PK3/4 Vent-who didn't get in to their IB school..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised more Capitol Hill parents complaining about being shut out aren't putting Payne on their PK3 and PK4 lists. It's our in-bounds school and we have had a fantastic experience for PK3. I think the wait list is getting longer but your chances are definitely better than some of the other schools on the Hill.

My understanding was that Payne PK more or less filled up with IB kids this year, with maybe a couple of OOB kids. Was that not the case?

I think it was largely in-bounds but I know there were at least a few OOB who came off the waitlist

We had Payne on our list. Didn't get in. There's no such thing as a safety school on the hill anymore.

Yup, I had Payne on my WL for PK4 and didn't get in!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got an email on our neighborhood listserv where one parent is trying to organize other IB families who are waitlisted for PK...to do what, I'm not sure. They want to go to the school to see if the class that had been eliminated (for space reasons) to be added back-- "for fairness." How short sighted- so fifth graders should have extra large classes so that affluent families don't have to pay for PK for another year?

Janney? Yes, that is short sighted.

Or could be Brent.

That e-mail was for Janney. I saw that on the list serv too.

NP here- how is it shortsighted? Not a Janney parent, but they need to prioritize the K-5 kids first, right? What's the argument for more PK?

Yes it's shortsighted to want a PK class added so you don't have to pay for another year of preschool at the expense of reasonably sized classes for fifth graders.

It's not shortsighted, because there is no long-term benefit for the incoming (or shut out) PK kids to give up a PK class to allow for smaller fifth grade classes next year. The only ones who benefit are the rising fifth graders. So it's maybe selfish, but no more selfish than the upper elementary parents pushing for cutting PK to benefit their kids.

The parents of IB PK4 kids who were shut out will eventually become parents of fifth graders at the school...who will NOT be happy when their kids are in a 35 person class. I say this as someone with a kid at the school (who was shut out for PK4) and whose younger child is not yet at the school (so would potentially be adversely affected with the reduction in PK4 classes). I would prefer to pay for an extra year of preschool so that my older child can have a reasonably-sized class in the critical ES years.

[Anonymous]

PK3 Ross (but that was expected, it's mostly inbound siblings these days).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got an email on our neighborhood listserv where one parent is trying to organize other IB families who are waitlisted for PK...to do what, I'm not sure. They want to go to the school to see if the class that had been eliminated (for space reasons) to be added back-- "for fairness." How short sighted- so fifth graders should have extra large classes so that affluent families don't have to pay for PK for another year?

Janney? Yes, that is short sighted.

Or could be Brent.

That e-mail was for Janney. I saw that on the list serv too.

NP here- how is it shortsighted? Not a Janney parent, but they need to prioritize the K-5 kids first, right? What's the argument for more PK?

Yes it's shortsighted to want a PK class added so you don't have to pay for another year of preschool at the expense of reasonably sized classes for fifth graders.

It's not shortsighted, because there is no long-term benefit for the incoming (or shut out) PK kids to give up a PK class to allow for smaller fifth grade classes next year. The only ones who benefit are the rising fifth graders. So it's maybe selfish, but no more selfish than the upper elementary parents pushing for cutting PK to benefit their kids.

The parents of IB PK4 kids who were shut out will eventually become parents of fifth graders at the school...who will NOT be happy when their kids are in a 35 person class. I say this as someone with a kid at the school (who was shut out for PK4) and whose younger child is not yet at the school (so would potentially be adversely affected with the reduction in PK4 classes). I would prefer to pay for an extra year of preschool so that my older child can have a reasonably-sized class in the critical ES years.

+1 Janney classes are getting too big, and PK will eventually be cut further, and I'm ok with that. The older grades matter more-PK can be substituted more easily by private preschool or daycare.

[Anonymous]

AU Park real estate is now pretty much all >1 million and most houses are selling from 1.1 to 1.6.
If you can't afford to send your 4 year old to private PK but you could afford that kind of house then something is wrong with your budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in bound for barnard and I was quite worried we would get shut out of the better ranked schools and also shut out of Barnard. We ranked it 8 because of that, hoping it would get us in but still allowed us to rank some others higher. We got in. Not sure if there is a wait list or not; our wait list numbers are all well below 60, so I guess we had a decent draw compared to my friends all in the 200's. I would also support at-risk preference evne though it could result in me being shut out.

After all these years I'm still surprised that there are so many people that don't understand how the lottery works. You wouldn't have gotten shut out if you ranked Barnard 12th, only possibility is you would have gotten INTO a better ranked school. You would have gotten into Barnard no matter what with your master number.

