Brent parents: Give me the lowdown on the school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is just insane.

Don't agree. This thread has included an unusually high percentage of constructive and informative posts as compared to others pertaining to Brent in the last couple of years.

None of us can speak for "most Brent families," nor should purport to. I'd like to see better retention of in-boundary families in 3rd and 4th grades, however that works.

Hope to see all of you at Fall Festival.

[Anonymous]

Brent will continue to be a high performing school as long as the demographics in Capitol Hill and the Capitol Riverfront continue to attract middle income and middle-upper income families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid is currently in K (and we're totally happy with the program). I guess I don't understand what happens in first and above. I mean, the cohort - all high-SES kids of highly educated parents - remains the same. Are upper grades slaves to some DCPS curriculum that is way too easy for this cohort? If DCPS is mandating some curriculum, wouldn't it be the same at all schools, including the much touted JKLMM? I mean, these are all kids of lawyers, doctors, nuclear physicists, etc., - they are ALL pretty smart. Are posters saying that Brent utterly fails to meet these kids' smarts starting in first?

JKLM's are "autonomous schools" within DCPS, meaning that they are free to set their own curriculum as long as they at least meet the common core standards (in reality, they make sure they meet the standards, then push beyond it in various ways, but they do follow CC). Is Brent autonomous?

[Anonymous]

This isn't quite true, only a few of the elementary schools in Upper NW have ever been granted "autonomous," status over the years, e.g. Murch but not Lafayette. Brent hasn't. But the distinction isn't very meaningful. Leadership and quality of instruction are much more important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isn't quite true, only a few of the elementary schools in Upper NW have ever been granted "autonomous," status over the years, e.g. Murch but not Lafayette. Brent hasn't. But the distinction isn't very meaningful. Leadership and quality of instruction are much more important.

But in response to the question about "doesn't everyone just have to follow the same DCPS curriculum" is is relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isn't quite true, only a few of the elementary schools in Upper NW have ever been granted "autonomous," status over the years, e.g. Murch but not Lafayette. Brent hasn't. But the distinction isn't very meaningful. Leadership and quality of instruction are much more important.

I think you are ill informed about DCPS's autonomous schools. They include schools all around DC, not just some upper northwest schools that were "granted" that status. Brent was part of it some years ago but no longer is. Here is more on DC's autonomous schools:
https://sites.google.com/a/dc.gov/together-dc3/home

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't quite true, only a few of the elementary schools in Upper NW have ever been granted "autonomous," status over the years, e.g. Murch but not Lafayette. Brent hasn't. But the distinction isn't very meaningful. Leadership and quality of instruction are much more important.

I think you are ill informed about DCPS's autonomous schools. They include schools all around DC, not just some upper northwest schools that were "granted" that status. Brent was part of it some years ago but no longer is. Here is more on DC's autonomous schools:
https://sites.google.com/a/dc.gov/together-dc3/home

Your link is to the the DC Collaborative. That is totally different from autonomous status.

[Anonymous]

does this autonomous status actually mean anything? are schools such as eaton, hearst or ross autonomous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't quite true, only a few of the elementary schools in Upper NW have ever been granted "autonomous," status over the years, e.g. Murch but not Lafayette. Brent hasn't. But the distinction isn't very meaningful. Leadership and quality of instruction are much more important.

I think you are ill informed about DCPS's autonomous schools. They include schools all around DC, not just some upper northwest schools that were "granted" that status. Brent was part of it some years ago but no longer is. Here is more on DC's autonomous schools:
https://sites.google.com/a/dc.gov/together-dc3/home

Your link is to the the DC Collaborative. That is totally different from autonomous status.

I don't believe it is (but prove me wrong, then who are the truly autonomous schools I'm missing?). These schools have budgetary and curricular autonomy. And, yes, it does mean something, although more autonomy could be granted and DCPS could do much, much more to support that autonomy. For example, curricular autonomy doesn't mean much if the PTA then has to foot the bill for alternative math textbooks. Likewise, the staffing model is imposed on these schools pretty rigidly still.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad to hear that your son enjoys art class. This does not change rhe fact that, as reflected in the PTA survey comducted last Spring, there is room for substantial improvement and better coordination with other curricula. The National Gallery is only a 20 minute walk from Brent and yet our children have yet to take a field trip there in the past three years. Forget about the Corcoran snd Philips, or even the Sackler, Renwick, or Portrait Gallery. Don't forget, art instruction is mandated and funded by DCPS, as opposed to science, which Brent is really fortunate to have due to the gemerosity of parents.

I'm not saying there's no room for improvement. I just think that improving art isn't a huge issue and doesn't mean the school isn't good.

Weird that a museum studies school would not to have more museum field tripes.

Also isn't it the classroom teachers job to teach science?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad to hear that your son enjoys art class. This does not change rhe fact that, as reflected in the PTA survey comducted last Spring, there is room for substantial improvement and better coordination with other curricula. The National Gallery is only a 20 minute walk from Brent and yet our children have yet to take a field trip there in the past three years. Forget about the Corcoran snd Philips, or even the Sackler, Renwick, or Portrait Gallery. Don't forget, art instruction is mandated and funded by DCPS, as opposed to science, which Brent is really fortunate to have due to the gemerosity of parents.

I'm not saying there's no room for improvement. I just think that improving art isn't a huge issue and doesn't mean the school isn't good.

Weird that a museum studies school would not to have more museum field tripes.

Also isn't it the classroom teachers job to teach science?

My child went on at least two museum field trips last year so they do go. He hasn't been to the National Gallery as part of a field trip in two years, but his class went there the year before last. The complaint that elementary school children don't get enough sophisticated art instruction seems like a rich people, good school problem to me.

[Anonymous]

DCPS is mandating art instruction, in addition to PE and world language, and pays for a full-time imstructor. This requires students to spend 45 minutes per week in art class, in a school buildong with its own kiln. Should parents not be expecting sophisticated instruction during this time, particularly when Brent still touts itself as a museum magnet school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS is mandating art instruction, in addition to PE and world language, and pays for a full-time imstructor. This requires students to spend 45 minutes per week in art class, in a school buildong with its own kiln. Should parents not be expecting sophisticated instruction during this time, particularly when Brent still touts itself as a museum magnet school?

I'm only saying that it's a good sign for the school if having enough art field trips are a pressing concern.

[Anonymous]

Very true. Plus generally students go on field trips sponsored by thier classroom teacher or maybe a club sponsor. Special subject teachers are covering 6 or more grade levels a day so they can't as easily take time off for field trips. Plus kids might get more out of creating art in the classroom than going to a museum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad to hear that your son enjoys art class. This does not change rhe fact that, as reflected in the PTA survey comducted last Spring, there is room for substantial improvement and better coordination with other curricula. The National Gallery is only a 20 minute walk from Brent and yet our children have yet to take a field trip there in the past three years. Forget about the Corcoran snd Philips, or even the Sackler, Renwick, or Portrait Gallery. Don't forget, art instruction is mandated and funded by DCPS, as opposed to science, which Brent is really fortunate to have due to the gemerosity of parents.

I'm not saying there's no room for improvement. I just think that improving art isn't a huge issue and doesn't mean the school isn't good.

Weird that a museum studies school would not to have more museum field tripes.

Also isn't it the classroom teachers job to teach science?

Isn't it preferable to have an experienced specialist, especially one who has taught at privates such as Sidwell? http://osse.dc.gov/release/three-district-columbia-math-and-science-teachers-selected-award-finalists