Win-win solutions for Brent?

[Anonymous]

Capacity of both schools together: 825; Current IB populations together: 470. What about filling remaining Tyler space with Spanish Immersion middle school? Does that start to make cluster concept desirable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've posted further up and wanted to reiterate the thought I tacked on here to not think as much in terms of boundaries but rather in terms of mergers. If you frame it as a merger issue, then - so the Francis-Stevens - experience shows, then it may be less contentious. Economies of scale, blah, blah, blah. Now, that would still leave you to deal with quite a bit.

On an aside, don't forget that OOB can mean many different things. Watkins as well as Brent, have a significant number of kids classified as OOB but who really don't live far, certainly with in the broader Capitol Hill area.

Yes, but demographic and FARMS data are telling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tyler's capacity is about 500 students. It's hard to imagine that there is sufficient demand for an in bounds spanish immersion program to fill the school. Most language immersion programs only admit new students through K (or 1st?) grade.

Brent's building capacity is 325 (although there are around 350 students now). While I am sure there are some parents in bounds for Brent who would prefer Tyler's SI, I don't imagine there are sufficient numbers to solve Brent's overcrowding problem even if no additional catchement area was included.

From DCPS's standpoint, wouldn't it make more sense to shift the boundaries a block or two to solve overcrowding as opposed to this proposal which might give the impression that DCPS is favoring some over-entitled parents on Capitol Hill. A win-win solution needs to work for Brent, Tyler and DCPS more broadly to have any chance.

Why is is "over-entitled" to expect decent public schools in our neighborhood, paid for by our taxes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Capacity of both schools together: 825; Current IB populations together: 470. What about filling remaining Tyler space with Spanish Immersion middle school? Does that start to make cluster concept desirable?

I would not want my PS or PK attending with middle schoolers, regardless of SES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Right now, VanNess is the wild card in terms of Brent and parents such as OP should be demanding answers from DCPS.

How is Van Ness a wild card? As an unaffiliated overflow school for Brent? Potential "cluster" partner?

[Anonymous]

This thread is pointless. Sounds like a SAHM needs a hobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I would not want my PS or PK attending with middle schoolers, regardless of SES.

I imagine that a lot of us went to PK thru 8th schools back wherever we came from. I know I did.

[Anonymous]

How do you propose that DCPS go about populating a SI middle school? Offering Spanish as a special does not equate to Spanish immersion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tyler's capacity is about 500 students. It's hard to imagine that there is sufficient demand for an in bounds spanish immersion program to fill the school. Most language immersion programs only admit new students through K (or 1st?) grade.

Brent's building capacity is 325 (although there are around 350 students now). While I am sure there are some parents in bounds for Brent who would prefer Tyler's SI, I don't imagine there are sufficient numbers to solve Brent's overcrowding problem even if no additional catchement area was included.

From DCPS's standpoint, wouldn't it make more sense to shift the boundaries a block or two to solve overcrowding as opposed to this proposal which might give the impression that DCPS is favoring some over-entitled parents on Capitol Hill. A win-win solution needs to work for Brent, Tyler and DCPS more broadly to have any chance.

Why is is "over-entitled" to expect decent public schools in our neighborhood, paid for by our taxes?

All district residents deserve a decent public school in their neighborhood. Over-entitled would be believing that you are more entitled based on the taxes you pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tyler's capacity is about 500 students. It's hard to imagine that there is sufficient demand for an in bounds spanish immersion program to fill the school. Most language immersion programs only admit new students through K (or 1st?) grade.

Brent's building capacity is 325 (although there are around 350 students now). While I am sure there are some parents in bounds for Brent who would prefer Tyler's SI, I don't imagine there are sufficient numbers to solve Brent's overcrowding problem even if no additional catchement area was included.

From DCPS's standpoint, wouldn't it make more sense to shift the boundaries a block or two to solve overcrowding as opposed to this proposal which might give the impression that DCPS is favoring some over-entitled parents on Capitol Hill. A win-win solution needs to work for Brent, Tyler and DCPS more broadly to have any chance.

