (powerless) parents have approached the school leadership on the issue on a regular basis. As things stand, nothing is going to get those who are shut out very far, other than making the best of things elsewhere.

I wasn't shut out two years ago, and wasn't shut out this year for a young sib, but still don't like an arrangement that leaves nearly 2/3 of IB families with 3-5 year olds left out in the cold for two school years.

The two community forums held to "discuss" PreK3 were a joke on those who turned up because the relevant decisions obviously already been made well before the "discussions" took place. The world leaked out, and rising parents weren't thrilled, helping motivate some to head to IT, Yu Ying, Mundo Verde etc.

Invalidating the concerns of others on an anonymous forum gets you nowhere so please put a sock in it.

[Anonymous]

Thank you 14:24 for standing up to the bully insistent on invalidating the concerns of those families, past or present, who are shut out for multiple years.

[Anonymous]

Wow- I'm the PP at 17:37- not a male, not currently at Brent due to being shut out past two years for ECE. We enrolled in k at s HRCS rather than attend next year.

Sadly this thread does not make me look back with regret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you 14:24 for standing up to the bully insistent on invalidating the concerns of those families, past or present, who are shut out for multiple years.

Just because people (plural) don't agree with you, it does not make them bullies. Good lord.

[Anonymous]

I'm hoping all the disgruntled ECE Brent parents means there will be many OOB spots at K. Sounds likes there will be. I'll be happy to join the Brent community and make a "community feeling" even if I'm not joining until K and I'm OOB.

[Anonymous]

We are OOB going into 2nd grade, and our neighbors just got in for 1st (after 4 years of putting it in as number 1 in the lottery, and making the best of a less popular DCPS school).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^Over the winter, parents did bypass the Brent admin and PTA to start a campaign to beat back Latin instruction. They won by convincing DCPS not to grant Young a waiver to teach a dead language half-time. But the leaders, who organized meetings at their homes, had been involved in the school for years.

Parents of rising PreK3ers are tough to find and even tougher to organize in a neighborhood. The rising parents who asked DCPS not to alter with Brent's boundary found this out two years ago, and they were permitted to meet at Brent.

It could be done, but it would be an uphill struggle.

I'm a current Brent parent. I didn't realize this is why Latin was changed to Spanish. I dislike the idea of a small group of parents going around the principal and trying to create new policies for the entire school with input only from their small number of like-minded members. Not everyone thought the Chinese program should continue. Not everyone thought Spanish was a better choice than Latin. Not everyone thinks the school should be run by the parents. There is a role for the principal.

[Anonymous]

^You haven't got the full picture The parents asked DCPS to deny Young a waiver to run with Latin for grades 2-5 from the fall. What they asked for was a year in a holding pattern on Chinese, with the DCPS World Languages/Global Education and Brent's leadership waiting to make a decision on the language(s) to be taught. They asked for a process affording significant community input, perhaps including a parent survey relating to language instruction, a new parent committee to consider the matter, and/or a series of community meetings.

Some of the parents, including me, wanted time to do research on how the JKLM schools have been meeting the ambiguous new World Languages requirement (e.g. Janney, which uses PTA funds to teach several languages before and after school in a more serious way than 45 minutes a week of one language, Spanish, at Brent; the Janney kids can get at least 2 hours per week of instruction).

The "renegade" parents didn't ask to jettison or adopt a specific language at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^You haven't got the full picture The parents asked DCPS to deny Young a waiver to run with Latin for grades 2-5 from the fall. What they asked for was a year in a holding pattern on Chinese, with the DCPS World Languages/Global Education and Brent's leadership waiting to make a decision on the language(s) to be taught. They asked for a process affording significant community input, perhaps including a parent survey relating to language instruction, a new parent committee to consider the matter, and/or a series of community meetings.

Some of the parents, including me, wanted time to do research on how the JKLM schools have been meeting the ambiguous new World Languages requirement (e.g. Janney, which uses PTA funds to teach several languages before and after school in a more serious way than 45 minutes a week of one language, Spanish, at Brent; the Janney kids can get at least 2 hours per week of instruction).

The "renegade" parents didn't ask to jettison or adopt a specific language at all.

Or, on the other hand, you could let the educators do the educating.