Brent Elementary School: anything and everything, please!

[Anonymous]

OP, i hope you do move to capitol hill. i like your enthusiasm! i suggest you take your DS to lincoln park on any given weekend afternoon and talk with other parents. they'll tell you which schools are where and where you can get a good deal on a house. i think you can get something quite nice for $500K, though as others have noted, probably not near brent (but near maury or tyler). don't branch out too far, b/c you want to stay close to metro and all the good things the city has to offer (eastern market, union station, lincoln park, etc...)

good luck!

[Anonymous]

08/13/2010 10:21
I don't think the test scores were terrible. Many of those children have made huge progress at Brent. It might not show up on the DC CAS though. Sure, if you take an 100% affluent, highly education parents etc. population and test them, you will get scores in the 90-100% range.

Brent's testing grades have about 50% of students on free and reduced lunch. This is changing rapidly each year. But still, these kids have not been taught well for many years, do not come homes were education / reading is emphasized then come to Brent and go from way below basic to basic in just six months. And many hit proficient and advanced - check out the scores by grade.

Now the inbounds surge has hit 3rd grade so test scores will rise dramatically. But I hope people remember the really amazing work the teachers did on bringing up so many kids so quickly.

[Anonymous]

Brent has made terrific gains in terms of engaging the surrounding neighborhood and improving the educational experience that it offers. The school and its community deserves a lot of credit for that. It, however, is becoming a predominantly white, affluent school and to suggest otherwise is just disingenuous. The upper grades (testing) are almost entirely black while last year's 2nd grade and younger is overwhelmingly not black (there may be a few not white families, but those younger grades are not diverse in a socio-economic way and certainly contain few if any black families).

Brent's testing scores are sure to rise - because the mix of students has changed. The fact that it struggles with improving scores for students who aren't well-prepared for school attests to just how difficult it is to reach some students. The PTA has hired aides for the upper grades and there are mentoring programs in place. But clearly more needs to be done. (And as an aside, you can't assert that the teachers are good and stable but then also say that the students have not been taught well for many years as a reason why test scores are low - someone is mis-speaking).

[Anonymous]

So in other words, Brent is an example of Rhee's plans to improve urban schools?

The chancellor has figured out that it's easier to fill the seats with the children of affluent, educated parents in order to raise test scores?

I give her credit. This strategy can work on Capitol Hill. I'm just curious what the plan is to improve test scores in schools that aren't rapidly gentrifying?

It strikes me as a bit unfair that Brent "gets a pass" on the reign of terror in terms of threats and firing that so many other schools are facing. All Brent has to do is wait it out until children who are good at taking standardized tests fill the testing grades? It sound like three more years and Brent will be a "great" school. Here comes autonomous status!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So in other words, Brent is an example of Rhee's plans to improve urban schools?

The chancellor has figured out that it's easier to fill the seats with the children of affluent, educated parents in order to raise test scores?

I give her credit. This strategy can work on Capitol Hill. I'm just curious what the plan is to improve test scores in schools that aren't rapidly gentrifying?

Yes, very clever on her part. I hope the liberal parents on Capitol Hill don't stay mum when Rhee brags nationally about how her reforms raised test scores in poverty stricken urban DC. She probably won't say "poverty- stricken," she'll just imply it, but you'll know what she means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So in other words, Brent is an example of Rhee's plans to improve urban schools?

The chancellor has figured out that it's easier to fill the seats with the children of affluent, educated parents in order to raise test scores?

I give her credit. This strategy can work on Capitol Hill. I'm just curious what the plan is to improve test scores in schools that aren't rapidly gentrifying?

Yes, very clever on her part. I hope the liberal parents on Capitol Hill don't stay mum when Rhee brags nationally about how her reforms raised test scores in poverty stricken urban DC. She probably won't say "poverty- stricken," she'll just imply it, but you'll know what she means.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, it's not her strategy. The Hill parents are going in there and making the schools work for them.

[Anonymous]

I can't say I think it is a bad strategy to encourage more middle class parents into the school system. Do you honestly think the suburban schools do so well without parental support? Are you telling me that they should not be building that capacity. If there is anything that will drive me out of DC it is the snarky, let's find some negative motive about every action, change ect. The fact is that concentrated poverty is horrible for a system, even a dozen or so middle class parents can make a difference in a title one school. This school system has to change as a community effort. I don't give a damn about Michelle Rhee, I care about what I can do in my child's school to make a difference. Yes I know policies can be a problem, yes the testing regime is most likely not building the full capacity of the system, but at some point all of us have to be responsible for what we bring to the system and the constant negativity is nothing but a drain.