Why is is "over-entitled" to expect decent public schools in our neighborhood, paid for by our taxes?

It's overentitled because you don't even feign interest in having decent public schools in all neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I would not want my PS or PK attending with middle schoolers, regardless of SES.

I imagine that a lot of us went to PK thru 8th schools back wherever we came from. I know I did.

Really, you had publicly-funded PK two or three decades ago? Pretty progressive. Were there 500 students at that school? I am also guessing that there were not extreme disparities in SES.

[Anonymous]

^^ PP here. I didn't say "decent public schools in only our neighborhood" -- why is it OK or the decent ones to only be in upper NW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tyler's capacity is about 500 students. It's hard to imagine that there is sufficient demand for an in bounds spanish immersion program to fill the school. Most language immersion programs only admit new students through K (or 1st?) grade.

Brent's building capacity is 325 (although there are around 350 students now). While I am sure there are some parents in bounds for Brent who would prefer Tyler's SI, I don't imagine there are sufficient numbers to solve Brent's overcrowding problem even if no additional catchement area was included.

From DCPS's standpoint, wouldn't it make more sense to shift the boundaries a block or two to solve overcrowding as opposed to this proposal which might give the impression that DCPS is favoring some over-entitled parents on Capitol Hill. A win-win solution needs to work for Brent, Tyler and DCPS more broadly to have any chance.

Why is is "over-entitled" to expect decent public schools in our neighborhood, paid for by our taxes?

It's overentitled because you don't even feign interest in having decent public schools in all neighborhoods.

Nice straw man. No one is arguing that all DC residents are not entitled to decent public schools. Unfortunately, DCPS has perpetuated a system of have and have not neighborhhod schools whereby educational opportunities for many are dictated by the results of a lottery in the majority of instances. Schools like Brent have the luxury of being able to afford to fill in some of the gaps left by DCPS and our political "leaders." Other schools, not so much. Brent parents donate big dollars to the PTA because they see this as an investment that bears tangible beneifts for mostly neighborhood students, whether they be IB or OOB. This model cannot be sustained by clustering schools that serve different populations. No amount of standardized testing or grants from the Walton Foundation can change this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tyler's capacity is about 500 students. It's hard to imagine that there is sufficient demand for an in bounds spanish immersion program to fill the school. Most language immersion programs only admit new students through K (or 1st?) grade.

Brent's building capacity is 325 (although there are around 350 students now). While I am sure there are some parents in bounds for Brent who would prefer Tyler's SI, I don't imagine there are sufficient numbers to solve Brent's overcrowding problem even if no additional catchement area was included.

From DCPS's standpoint, wouldn't it make more sense to shift the boundaries a block or two to solve overcrowding as opposed to this proposal which might give the impression that DCPS is favoring some over-entitled parents on Capitol Hill. A win-win solution needs to work for Brent, Tyler and DCPS more broadly to have any chance.

Why is is "over-entitled" to expect decent public schools in our neighborhood, paid for by our taxes?

It's overentitled because you don't even feign interest in having decent public schools in all neighborhoods.

Nice straw man. No one is arguing that all DC residents are not entitled to decent public schools. Unfortunately, DCPS has perpetuated a system of have and have not neighborhhod schools whereby educational opportunities for many are dictated by the results of a lottery in the majority of instances. Schools like Brent have the luxury of being able to afford to fill in some of the gaps left by DCPS and our political "leaders." Other schools, not so much. Brent parents donate big dollars to the PTA because they see this as an investment that bears tangible beneifts for mostly neighborhood students, whether they be IB or OOB. This model cannot be sustained by clustering schools that serve different populations. No amount of standardized testing or grants from the Walton Foundation can change this.

look who's talking "straw man"? (do you even know what that phrase means?). the winner takes all attitude is pretty tired. Schools have to take charge and supplement. That's a given. It doesn't mean the ones who aren't positioned to do so are in any way underserving of quality public education.

[Anonymous]

Seems like PP is just trolling for an argument.