Future of Brent Pk3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

you're aware Brent covers more than one census track, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

you're aware Brent covers more than one census track, right?

Huh?

I was shocked at the spring concert the other night - I didn't see a single black face in the PK3/PK4 age group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

you're aware Brent covers more than one census track, right?

Huh?

I was shocked at the spring concert the other night - I didn't see a single black face in the PK3/PK4 age group.

Yes, but then around half the families were shut out of ECE, and there are a dozen black kids in K of around 65. Please spare us your shock, Brent is not, and will never be, a lily white school. The JKLM schools, which are whiter, don't have PreK3 and let almost everyone in for PreK4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There may be pedagogical reasons for it, but the fact is that not every IB kid is benefiting. Stop having mixed age classes and let more IB kids in.

[Anonymous]

OK, great, so how that work? The parents of the oldest kids have been shut out en masse are in K this year. I'm stating the obvious in noting that this is not a group of politically powerful parents within the school community. It's going to take two or three years before some of the shut-out parents move into leadership positions on the LSAT, PTA Board etc. I know of only one shut-out parent on either body. The ambitious principal won't stay forever. Perhaps when he goes, a new generation of parent leaders will work to change this calculus. But I can't see it happening until the current K kids are in 2nd or 3rd grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, great, so how that work? The parents of the oldest kids have been shut out en masse are in K this year. I'm stating the obvious in noting that this is not a group of politically powerful parents within the school community. It's going to take two or three years before some of the shut-out parents move into leadership positions on the LSAT, PTA Board etc. I know of only one shut-out parent on either body. The ambitious principal won't stay forever. Perhaps when he goes, a new generation of parent leaders will work to change this calculus. But I can't see it happening until the current K kids are in 2nd or 3rd grade.

Neither the LSAT, which is purely advisory and focuses principally on budgetary issues, not the PTA have any real leverage when it comes to making changes to the structure of the ECE program. They're not a board of trustees for a private school. The principal deferred to the wishes of the early childhood teachers and has nothing to gain by going downtown hat-in-hand asking to reshuffle the deck just a few years after getting a waiver for the mixed-age classes. Central Office just isn't going to be all that concerned about 20 or 30 unhappy Brent families in the scheme of things, especially if most families continue to bail for charters and other options for middle school. The only change that I could envision is if there ever is a need for a second 5th Grade classroom somewhere down the road (more than 30 kids) buts it's also possible that Brent could see a Phase 2 renovation by that distant date or, more likely, the boundaries would be changed to peel off some families to LT, Tyler or the Cluster. The Hine development may tip the balance in this regard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, great, so how that work? The parents of the oldest kids have been shut out en masse are in K this year. I'm stating the obvious in noting that this is not a group of politically powerful parents within the school community. It's going to take two or three years before some of the shut-out parents move into leadership positions on the LSAT, PTA Board etc. I know of only one shut-out parent on either body. The ambitious principal won't stay forever. Perhaps when he goes, a new generation of parent leaders will work to change this calculus. But I can't see it happening until the current K kids are in 2nd or 3rd grade.

Neither the LSAT, which is purely advisory and focuses principally on budgetary issues, not the PTA have any real leverage when it comes to making changes to the structure of the ECE program. They're not a board of trustees for a private school. The principal deferred to the wishes of the early childhood teachers and has nothing to gain by going downtown hat-in-hand asking to reshuffle the deck just a few years after getting a waiver for the mixed-age classes. Central Office just isn't going to be all that concerned about 20 or 30 unhappy Brent families in the scheme of things, especially if most families continue to bail for charters and other options for middle school. The only change that I could envision is if there ever is a need for a second 5th Grade classroom somewhere down the road (more than 30 kids) buts it's also possible that Brent could see a Phase 2 renovation by that distant date or, more likely, the boundaries would be changed to peel off some families to LT, Tyler or the Cluster. The Hine development may tip the balance in this regard.

Also, once the parents have all their kids in K or higher, they really don't care anymore. No longer their problem.

[Anonymous]

I don't think that's true. Plenty of parents do care, but know they aren't in a position to change the ECE set-up and try to pick their battles at Brent. The negative externalities of shutting out half the families from the get go are starting to rear their ugly head. E.g. the K families cohort had the lowest contribution rate to last year's annual fund of any grade (a development which some of us predicted several years ago). But I agree that DCPS could care less. If they cared what Brent families want, they'd have listened to us during the boundary review.

The ECE teachers like the current arrangement partly because mixed-age classes are easier to teach than PreK3 classes. The teachers get the same kids for two years running, which fosters an especially nurturing classroom environment, and the older kids model behaviors for the little ones. It's not a bad model, just not an inclusive or fair arrangement.

[Anonymous]

Another argument voiced by a teacher- and echoed by families- is that there are no "only" children or "oldest" children admitted in PS3 or pk4 any more. This changes classroom dynamics, as the World is not set up that way. Similarly, parents of only one child (by choice or circumstances) are unfairly discriminated against as a result.

[Anonymous]

I am in hopes the people that have been burned by this will be able to organize more going forward. It should be easier as the numbers continue to grow. I will also say that even though I do not have to worry about this anymore, I'm still willing to push hard to make a change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that's true. Plenty of parents do care, but know they aren't in a position to change the ECE set-up and try to pick their battles at Brent. The negative externalities of shutting out half the families from the get go are starting to rear their ugly head. E.g. the K families cohort had the lowest contribution rate to last year's annual fund of any grade (a development which some of us predicted several years ago). But I agree that DCPS could care less. If they cared what Brent families want, they'd have listened to us during the boundary review.

The ECE teachers like the current arrangement partly because mixed-age classes are easier to teach than PreK3 classes. The teachers get the same kids for two years running, which fosters an especially nurturing classroom environment, and the older kids model behaviors for the little ones. It's not a bad model, just not an inclusive or fair arrangement.

... could NOT have cared less.

[Anonymous]

So sick of hearing about the need to change boundaries. Address the boundary cheaters and no, they are not from Maryland at Brent. They are wealthy white people who are active PTA members who have never lived in bounds, how did they get in you ask? They have rental properties in bounds and use that address for Brent enrollment. It's ridiculous. Principal pretends like it doesn't exist. We all know who you are!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So sick of hearing about the need to change boundaries. Address the boundary cheaters and no, they are not from Maryland at Brent. They are wealthy white people who are active PTA members who have never lived in bounds, how did they get in you ask? They have rental properties in bounds and use that address for Brent enrollment. It's ridiculous. Principal pretends like it doesn't exist. We all know who you are!

Report them to OSSE. You can do so anonymously. They are required to investigate, especially if the principal won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So sick of hearing about the need to change boundaries. Address the boundary cheaters and no, they are not from Maryland at Brent. They are wealthy white people who are active PTA members who have never lived in bounds, how did they get in you ask? They have rental properties in bounds and use that address for Brent enrollment. It's ridiculous. Principal pretends like it doesn't exist. We all know who you are!

Yes, I must say as a Brent parent, this is all very true and we know several who have done this. It works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So sick of hearing about the need to change boundaries. Address the boundary cheaters and no, they are not from Maryland at Brent. They are wealthy white people who are active PTA members who have never lived in bounds, how did they get in you ask? They have rental properties in bounds and use that address for Brent enrollment. It's ridiculous. Principal pretends like it doesn't exist. We all know who you are!

Yes, I must say as a Brent parent, this is all very true and we know several who have done this. It works.

Many, including teachers, have played this game.