[Anonymous]

I think it's commednable for Hill parents or any parents to try to make their kids' neighborhood school work for them.

I do not think it's fine for Rhee or any school leader to boast about scores going up in a school without acknowledging that it's due to a change in demographics. I think it would be wrong for parents to collude in this by remaining quiet when they hear it

While parents have responsibility for only their own children, the leader of the schools has responsbility for all children, and should not use one group against the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's commednable for Hill parents or any parents to try to make their kids' neighborhood school work for them.

I do not think it's fine for Rhee or any school leader to boast about scores going up in a school without acknowledging that it's due to a change in demographics. I think it would be wrong for parents to collude in this by remaining quiet when they hear it

While parents have responsibility for only their own children, the leader of the schools has responsbility for all children, and should not use one group against the other.

I mean "commendable" and "responsibility"

[Anonymous]

Wow I found these post to be very interesting. And very diversified with individual comments on what is truly important here. We as parents can all agree that we want the best for our own children. But we tend to forget that if you aren't concerned about the other children that your child will have to at some point engage with, then you are missing the whole point. So we should as parents want what is best for all students whether in or out of boundary. The goal should be that they all receive the best education and opportunity to make strong and consistent academic gains. Also, when we we look at diversity, only an ignorant person would believe that the good only comes from one sector or color. History has shown us otherwise - if we can come together and aim for one common goal - we will inevitably help our district. Also, there is no clear proof that a student, coming from out of boundary sections of Capitol Hill or not being affluent - makes you any less capable of making proficiency or advanced on test. The greatest difference is what the child has been exposed to at school and at home to offer the opportunity to excel. In addition, a truly effective teacher is one that can raise a students academic gains no matter where they come in at in regards to their own skills, be it already on level or above or below level. I do believe that funding makes a difference in the amount of opportunities you can expose a child to. And the true reality that touches everyone is that "if you work hard you can get smart" so parents and teachers just have to show the students how and provide those tools to "All" children. It's when we don't have a concern for others is that we deal with all of the negative factors in society. I found the above post interesting to see how some parents on "the Hill" view things. I do commend many of the parents for their involvement - but please don't think that other parents aren't doing so - their force may not be as strong and their voice may not be as loud.

[Anonymous]

First let me state I hope that the original parent that sent the 1st post has made good transition in finding a home ans school for your child.

But I have to enlighten some of the individuals that have made certain implications based upon their post....
Being affluent does not equate to being intelligent,
Being poor does not equate to being below level academically
Being affluent means that your family can afford to pay for enrichment activities and tutoring, better doctors or specialist to address certain needs. You can afford to tend to certain learning disabilities and obtain the right resources for your child.
Being affluent doesn't mean you were born smart or that you are smarter than the person less wealthier than you.
I hope that this persepctive is not being taught to the children. beacuse eventually they will have a reality check, and discover that there are things they don't know and haven't learned - essential skills to make it out here in life when the going gets good or going gets bad - one must know how to survive and continue to push through obstacles and hard times. There needs to be a senses of humbleness because wealth is here one day and gone another. Intelligence is not connected to wealth - it's connected to when you gain the understanding you are capable of achieving by working hard to learn.

[Anonymous]

"In addition, a truly effective teacher is one that can raise a students academic gains no matter where they come in"

and, "if you work hard you can get smart"

These quotes are directly out the Michelle Rhee and the KIPP playbook. If these notions are accurate, then the teachers at Brent are ineffective. If the above quotes are true, why in the world are Brent's scores so low if the teachers are so good?

Parents seem delighted with these teachers, no?

So why is it that teachers who are considered to be highly skilled STILL can't get test scores in the proficient and advanced range with certain students?

Granted, going and firing the teachers seems to be the Rhee fix, but if we look at test scores this year, her plan doesn't seem to be working.

It will all work out fine for children on Capitol Hill. Brent seems to have a pass on the firing/intimidation of teachers and in 3 years, test scores at Brent will rise.

But what happens to the other children in the city? Do you just keep firing teachers, or do you perhaps address the poverty that might (just might) be a contributing factor to the academic success of these children?

[Anonymous]

My goodness the lecturing tone of these last few posts is almost too much to bear. In my experience people who believe that they are singularly enlightened ate often the most judgemental people with the most to learn...