Stevens early learning center

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I got in with a pk3 and pk4 (one sibling pref, can’t remember) and I’d essentially have to play lottery for K again next year right? I’m thinking I messed up our orders by putting this somewhere in the middle. I didn’t actually think We’d get in. Whoops

yeah, there's no feeder. It's basically like Appletree in that regard.

Yep. But that might be NBD if you have a good IB school and didn't get in for preschool, or if you have a sibling somewhere that could pull you in for K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:242 non-at-risk families applied for 48 seats.

48 kids got in, 76 were waitlisted, and the rest got matched at schools they ranked higher.

All 20 of the kids with at-risk preference were also admitted.

What I don't know is whether they'll allow non-at-risk kids on the waitlist to take the extra 13 slots reserved for at-risk that went unfilled. What I'd love to see them do first is check with homeless shelters and other places at-risk families get services to see if anyone wants to do a post-lottery application, and then fill any remaining slots with not-at-risk families shortly before the school year begins.

One challenge with Stevens is that it only has PK3 and 4, so anyone with an older kid might prefer a location where the kids can be together.

Right- but almost the entire waitlist is for pk3 (75 out of the 76). And I think most of the at risk slots that were not filled are for pk4. In other words, opening it up to non-at risk students will not help most of the rising pk3 children on the wait list.
There is one problem with Stevens for many at-risk kids- location. My husband works a lot in Ward 8 and he thinks it is a big ask for a parent- even the most dedicated one -- to fight traffic to where Stevens is located particularly if you only have one kid there. So it is not an easy sell particularly if there are pk3 slots in their inbound school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I got in with a pk3 and pk4 (one sibling pref, can’t remember) and I’d essentially have to play lottery for K again next year right? I’m thinking I messed up our orders by putting this somewhere in the middle. I didn’t actually think We’d get in. Whoops

Or you can just enroll your K kid in your in-boundary school and use the sibling preference to pull in your PreK 4 kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:242 non-at-risk families applied for 48 seats.

48 kids got in, 76 were waitlisted, and the rest got matched at schools they ranked higher.

All 20 of the kids with at-risk preference were also admitted.

What I don't know is whether they'll allow non-at-risk kids on the waitlist to take the extra 13 slots reserved for at-risk that went unfilled. What I'd love to see them do first is check with homeless shelters and other places at-risk families get services to see if anyone wants to do a post-lottery application, and then fill any remaining slots with not-at-risk families shortly before the school year begins.

One challenge with Stevens is that it only has PK3 and 4, so anyone with an older kid might prefer a location where the kids can be together.

Right- but almost the entire waitlist is for pk3 (75 out of the 76). And I think most of the at risk slots that were not filled are for pk4. In other words, opening it up to non-at risk students will not help most of the rising pk3 children on the wait list.
There is one problem with Stevens for many at-risk kids- location. My husband works a lot in Ward 8 and he thinks it is a big ask for a parent- even the most dedicated one -- to fight traffic to where Stevens is located particularly if you only have one kid there. So it is not an easy sell particularly if there are pk3 slots in their inbound school.

I agree it's not the easiest location for many at-risk families. Once more of the shelters open in NW and closer to metro lines that could help. And some at-risk families with jobs downtown could find it convenient. It was the place that DCPS had a vacant school building and it allows them to get a mix of at-risk and non-at risk. I'd like to see them use this at-risk preference when they use the Joy Evans center (near Van Ness elementary) and the empty building near Miner for additional 0-3 and ECE spaces. Those locations may be even better for many at-risk families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:242 non-at-risk families applied for 48 seats.

48 kids got in, 76 were waitlisted, and the rest got matched at schools they ranked higher.

All 20 of the kids with at-risk preference were also admitted.

What I don't know is whether they'll allow non-at-risk kids on the waitlist to take the extra 13 slots reserved for at-risk that went unfilled. What I'd love to see them do first is check with homeless shelters and other places at-risk families get services to see if anyone wants to do a post-lottery application, and then fill any remaining slots with not-at-risk families shortly before the school year begins.

One challenge with Stevens is that it only has PK3 and 4, so anyone with an older kid might prefer a location where the kids can be together.

Right- but almost the entire waitlist is for pk3 (75 out of the 76). And I think most of the at risk slots that were not filled are for pk4. In other words, opening it up to non-at risk students will not help most of the rising pk3 children on the wait list.
There is one problem with Stevens for many at-risk kids- location. My husband works a lot in Ward 8 and he thinks it is a big ask for a parent- even the most dedicated one -- to fight traffic to where Stevens is located particularly if you only have one kid there. So it is not an easy sell particularly if there are pk3 slots in their inbound school.

I agree it's not the easiest location for many at-risk families. Once more of the shelters open in NW and closer to metro lines that could help. And some at-risk families with jobs downtown could find it convenient. It was the place that DCPS had a vacant school building and it allows them to get a mix of at-risk and non-at risk. I'd like to see them use this at-risk preference when they use the Joy Evans center (near Van Ness elementary) and the empty building near Miner for additional 0-3 and ECE spaces. Those locations may be even better for many at-risk families.

At least it's pretty close to the orange and blue lines.

[Anonymous]

It is nice that it’s a no boundary school. But the administration is disorganized and communication to families is lacking. I think it needs a lot of work to be a really good PreK focused school.

[Anonymous]

I disagree with PP - my kid is there for prek3 and we love it. Especially given the craziness of this school year with the pandemic, we are really happy with how it’s run. Not a ton of emails from the principal, but necessary info is conveyed and the principal, vice principal, and my kid’s teachers (specials included) are all easy to reach and very responsive.

I would absolutely recommend Stevens to anyone for whom it’s location works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with PP - my kid is there for prek3 and we love it. Especially given the craziness of this school year with the pandemic, we are really happy with how it’s run. Not a ton of emails from the principal, but necessary info is conveyed and the principal, vice principal, and my kid’s teachers (specials included) are all easy to reach and very responsive.

I would absolutely recommend Stevens to anyone for whom it’s location works.

NP Thank you for this review! How is their outdoor time? For all these urban schools I worry about green space as well as walking in traffic to get to green space.