No, not true. For PK3 there is zero guarantee of a spot at all - this was PK3. So yes, it was possible to list Barnard 12th and not get in as there are inbound waitlists now. By listing it further up the list, knowing its not a "popular" school, chances of getting in increased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in bound for barnard and I was quite worried we would get shut out of the better ranked schools and also shut out of Barnard. We ranked it 8 because of that, hoping it would get us in but still allowed us to rank some others higher. We got in. Not sure if there is a wait list or not; our wait list numbers are all well below 60, so I guess we had a decent draw compared to my friends all in the 200's. I would also support at-risk preference evne though it could result in me being shut out.

After all these years I'm still surprised that there are so many people that don't understand how the lottery works. You wouldn't have gotten shut out if you ranked Barnard 12th, only possibility is you would have gotten INTO a better ranked school. You would have gotten into Barnard no matter what with your master number.

No, not true. For PK3 there is zero guarantee of a spot at all - this was PK3. So yes, it was possible to list Barnard 12th and not get in as there are inbound waitlists now. By listing it further up the list, knowing its not a "popular" school, chances of getting in increased.

Actually, no. That's not how the lottery works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in bound for barnard and I was quite worried we would get shut out of the better ranked schools and also shut out of Barnard. We ranked it 8 because of that, hoping it would get us in but still allowed us to rank some others higher. We got in. Not sure if there is a wait list or not; our wait list numbers are all well below 60, so I guess we had a decent draw compared to my friends all in the 200's. I would also support at-risk preference evne though it could result in me being shut out.

After all these years I'm still surprised that there are so many people that don't understand how the lottery works. You wouldn't have gotten shut out if you ranked Barnard 12th, only possibility is you would have gotten INTO a better ranked school. You would have gotten into Barnard no matter what with your master number.

No, not true. For PK3 there is zero guarantee of a spot at all - this was PK3. So yes, it was possible to list Barnard 12th and not get in as there are inbound waitlists now. By listing it further up the list, knowing its not a "popular" school, chances of getting in increased.

How can there be people who still think this?!?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vent..I knew this would happen but am still so bummed. Didn't get in to Brent PK3, IB family. Anyone else?

Same boat here. We matched at Tyler traditional. I guess we'll go, but not my ideal. Did anyone else match at Tyler traditional? Your thoughts?

We left Tyler this year (not PK 3/4). And I will be giving up a PK immersion spot we received with sibling attending. There was limited supervision when children left the classroom. The administration is subpar and they don't have control over the kids. I think you'll be fine for PK but I wouldn't stay a minute longer.

I have heard Tyler's prek program is amazing. And I've heard great things about the kindergarten teachers (a friend works there) but I would take my kid out after K because of the things he has said.

Tyler has at least one excellent K teacher - Ms Wilkins. She's AMAZING.

But GET OUT after that. Even good teachers can't overcome the terrible admin, and ONE social worker for 500 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got an email on our neighborhood listserv where one parent is trying to organize other IB families who are waitlisted for PK...to do what, I'm not sure. They want to go to the school to see if the class that had been eliminated (for space reasons) to be added back-- "for fairness." How short sighted- so fifth graders should have extra large classes so that affluent families don't have to pay for PK for another year?

Janney? Yes, that is short sighted.

Or could be Brent.

That e-mail was for Janney. I saw that on the list serv too.

NP here- how is it shortsighted? Not a Janney parent, but they need to prioritize the K-5 kids first, right? What's the argument for more PK?

Yes it's shortsighted to want a PK class added so you don't have to pay for another year of preschool at the expense of reasonably sized classes for fifth graders.

It's not shortsighted, because there is no long-term benefit for the incoming (or shut out) PK kids to give up a PK class to allow for smaller fifth grade classes next year. The only ones who benefit are the rising fifth graders. So it's maybe selfish, but no more selfish than the upper elementary parents pushing for cutting PK to benefit their kids.

The parents of IB PK4 kids who were shut out will eventually become parents of fifth graders at the school...who will NOT be happy when their kids are in a 35 person class. I say this as someone with a kid at the school (who was shut out for PK4) and whose younger child is not yet at the school (so would potentially be adversely affected with the reduction in PK4 classes). I would prefer to pay for an extra year of preschool so that my older child can have a reasonably-sized class in the critical ES years.

