Future of Brent Pk3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to articulate a principled rationale for eliminating PK3 other than it sucks that my neighbor gets two years of PK and I got screwed. I up pose you can move into the attendance zone of one of the WOTP schools where no PK3 is offered and you still might not get in for PK4. It's unfortunate that some are to some degree the "victims" of Brent's success in this regard, but I don't think a scenario by which 40 more three-year olds -- many of whom have siblings at Brent -- would be competing for PS3 spots at places like the Hill Preschool, Appletree, Two Rivers or Eagle Academy in necessarily in anyone's best interests.

I'm still waiting for the argument against going to PK4 only.

Brent is a public community school that is supposed to serve the interests of the community. For the past 4 years, it has some of the worse acceptance rates for ECE in the city. I'm not sure what else I can tell you to change your mind.

- PS3 is supposed to serve "at-risk" students. There are very few in the Brent district and the current odds make it very difficult for them to get in.
- IB families who do not get in are less likely to come for K and those who do (at least looking at this year). It is bad policy for DCPS to drive families away at 3 years old.
- People complain that Brent is not "diverse" enough anymore. Going to 3 PK4 classes would allow a handful of OB students during the smaller years.
- There are very few ECE seats to be had else where on the Hill. Van Ness was a one year solution. And I love how the people who say that Jefferson is too far for their MS kids are suggesting that their neighbors' 3 year olds go to A-B.

I know a lot of parents have put a lot of work into making Brent the school it is today. At the same time, they also have to understand that after a while things have to be re-evaluated. I could be off on my numbers but I think the current 1st Graders had 10 IB kids not get in for their PS3 year. In the four years since it has been 30, 25, 40 (including 9 siblings), and 20. It is time to make a change.

+1

[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.

NP here. While I applaud your attempt at sarcasm and condescension, you blew it by trying to hard. 80%>50%. It has absolutely nothing to do with two standard deviations or any statistical correlation. If you can't see that I'm not sure how else to help you with that logic...

As a wise man once said "I don't think it means what you think it means."

The point stands.

[Anonymous]

If you keep poking the bear, we will need more popcorn...

Brent threads are hilarious in their self-important yet clueless way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to articulate a principled rationale for eliminating PK3 other than it sucks that my neighbor gets two years of PK and I got screwed. I up pose you can move into the attendance zone of one of the WOTP schools where no PK3 is offered and you still might not get in for PK4. It's unfortunate that some are to some degree the "victims" of Brent's success in this regard, but I don't think a scenario by which 40 more three-year olds -- many of whom have siblings at Brent -- would be competing for PS3 spots at places like the Hill Preschool, Appletree, Two Rivers or Eagle Academy in necessarily in anyone's best interests.

I'm still waiting for the argument against going to PK4 only.

Brent is a public community school that is supposed to serve the interests of the community. For the past 4 years, it has some of the worse acceptance rates for ECE in the city. I'm not sure what else I can tell you to change your mind.

- PS3 is supposed to serve "at-risk" students. There are very few in the Brent district and the current odds make it very difficult for them to get in.
- IB families who do not get in are less likely to come for K and those who do (at least looking at this year). It is bad policy for DCPS to drive families away at 3 years old.
- People complain that Brent is not "diverse" enough anymore. Going to 3 PK4 classes would allow a handful of OB students during the smaller years.
- There are very few ECE seats to be had else where on the Hill. Van Ness was a one year solution. And I love how the people who say that Jefferson is too far for their MS kids are suggesting that their neighbors' 3 year olds go to A-B.

I know a lot of parents have put a lot of work into making Brent the school it is today. At the same time, they also have to understand that after a while things have to be re-evaluated. I could be off on my numbers but I think the current 1st Graders had 10 IB kids not get in for their PS3 year. In the four years since it has been 30, 25, 40 (including 9 siblings), and 20. It is time to make a change.

A good test for this would be how many OOB students are getting in for K. Are there any? Because "Diversity for OOB" is a different argument from "Even IB kids with sibs aren't getting in." Isn't it more likely that this plan would mean all IB with sibs and some IB without sibs, but still no OOB?

