Brookland-Bunker Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a Brookland parent that never used the Brookland schools because the issue above. The constant focus on just reading and math is a totally failed policy because it doesn't even help the kids that are behind and pushes out parents that may be willing to be part of the community if there was a high quality broad curriculum that included not just art and music but also science and social studies. This has to be something that central office gets or these schools are just doomed to be high poverty centers.

Brookland parent here, too. I've seen the work that my neighbor's kids bring home from this school and it's not innovative or exciting: it's drills and worksheets. My kid deserves more that will challenge and excite him, not just be test prep. This is why we are now at a charter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, Burroughs was all about reading and math, math and reading. No language teacher, art, gym, etc, other "specials" were a half an hour a week. A week! The principals at both Brookland Bunker Hill and Burroughs were engaged, dedicated and willing to reach out to parents. Unfortunately, the parents group was totally turned off by the direction and the lack of focus on humanities at Burroughs.

Serious question for parents at other schools that have "turned around" with more IB parent involvement -- was it different at Brent, Maury, Ross before IB parents started sending their kids there? Was it worksheets and math and reading? Or opportunities for hands-on learning? Did you (IB parents) demand that?

Question for Faye re Burroughs: just because specials are only a few hours a week doesn't mean that those are the only time you can learn about stuff other than math or reading, does it? The question is: How is the quality of teaching? Would it be different if a large group of middle class kids were going and 'requiring' more advanced work?

[Anonymous]

Ward 5/Brookland parent here. I was part of the small group Faye mentioned. In addition to the heavy focus on reading/math, here are some other factors I think are at work to keep middle class/academically ambitious parents out of public schools in Brookland/Ward 5:

- The schools seem to be in a constant state of turmoil, flux, and threat of closure. Just a few years ago, a bunch were closed. Brookland/Bunker Hill is itself the product of consolidations. (Renovations to Brookland were promised but never delivered). Now another round of change and closings is in the offing. Maybe it will all be for the better this time around, but the constant state of flux doesn't exactly inspire confidence that the people in charge know what they're doing, and the uncertainty makes the publics seem like a bad bet.

- Poorly thought out/unappealing academic offerings. The PK-8 model hasn't been implemented well, and the middle schoolers (and the rest of the students!) have suffered as a result. More generally, Ward 5 publics have no language immersion option, few special programs (like IB, even Tools of the Mind). The ward's one Montessori primary year program-- at Langdon-- is slated for elimination. What's there to appeal to middle class parents?

- Proximity of lots of compelling charter and private school options. Of course, charters are all lottery based, but people get in. Stokes, Yu Ying, LAMB, Inspired Teaching... There are lots of charter schools that have very attractive programs right nearby. Plus many inexpensive private schools (lots of them Catholic).

- Lack of economic diversity in the schools. This might be a chicken and the egg problem, but it is what it is. Few middle class parents-- even the good people of Brookland, many of whom are committed save-the-world types-- are willing to send their children to schools where a majority of the children are poor. There's a worry that the schools will be focused on remediation, or the classmate cohort won't be a positive influence.

Combined, these things make Ward 5 publics in general, and schools like Brookland/Bunker Hill and Burroughs, a very tough sell for middle class parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ward 5/Brookland parent here. I was part of the small group Faye mentioned. In addition to the heavy focus on reading/math, here are some other factors I think are at work to keep middle class/academically ambitious parents out of public schools in Brookland/Ward 5:

- The schools seem to be in a constant state of turmoil, flux, and threat of closure. Just a few years ago, a bunch were closed. Brookland/Bunker Hill is itself the product of consolidations. (Renovations to Brookland were promised but never delivered). Now another round of change and closings is in the offing. Maybe it will all be for the better this time around, but the constant state of flux doesn't exactly inspire confidence that the people in charge know what they're doing, and the uncertainty makes the publics seem like a bad bet.

- Poorly thought out/unappealing academic offerings. The PK-8 model hasn't been implemented well, and the middle schoolers (and the rest of the students!) have suffered as a result. More generally, Ward 5 publics have no language immersion option, few special programs (like IB, even Tools of the Mind). The ward's one Montessori primary year program-- at Langdon-- is slated for elimination. What's there to appeal to middle class parents?

- Proximity of lots of compelling charter and private school options. Of course, charters are all lottery based, but people get in. Stokes, Yu Ying, LAMB, Inspired Teaching... There are lots of charter schools that have very attractive programs right nearby. Plus many inexpensive private schools (lots of them Catholic).

- Lack of economic diversity in the schools. This might be a chicken and the egg problem, but it is what it is. Few middle class parents-- even the good people of Brookland, many of whom are committed save-the-world types-- are willing to send their children to schools where a majority of the children are poor. There's a worry that the schools will be focused on remediation, or the classmate cohort won't be a positive influence.

Combined, these things make Ward 5 publics in general, and schools like Brookland/Bunker Hill and Burroughs, a very tough sell for middle class parents.

Very well put. Thank you for eloquently articulating the same reasons we have for not sending our child to our local public in Brookland.
Signed,
Another Brookland parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, Burroughs was all about reading and math, math and reading. No language teacher, art, gym, etc, other "specials" were a half an hour a week. A week! The principals at both Brookland Bunker Hill and Burroughs were engaged, dedicated and willing to reach out to parents. Unfortunately, the parents group was totally turned off by the direction and the lack of focus on humanities at Burroughs.