That is very WOTP-specific. Nobody on the Hill stays for 5th grade: that's an entry year for Latin and Basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got an email on our neighborhood listserv where one parent is trying to organize other IB families who are waitlisted for PK...to do what, I'm not sure. They want to go to the school to see if the class that had been eliminated (for space reasons) to be added back-- "for fairness." How short sighted- so fifth graders should have extra large classes so that affluent families don't have to pay for PK for another year?

Janney? Yes, that is short sighted.

Or could be Brent.

That e-mail was for Janney. I saw that on the list serv too.

NP here- how is it shortsighted? Not a Janney parent, but they need to prioritize the K-5 kids first, right? What's the argument for more PK?

Yes it's shortsighted to want a PK class added so you don't have to pay for another year of preschool at the expense of reasonably sized classes for fifth graders.

It's not shortsighted, because there is no long-term benefit for the incoming (or shut out) PK kids to give up a PK class to allow for smaller fifth grade classes next year. The only ones who benefit are the rising fifth graders. So it's maybe selfish, but no more selfish than the upper elementary parents pushing for cutting PK to benefit their kids.

The parents of IB PK4 kids who were shut out will eventually become parents of fifth graders at the school...who will NOT be happy when their kids are in a 35 person class. I say this as someone with a kid at the school (who was shut out for PK4) and whose younger child is not yet at the school (so would potentially be adversely affected with the reduction in PK4 classes). I would prefer to pay for an extra year of preschool so that my older child can have a reasonably-sized class in the critical ES years.

That is very WOTP-specific. Nobody on the Hill stays for 5th grade: that's an entry year for Latin and Basis.

That's old info. i think you are going to see more 5th graders in coming years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vent..I knew this would happen but am still so bummed. Didn't get in to Brent PK3, IB family. Anyone else?

Same boat here. We matched at Tyler traditional. I guess we'll go, but not my ideal. Did anyone else match at Tyler traditional? Your thoughts?

We left Tyler this year (not PK 3/4). And I will be giving up a PK immersion spot we received with sibling attending. There was limited supervision when children left the classroom. The administration is subpar and they don't have control over the kids. I think you'll be fine for PK but I wouldn't stay a minute longer.

I have heard Tyler's prek program is amazing. And I've heard great things about the kindergarten teachers (a friend works there) but I would take my kid out after K because of the things he has said.

Tyler has at least one excellent K teacher - Ms Wilkins. She's AMAZING.

But GET OUT after that. Even good teachers can't overcome the terrible admin, and ONE social worker for 500 kids.

The other K teacher at Tyler is amazing too. You seriously can't go wrong at Tyler with prek3-K. But after that? See ya.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AU Park real estate is now pretty much all >1 million and most houses are selling from 1.1 to 1.6.
If you can't afford to send your 4 year old to private PK but you could afford that kind of house then something is wrong with your budget.

Some people, even those with small kids, bought before prices skyrocketed. Or they bought the smallest house that was still at the top of their budget. Just to say that not everyone in AU Park is rich. That said, with respect to public PK, there are options across the park of which those families can take advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got an email on our neighborhood listserv where one parent is trying to organize other IB families who are waitlisted for PK...to do what, I'm not sure. They want to go to the school to see if the class that had been eliminated (for space reasons) to be added back-- "for fairness." How short sighted- so fifth graders should have extra large classes so that affluent families don't have to pay for PK for another year?

Janney? Yes, that is short sighted.

Or could be Brent.

That e-mail was for Janney. I saw that on the list serv too.

NP here- how is it shortsighted? Not a Janney parent, but they need to prioritize the K-5 kids first, right? What's the argument for more PK?

Yes it's shortsighted to want a PK class added so you don't have to pay for another year of preschool at the expense of reasonably sized classes for fifth graders.

It's not shortsighted, because there is no long-term benefit for the incoming (or shut out) PK kids to give up a PK class to allow for smaller fifth grade classes next year. The only ones who benefit are the rising fifth graders. So it's maybe selfish, but no more selfish than the upper elementary parents pushing for cutting PK to benefit their kids.

The parents of IB PK4 kids who were shut out will eventually become parents of fifth graders at the school...who will NOT be happy when their kids are in a 35 person class. I say this as someone with a kid at the school (who was shut out for PK4) and whose younger child is not yet at the school (so would potentially be adversely affected with the reduction in PK4 classes). I would prefer to pay for an extra year of preschool so that my older child can have a reasonably-sized class in the critical ES years.

The point of the post was that cutting a PK class now has no bearing on the size of 5th grade years from now. They may have cut all of PK (and I hope they will if it's necessary) by then, and still have fifth grade classes with 35 kids.