Brent is developing a reputation for being very anti-OOB, even when the OOB population is still coming from other parts of the Hill, or Ward 6, from the Cluster, etc. Promoting the notion that eliminating PS3 to expand PK4 somehow opens up new opportunities for OOB students doesn't really pass the smell test. That may not be your fault, but it is just simply true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to articulate a principled rationale for eliminating PK3 other than it sucks that my neighbor gets two years of PK and I got screwed. I up pose you can move into the attendance zone of one of the WOTP schools where no PK3 is offered and you still might not get in for PK4. It's unfortunate that some are to some degree the "victims" of Brent's success in this regard, but I don't think a scenario by which 40 more three-year olds -- many of whom have siblings at Brent -- would be competing for PS3 spots at places like the Hill Preschool, Appletree, Two Rivers or Eagle Academy in necessarily in anyone's best interests.

I'm still waiting for the argument against going to PK4 only.

Brent is a public community school that is supposed to serve the interests of the community. For the past 4 years, it has some of the worse acceptance rates for ECE in the city. I'm not sure what else I can tell you to change your mind.

- PS3 is supposed to serve "at-risk" students. There are very few in the Brent district and the current odds make it very difficult for them to get in.
- IB families who do not get in are less likely to come for K and those who do (at least looking at this year). It is bad policy for DCPS to drive families away at 3 years old.
- People complain that Brent is not "diverse" enough anymore. Going to 3 PK4 classes would allow a handful of OB students during the smaller years.
- There are very few ECE seats to be had else where on the Hill. Van Ness was a one year solution. And I love how the people who say that Jefferson is too far for their MS kids are suggesting that their neighbors' 3 year olds go to A-B.

I know a lot of parents have put a lot of work into making Brent the school it is today. At the same time, they also have to understand that after a while things have to be re-evaluated. I could be off on my numbers but I think the current 1st Graders had 10 IB kids not get in for their PS3 year. In the four years since it has been 30, 25, 40 (including 9 siblings), and 20. It is time to make a change.

A good test for this would be how many OOB students are getting in for K. Are there any? Because "Diversity for OOB" is a different argument from "Even IB kids with sibs aren't getting in." Isn't it more likely that this plan would mean all IB with sibs and some IB without sibs, but still no OOB?

Brent is developing a reputation for being very anti-OOB, even when the OOB population is still coming from other parts of the Hill, or Ward 6, from the Cluster, etc. Promoting the notion that eliminating PS3 to expand PK4 somehow opens up new opportunities for OOB students doesn't really pass the smell test. That may not be your fault, but it is just simply true.

Point taken and to be honest I think we'll see in the fall with the rising K class. At PS3 they were very small group (40 or so, 26 got in and 15 IB were WL). They aren't dropping a K class so the question is what to they do once they see the more solid enrollment numbers in August.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to articulate a principled rationale for eliminating PK3 other than it sucks that my neighbor gets two years of PK and I got screwed. I up pose you can move into the attendance zone of one of the WOTP schools where no PK3 is offered and you still might not get in for PK4. It's unfortunate that some are to some degree the "victims" of Brent's success in this regard, but I don't think a scenario by which 40 more three-year olds -- many of whom have siblings at Brent -- would be competing for PS3 spots at places like the Hill Preschool, Appletree, Two Rivers or Eagle Academy in necessarily in anyone's best interests.

I'm still waiting for the argument against going to PK4 only.

Brent is a public community school that is supposed to serve the interests of the community. For the past 4 years, it has some of the worse acceptance rates for ECE in the city. I'm not sure what else I can tell you to change your mind.

- PS3 is supposed to serve "at-risk" students. There are very few in the Brent district and the current odds make it very difficult for them to get in.
- IB families who do not get in are less likely to come for K and those who do (at least looking at this year). It is bad policy for DCPS to drive families away at 3 years old.
- People complain that Brent is not "diverse" enough anymore. Going to 3 PK4 classes would allow a handful of OB students during the smaller years.
- There are very few ECE seats to be had else where on the Hill. Van Ness was a one year solution. And I love how the people who say that Jefferson is too far for their MS kids are suggesting that their neighbors' 3 year olds go to A-B.

I know a lot of parents have put a lot of work into making Brent the school it is today. At the same time, they also have to understand that after a while things have to be re-evaluated. I could be off on my numbers but I think the current 1st Graders had 10 IB kids not get in for their PS3 year. In the four years since it has been 30, 25, 40 (including 9 siblings), and 20. It is time to make a change.