Serious question for parents at other schools that have "turned around" with more IB parent involvement -- was it different at Brent, Maury, Ross before IB parents started sending their kids there? Was it worksheets and math and reading? Or opportunities for hands-on learning? Did you (IB parents) demand that?

Question for Faye re Burroughs: just because specials are only a few hours a week doesn't mean that those are the only time you can learn about stuff other than math or reading, does it? The question is: How is the quality of teaching? Would it be different if a large group of middle class kids were going and 'requiring' more advanced work?

Hi there, Faye here. First, 9:53 - yes! - Agree with you on everything. I'm sitting here on a conference call with lots of time to blather on, so here are more thoughts:

To PP, great point on the integration of "specials" type work into other subjects. I agree it can happen. Unfortunately, we just didn't see that at Burroughs and perhaps more tellingly, they did not seem to see a problem with that. There was some lip service paid during our talk with the principal, but when you actually visited the classrooms, the environment told a different story.

Your second question is harder to answer. I thought the teachers were very loving, affectionate and kind toward their students, and clearly dedicated, but within a very rigid environment of inflexible, questionable objectives and incentives that (I think) run counter to motivating kids and fostering a genuine love of learning. The principal, too, seemed really committed to the school. She knew all of the kids in the hallway by name and they spoke to her with respect but also affection. That was really compelling to me, but ultimately, I think the teaching style is forced by the testing and there isn't room for teachers to truly blossom. There are some really bright and great teachers, though, and I'd love to see what they'd do with greater freedom.

Your final question: I do believe that involved parents (middle class or otherwise) can turn schools around. I believe that even a few vocal (and persistent!) parents can turn the tide, but it is a chicken vs. egg thing. The school needed to make a few moves to convince us it was copacetic with our vision and we needed sufficient families to encourage those moves. When the school took the opposite tact (firing the language teacher is just one example) we felt discouraged, in both a symbolic and real sense. Thus, more parents opted for charters, and we lost the momentum needed to force a sea change. A real catch 22.

What parents did on Capitol Hill is inspiring. Some of those parents were kind enough to mentor us as we started this process and . There are many differences between that group and ours. I believe none are insurmountable, but here are what I think present the biggest challenges: 1. they had a connected, interested, and powerful councilman who could make rain for them 2. (I think this is true) there were fewer charter options at the time to erode the core group so the families persisted through setbacks where our group scattered a bit. If our group HAD to make Burroughs work, we probably could. But at the same time we started feeling like we were tilting at windmills, several of the families found good fits in OOB or charter schools and it's hard to argue for a school that *might* work for your child if you put in blood sweat and tears vs. a school that is actively trying to implement the objectives you want.

It is possible to both believe charters are undermining the public school system (as I do) and yet feel as though you have no choice but to buy into the system and use a charter if it is the best match for your child short-term (with much less heavy lifting and sacrifice required) because the damage is done, so to speak.

I really don't care about AYP, test scores and other faulty litmus tests for a school's performance. I *do* care about the things that 9:53 articulated and further, I believe that when the pressure intensifies after multi-year AYP failures, a school almost has no choice but to focus exclusively on reading and math to the exclusion of equally important subjects and I also believe that when the focus is getting everyone to reach "adequate" the kids who are already adequate or better, as well as the kids who will *never* be at grade level are slighted.

We / I haven't given up on Burroughs, because I still believe dedicated parents can achieve big things. But, we all have to jump in the pool together, and I do not blame any parent for not wanting to leap at this point, when there are other options. If there aren't numbers, there isn't going to be a sea change, if there isn't a sea change, it's hard to get those numbers. What a catch 22! So, we'll try again next year to see who might be willing to invest, and maybe in the meantime there will be relief from some of the very broken philosophies that are destroying all public schools right now (even the good ones).

Realize this is getting long and ranty - best to sign off now!

- Faye

[Anonymous]

Yet another Brookland parent here (new poster, I promise). I agree with the other Brookland parents. And, I also think that the many charters in our area aren't helping things. Even though we aren't any more likely to get our kids in a charter than other DC parents, many of us are bound and determined to try because several are just a couple of blocks away. I know because I'm one of those parents. We thought carefully about Burroughs and nixed it - not just because of the humanities problem - even though we were impressed by the efforts made by other parents. I WANT to send my kids to the local public schools. But, gosh, I can't in good conscience do it. It's frustrating because, other than the schools, the neighborhood is a great place to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a Brookland parent that never used the Brookland schools because the issue above. The constant focus on just reading and math is a totally failed policy because it doesn't even help the kids that are behind and pushes out parents that may be willing to be part of the community if there was a high quality broad curriculum that included not just art and music but also science and social studies. This has to be something that central office gets or these schools are just doomed to be high poverty centers.

You are absolutely correct, focusing solely on the skills of reading and math without offering rich humanities and science, art, music, and foreign language is a strategy that leads to both academic failure and ignorance. Unfortunately, no one in DCPS HQ seems to understand this.

[Anonymous]

I don't think this is just an HQ problem. I think the education establishment is too comfortable with let's just teach reading skills. A rich multifaceted program of art, music, social studies, science and solid math actually require a lot more skill that folks appreciate. It requires a principal that knows the teachers strengths and how to recruit. Not an easy task. So break out the vendor prepared worksheets and you have done your duty. Do I think they do this cynically not really but they are shortsighted. Yes NCLB has made it worse, but let's not kid ourselves it was happening before NCLB. I went to look at Burroughs before NCLB was passed and they did not have art or music then.