Nice dodge. I don't have a dog in this fight but as a general rule the party advocating for s change has the burden of presenting a compelling case for change. As for your assertion that PS3 is supposed to be for "at risk" kids, I would challenge you to provide support for this. You obviously weren't around when Rhee rolled out the concept of universal ECE as a means of attracting high-SES families to DCPS in the hope of creating more neighborhood schools that would be able to retain kids through the upper grades. As for complaints about "diversity," this term is encompasses more than black and white or rich and poor. The fact remains however that the policy underlying affording inbound and sibling preferences is to create schools reflecting the neighborhood in which they are located, not to further some vision of social engineering. If Brent doesn't have enough "diversity" for your taste then perhaps your living in the wrong neighborhood and should consider moving inbound for Miner or Payne to find what you are seeking. As for families who decide not to come for K, well that has the potential effect of opening up seats for OOB students through the lottery, which is what you claim to want for PK4. I'm not seeing the logical consistency. While I have no disagreement with the concept of reevaluation, where was your voice during the boundary revision process two years ago? In the end, it's up to you to convince Central Office that some Brent families are being treated unfairly. Good luck with that based on the points you have set forth. Remember, DCPS is struggling with schools where fewer than 1 in 10 students are proficient and face any number of familial and community factors that we can't begin to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to articulate a principled rationale for eliminating PK3 other than it sucks that my neighbor gets two years of PK and I got screwed. I up pose you can move into the attendance zone of one of the WOTP schools where no PK3 is offered and you still might not get in for PK4. It's unfortunate that some are to some degree the "victims" of Brent's success in this regard, but I don't think a scenario by which 40 more three-year olds -- many of whom have siblings at Brent -- would be competing for PS3 spots at places like the Hill Preschool, Appletree, Two Rivers or Eagle Academy in necessarily in anyone's best interests.

I'm still waiting for the argument against going to PK4 only.

Brent is a public community school that is supposed to serve the interests of the community. For the past 4 years, it has some of the worse acceptance rates for ECE in the city. I'm not sure what else I can tell you to change your mind.

- PS3 is supposed to serve "at-risk" students. There are very few in the Brent district and the current odds make it very difficult for them to get in.
- IB families who do not get in are less likely to come for K and those who do (at least looking at this year). It is bad policy for DCPS to drive families away at 3 years old.
- People complain that Brent is not "diverse" enough anymore. Going to 3 PK4 classes would allow a handful of OB students during the smaller years.
- There are very few ECE seats to be had else where on the Hill. Van Ness was a one year solution. And I love how the people who say that Jefferson is too far for their MS kids are suggesting that their neighbors' 3 year olds go to A-B.

I know a lot of parents have put a lot of work into making Brent the school it is today. At the same time, they also have to understand that after a while things have to be re-evaluated. I could be off on my numbers but I think the current 1st Graders had 10 IB kids not get in for their PS3 year. In the four years since it has been 30, 25, 40 (including 9 siblings), and 20. It is time to make a change.

A good test for this would be how many OOB students are getting in for K. Are there any? Because "Diversity for OOB" is a different argument from "Even IB kids with sibs aren't getting in." Isn't it more likely that this plan would mean all IB with sibs and some IB without sibs, but still no OOB?

Brent is developing a reputation for being very anti-OOB, even when the OOB population is still coming from other parts of the Hill, or Ward 6, from the Cluster, etc. Promoting the notion that eliminating PS3 to expand PK4 somehow opens up new opportunities for OOB students doesn't really pass the smell test. That may not be your fault, but it is just simply true.

Point taken and to be honest I think we'll see in the fall with the rising K class. At PS3 they were very small group (40 or so, 26 got in and 15 IB were WL). They aren't dropping a K class so the question is what to they do once they see the more solid enrollment numbers in August.

I think you can expect to see three classrooms with at least 22 kids each. That could mean taking upwards of 20 kids off the WL as there were only a couple of seats offered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to keep happening unless something changes (ie, more spots or only PK4). I fail to see a downward trend in recent years. There will be years where 40% get in and years where 66% get in (the 2016 lottery) but I fail to see the situation working itself out without a change at the school.

The school doesn't get to decide on its own whether to discontinue PK3. Which would be the next Capitol Hill school to do so? Peabody? Maury? SWS? Van Ness?

Hard to say, looking at the 2015 numbers:

Peabody: They offer over 60 seats for PS3 meaning more of their of their IB kids get in (60 of 80 in '14, 61 of 99 in '15)
Maury: Their numbers are as bad as Brent's. However they are getting additional classrooms in the next few years (6 or 8) which should ease the crunch
SWS: Correct me if I'm wrong by they are city wide so they don't have to worry about IB students
VN: Judging by posts on this board, it sounds like they have 2+ classes of IB students. However they have guaranteed admission for IB PS3 students. So really the question for VN is when does that go away?

Why would that go away?

I think it will stay until the school is filled up through 5th and it's clear whether a majority of the students are Title 1 eligible or not.

It should go away if the school isn't Title I. They offered it in 2015-16 since it was a new school and they didn't know the demographics of the IB students, and again in 16-17 because they hadn't released the Title I data. But guaranteed IB is only for Title I schools. If it's not a Title I school, it doesn't need the guarantee. They can always restore the guarantee if it's a Title I school again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to articulate a principled rationale for eliminating PK3 other than it sucks that my neighbor gets two years of PK and I got screwed. I up pose you can move into the attendance zone of one of the WOTP schools where no PK3 is offered and you still might not get in for PK4. It's unfortunate that some are to some degree the "victims" of Brent's success in this regard, but I don't think a scenario by which 40 more three-year olds -- many of whom have siblings at Brent -- would be competing for PS3 spots at places like the Hill Preschool, Appletree, Two Rivers or Eagle Academy in necessarily in anyone's best interests.

I'm still waiting for the argument against going to PK4 only.

Brent is a public community school that is supposed to serve the interests of the community. For the past 4 years, it has some of the worse acceptance rates for ECE in the city. I'm not sure what else I can tell you to change your mind.

- PS3 is supposed to serve "at-risk" students. There are very few in the Brent district and the current odds make it very difficult for them to get in.
- IB families who do not get in are less likely to come for K and those who do (at least looking at this year). It is bad policy for DCPS to drive families away at 3 years old.
- People complain that Brent is not "diverse" enough anymore. Going to 3 PK4 classes would allow a handful of OB students during the smaller years.
- There are very few ECE seats to be had else where on the Hill. Van Ness was a one year solution. And I love how the people who say that Jefferson is too far for their MS kids are suggesting that their neighbors' 3 year olds go to A-B.

I know a lot of parents have put a lot of work into making Brent the school it is today. At the same time, they also have to understand that after a while things have to be re-evaluated. I could be off on my numbers but I think the current 1st Graders had 10 IB kids not get in for their PS3 year. In the four years since it has been 30, 25, 40 (including 9 siblings), and 20. It is time to make a change.

Nice dodge. I don't have a dog in this fight but as a general rule the party advocating for s change has the burden of presenting a compelling case for change. As for your assertion that PS3 is supposed to be for "at risk" kids, I would challenge you to provide support for this. You obviously weren't around when Rhee rolled out the concept of universal ECE as a means of attracting high-SES families to DCPS in the hope of creating more neighborhood schools that would be able to retain kids through the upper grades. As for complaints about "diversity," this term is encompasses more than black and white or rich and poor. The fact remains however that the policy underlying affording inbound and sibling preferences is to create schools reflecting the neighborhood in which they are located, not to further some vision of social engineering. If Brent doesn't have enough "diversity" for your taste then perhaps your living in the wrong neighborhood and should consider moving inbound for Miner or Payne to find what you are seeking. As for families who decide not to come for K, well that has the potential effect of opening up seats for OOB students through the lottery, which is what you claim to want for PK4. I'm not seeing the logical consistency. While I have no disagreement with the concept of reevaluation, where was your voice during the boundary revision process two years ago? In the end, it's up to you to convince Central Office that some Brent families are being treated unfairly. Good luck with that based on the points you have set forth. Remember, DCPS is struggling with schools where fewer than 1 in 10 students are proficient and face any number of familial and community factors that we can't begin to understand.

So you are just picking a fight then?

There have been several posts regarding how Brent has some of the lowest % of IB students getting into ECE. People talked about IB siblings not getting in and how that basically never happens across the city. Those numbers have been up since page 1. You said you wanted a compelling reason, as it seems like the numbers were enough, I passed along some other commons themes I have heard against explaining PK4 and provided counter points.

I'm not sure what the boundary has to do with PS3 as this isn't a boundary issue (although I attended several meetings and supported the Brent community). The fact is Brent has enough IB students to support 3 classes in Grades K-4. The problem is they only offer 2 classes in PS3 and PK4 and they are limited as to their size. Moving to 3 PK4 classes corrects that and just makes sense.

If you don't have a dog in the fight, I would ask you not to troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to articulate a principled rationale for eliminating PK3 other than it sucks that my neighbor gets two years of PK and I got screwed. I up pose you can move into the attendance zone of one of the WOTP schools where no PK3 is offered and you still might not get in for PK4. It's unfortunate that some are to some degree the "victims" of Brent's success in this regard, but I don't think a scenario by which 40 more three-year olds -- many of whom have siblings at Brent -- would be competing for PS3 spots at places like the Hill Preschool, Appletree, Two Rivers or Eagle Academy in necessarily in anyone's best interests.

I'm still waiting for the argument against going to PK4 only.

Brent is a public community school that is supposed to serve the interests of the community. For the past 4 years, it has some of the worse acceptance rates for ECE in the city. I'm not sure what else I can tell you to change your mind.

- PS3 is supposed to serve "at-risk" students. There are very few in the Brent district and the current odds make it very difficult for them to get in.
- IB families who do not get in are less likely to come for K and those who do (at least looking at this year). It is bad policy for DCPS to drive families away at 3 years old.
- People complain that Brent is not "diverse" enough anymore. Going to 3 PK4 classes would allow a handful of OB students during the smaller years.
- There are very few ECE seats to be had else where on the Hill. Van Ness was a one year solution. And I love how the people who say that Jefferson is too far for their MS kids are suggesting that their neighbors' 3 year olds go to A-B.

I know a lot of parents have put a lot of work into making Brent the school it is today. At the same time, they also have to understand that after a while things have to be re-evaluated. I could be off on my numbers but I think the current 1st Graders had 10 IB kids not get in for their PS3 year. In the four years since it has been 30, 25, 40 (including 9 siblings), and 20. It is time to make a change.

Nice dodge. I don't have a dog in this fight but as a general rule the party advocating for s change has the burden of presenting a compelling case for change. As for your assertion that PS3 is supposed to be for "at risk" kids, I would challenge you to provide support for this. You obviously weren't around when Rhee rolled out the concept of universal ECE as a means of attracting high-SES families to DCPS in the hope of creating more neighborhood schools that would be able to retain kids through the upper grades. As for complaints about "diversity," this term is encompasses more than black and white or rich and poor. The fact remains however that the policy underlying affording inbound and sibling preferences is to create schools reflecting the neighborhood in which they are located, not to further some vision of social engineering. If Brent doesn't have enough "diversity" for your taste then perhaps your living in the wrong neighborhood and should consider moving inbound for Miner or Payne to find what you are seeking. As for families who decide not to come for K, well that has the potential effect of opening up seats for OOB students through the lottery, which is what you claim to want for PK4. I'm not seeing the logical consistency. While I have no disagreement with the concept of reevaluation, where was your voice during the boundary revision process two years ago? In the end, it's up to you to convince Central Office that some Brent families are being treated unfairly. Good luck with that based on the points you have set forth. Remember, DCPS is struggling with schools where fewer than 1 in 10 students are proficient and face any number of familial and community factors that we can't begin to understand.

So you are just picking a fight then?

There have been several posts regarding how Brent has some of the lowest % of IB students getting into ECE. People talked about IB siblings not getting in and how that basically never happens across the city. Those numbers have been up since page 1. You said you wanted a compelling reason, as it seems like the numbers were enough, I passed along some other commons themes I have heard against explaining PK4 and provided counter points.

I'm not sure what the boundary has to do with PS3 as this isn't a boundary issue (although I attended several meetings and supported the Brent community). The fact is Brent has enough IB students to support 3 classes in Grades K-4. The problem is they only offer 2 classes in PS3 and PK4 and they are limited as to their size. Moving to 3 PK4 classes corrects that and just makes sense.

If you don't have a dog in the fight, I would ask you not to troll.

Brent actually has four mixed age ECE classes. Prior to the current iteration it had two PK3 classrooms, two PK4 classrooms and one mixed-age ECE classroom. Perhaps you should arm yourself with accurate information before opining about what's wrong with the school and how it should be fixed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to articulate a principled rationale for eliminating PK3 other than it sucks that my neighbor gets two years of PK and I got screwed. I up pose you can move into the attendance zone of one of the WOTP schools where no PK3 is offered and you still might not get in for PK4. It's unfortunate that some are to some degree the "victims" of Brent's success in this regard, but I don't think a scenario by which 40 more three-year olds -- many of whom have siblings at Brent -- would be competing for PS3 spots at places like the Hill Preschool, Appletree, Two Rivers or Eagle Academy in necessarily in anyone's best interests.

I'm still waiting for the argument against going to PK4 only.

Brent is a public community school that is supposed to serve the interests of the community. For the past 4 years, it has some of the worse acceptance rates for ECE in the city. I'm not sure what else I can tell you to change your mind.

- PS3 is supposed to serve "at-risk" students. There are very few in the Brent district and the current odds make it very difficult for them to get in.
- IB families who do not get in are less likely to come for K and those who do (at least looking at this year). It is bad policy for DCPS to drive families away at 3 years old.
- People complain that Brent is not "diverse" enough anymore. Going to 3 PK4 classes would allow a handful of OB students during the smaller years.
- There are very few ECE seats to be had else where on the Hill. Van Ness was a one year solution. And I love how the people who say that Jefferson is too far for their MS kids are suggesting that their neighbors' 3 year olds go to A-B.

I know a lot of parents have put a lot of work into making Brent the school it is today. At the same time, they also have to understand that after a while things have to be re-evaluated. I could be off on my numbers but I think the current 1st Graders had 10 IB kids not get in for their PS3 year. In the four years since it has been 30, 25, 40 (including 9 siblings), and 20. It is time to make a change.

Nice dodge. I don't have a dog in this fight but as a general rule the party advocating for s change has the burden of presenting a compelling case for change. As for your assertion that PS3 is supposed to be for "at risk" kids, I would challenge you to provide support for this. You obviously weren't around when Rhee rolled out the concept of universal ECE as a means of attracting high-SES families to DCPS in the hope of creating more neighborhood schools that would be able to retain kids through the upper grades. As for complaints about "diversity," this term is encompasses more than black and white or rich and poor. The fact remains however that the policy underlying affording inbound and sibling preferences is to create schools reflecting the neighborhood in which they are located, not to further some vision of social engineering. If Brent doesn't have enough "diversity" for your taste then perhaps your living in the wrong neighborhood and should consider moving inbound for Miner or Payne to find what you are seeking. As for families who decide not to come for K, well that has the potential effect of opening up seats for OOB students through the lottery, which is what you claim to want for PK4. I'm not seeing the logical consistency. While I have no disagreement with the concept of reevaluation, where was your voice during the boundary revision process two years ago? In the end, it's up to you to convince Central Office that some Brent families are being treated unfairly. Good luck with that based on the points you have set forth. Remember, DCPS is struggling with schools where fewer than 1 in 10 students are proficient and face any number of familial and community factors that we can't begin to understand.

So you are just picking a fight then?

There have been several posts regarding how Brent has some of the lowest % of IB students getting into ECE. People talked about IB siblings not getting in and how that basically never happens across the city. Those numbers have been up since page 1. You said you wanted a compelling reason, as it seems like the numbers were enough, I passed along some other commons themes I have heard against explaining PK4 and provided counter points.

I'm not sure what the boundary has to do with PS3 as this isn't a boundary issue (although I attended several meetings and supported the Brent community). The fact is Brent has enough IB students to support 3 classes in Grades K-4. The problem is they only offer 2 classes in PS3 and PK4 and they are limited as to their size. Moving to 3 PK4 classes corrects that and just makes sense.

If you don't have a dog in the fight, I would ask you not to troll.

+1 I have no idea why someone without a dog in this fight would troll and try to poke holes in people's points without offering up any substance (oh, wait, this is DCUM...). I still have yet to hear a compelling reason not to move to three PK4 classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to articulate a principled rationale for eliminating PK3 other than it sucks that my neighbor gets two years of PK and I got screwed. I up pose you can move into the attendance zone of one of the WOTP schools where no PK3 is offered and you still might not get in for PK4. It's unfortunate that some are to some degree the "victims" of Brent's success in this regard, but I don't think a scenario by which 40 more three-year olds -- many of whom have siblings at Brent -- would be competing for PS3 spots at places like the Hill Preschool, Appletree, Two Rivers or Eagle Academy in necessarily in anyone's best interests.

I'm still waiting for the argument against going to PK4 only.

Brent is a public community school that is supposed to serve the interests of the community. For the past 4 years, it has some of the worse acceptance rates for ECE in the city. I'm not sure what else I can tell you to change your mind.

- PS3 is supposed to serve "at-risk" students. There are very few in the Brent district and the current odds make it very difficult for them to get in.
- IB families who do not get in are less likely to come for K and those who do (at least looking at this year). It is bad policy for DCPS to drive families away at 3 years old.
- People complain that Brent is not "diverse" enough anymore. Going to 3 PK4 classes would allow a handful of OB students during the smaller years.
- There are very few ECE seats to be had else where on the Hill. Van Ness was a one year solution. And I love how the people who say that Jefferson is too far for their MS kids are suggesting that their neighbors' 3 year olds go to A-B.

I know a lot of parents have put a lot of work into making Brent the school it is today. At the same time, they also have to understand that after a while things have to be re-evaluated. I could be off on my numbers but I think the current 1st Graders had 10 IB kids not get in for their PS3 year. In the four years since it has been 30, 25, 40 (including 9 siblings), and 20. It is time to make a change.

Nice dodge. I don't have a dog in this fight but as a general rule the party advocating for s change has the burden of presenting a compelling case for change. As for your assertion that PS3 is supposed to be for "at risk" kids, I would challenge you to provide support for this. You obviously weren't around when Rhee rolled out the concept of universal ECE as a means of attracting high-SES families to DCPS in the hope of creating more neighborhood schools that would be able to retain kids through the upper grades. As for complaints about "diversity," this term is encompasses more than black and white or rich and poor. The fact remains however that the policy underlying affording inbound and sibling preferences is to create schools reflecting the neighborhood in which they are located, not to further some vision of social engineering. If Brent doesn't have enough "diversity" for your taste then perhaps your living in the wrong neighborhood and should consider moving inbound for Miner or Payne to find what you are seeking. As for families who decide not to come for K, well that has the potential effect of opening up seats for OOB students through the lottery, which is what you claim to want for PK4. I'm not seeing the logical consistency. While I have no disagreement with the concept of reevaluation, where was your voice during the boundary revision process two years ago? In the end, it's up to you to convince Central Office that some Brent families are being treated unfairly. Good luck with that based on the points you have set forth. Remember, DCPS is struggling with schools where fewer than 1 in 10 students are proficient and face any number of familial and community factors that we can't begin to understand.

So you are just picking a fight then?

There have been several posts regarding how Brent has some of the lowest % of IB students getting into ECE. People talked about IB siblings not getting in and how that basically never happens across the city. Those numbers have been up since page 1. You said you wanted a compelling reason, as it seems like the numbers were enough, I passed along some other commons themes I have heard against explaining PK4 and provided counter points.

I'm not sure what the boundary has to do with PS3 as this isn't a boundary issue (although I attended several meetings and supported the Brent community). The fact is Brent has enough IB students to support 3 classes in Grades K-4. The problem is they only offer 2 classes in PS3 and PK4 and they are limited as to their size. Moving to 3 PK4 classes corrects that and just makes sense.

If you don't have a dog in the fight, I would ask you not to troll.

+1 I have no idea why someone without a dog in this fight would troll and try to poke holes in people's points without offering up any substance (oh, wait, this is DCUM...). I still have yet to hear a compelling reason not to move to three PK4 classes.

Go take it up with the teachers who have earned Masters Degrees in Early Childhood Education, one of whom is working on her doctorate, and let them explain the pedagogical basis for having mixed age classrooms at ages 3 and 4.

[Anonymous]

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.

You're aware that you also live in a 97% white/Asian census tract, right? Assuming that you're IB for Brent.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps off topic, but I have seen a couple of posts saying that Brent's PK3 program was started by Michelle Rhee. I don't think that is true. I recall that it actually started (called PS3 at the time, not PK3) in 2006, maybe even 2005. And Michelle Rhee didn't start until Sept or so 2007. Tommy Wells was asked why Two Rivers offered PS3 without income limitations and he passed on the issue to Clifford Janey, who agreed to start a few PS3 programs in a handful of neighborhood schools. Brent was one of them. I think the first Brent PS3 class didn't actually start until October or something of either 2005 or 2006.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the clarification. My memory often gets hazy in terms of how things transpired a decade ago.