Is Brent PS3 going to be yet another year with long IB waitlist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brent needs to revisit the idea of dropping PS3 from the ECE program. There just isn't any rationale which supports excluding dozens of IB kids until they turn 5 and can then attend K as a matter of right. Allowing the community to coalesce around a PK4 program that would be able to accommodate as many as 80 IB students seems far preferable to what has happened over the past two years.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brent needs to revisit the idea of dropping PS3 from the ECE program. There just isn't any rationale which supports excluding dozens of IB kids until they turn 5 and can then attend K as a matter of right. Allowing the community to coalesce around a PK4 program that would be able to accommodate as many as 80 IB students seems far preferable to what has happened over the past two years.

Well said.

Has this been discussed? Why hasn't school administration considered this? It's pretty obvious no ECE parent at brent is hurting financially that PS3 is a necessity.

[Anonymous]

My recollection is that eliminating PK3 was considered back in October 2013 in the wake of more than two dozen IB families being shut out of the lottery earlier that year. Subsequent to a LSAT-community meeting in late October, Principal Young decided to implement the mixed age model in four classrooms, principally at the urging of the ECE teachers. This current formulation, which includes a Reggio-inspired curriculum, replaced two PS3 classes, two PK4 classes and one mixed age classroom, a formulation which had existed for three or four years prior. The Strategic Planning Working Groups may have also looked at the pros and cons of dropping PS3, but appears to be advocating the addition another mixed-age classroom -- which would accommodate another 10 four-year olds and 7 three-year olds in the short-term -- for the purpose of finding a way to boost overall enrollment from 370 to 400.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brent needs to revisit the idea of dropping PS3 from the ECE program. There just isn't any rationale which supports excluding dozens of IB kids until they turn 5 and can then attend K as a matter of right. Allowing the community to coalesce around a PK4 program that would be able to accommodate as many as 80 IB students seems far preferable to what has happened over the past two years.

But don't the teachers want to keep the PS3? I recall that was the reason for keeping the PS3 going last year. If the teachers are on board now with cutting it, it does seem like Brent should focus on other areas. Especially if PS3 is available elsewhere/yet close by for Brent IB families. MAabe Tyler could find spots for Brent families south of Penn Ave and Peabody would find space for those north of Penn? I don't want kids to miss out of PS3, but I agree that it doesn't seem fair for such a small percent of the IB families to get a spot.

Peabody? Peabody can't even accommodate all its IB kids. What makes you think it could take Brent overflow???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what I was going to say. Hope that was a troll!

Families generally aren't buying within the Brent District in an effort to find racia or socioeconomic diversity.

+1. I wasn't a troll. And if you think there aren't a bunch of people who think like me in the Brent district, keep living in your fantasy land.

[Anonymous]

As a neighborhood Brent parent whose kid started there in PK seven years ago, these comments stop my heart cold.

[Anonymous]

continuing---I purposefully bought in Capitol Hill to avoid the attitudes like parts of NW DC but now it looks like they have followed me here. Blech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:continuing---I purposefully bought in Capitol Hill to avoid the attitudes like parts of NW DC but now it looks like they have followed me here. Blech.

Please do not draw NW parents into this conversation. That is shameful to paint people in NW like this awful prior poster. Just because we don't work near Capitol Hill does not make NW people evil, but that should be obvious.

[Anonymous]

fair enough, pp. I will point out that I am not drawing anyone as evil; simply reacting to an attitude that rubs me the wrong way. And there is no question that I see/hear/ feel that attitude in many NW neighborhoods and now it seems to be creeping into a place that a purposefully chose in order to avoid it. None of this meets my definition of evil.

[Anonymous]

I am in favor of dropping PS3. There is inbound demand. Does not seem fair that some kids have two years to form relationships, learn the ways of the school- and others are dropped in at kindergarten amongst a group of peers whose friends have already formed.

We like our charter school- but live where we do in order to attend Brent. No family that is inbounds should be shut out like our family, and those of others we know.

Also seems categorically unfair that siblings trump kids who are in bound, even if both inbound. THere should not be a prioritization at that level.

[Anonymous]

Then talk to your school and have them drop PS3. Most schools with SES like Brent do not even have PS3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am in favor of dropping PS3. There is inbound demand. Does not seem fair that some kids have two years to form relationships, learn the ways of the school- and others are dropped in at kindergarten amongst a group of peers whose friends have already formed.

We like our charter school- but live where we do in order to attend Brent. No family that is inbounds should be shut out like our family, and those of others we know.

Also seems categorically unfair that siblings trump kids who are in bound, even if both inbound. THere should not be a prioritization at that level.

You seem to be confused. Preferences are as follows: 1) In-bound with sibling; 2) In-bound; 3) OOB with sibling . . . Absent a very unusual circumstance, such as a DCPS special needs placement, no IB kid should lose a lottery seat to an OOB kid with sibling already at a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am in favor of dropping PS3. There is inbound demand. Does not seem fair that some kids have two years to form relationships, learn the ways of the school- and others are dropped in at kindergarten amongst a group of peers whose friends have already formed.

We like our charter school- but live where we do in order to attend Brent. No family that is inbounds should be shut out like our family, and those of others we know.

Also seems categorically unfair that siblings trump kids who are in bound, even if both inbound. THere should not be a prioritization at that level.

I'm actually in favor of dropping PS3 too, but not for the reasons you mentioned. Friendships change easily at that age, especially at 3 and 4, and plenty of new students start in kindergarten and beyond. "I don't want other kids to make friends with each other before my child gets there" strikes me as silly.
It also seems easy to understand that in-bounds children with siblings there already should have preference. It's better for the students, their families, and the schools if siblings attend school together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am in favor of dropping PS3. There is inbound demand. Does not seem fair that some kids have two years to form relationships, learn the ways of the school- and others are dropped in at kindergarten amongst a group of peers whose friends have already formed.

We like our charter school- but live where we do in order to attend Brent. No family that is inbounds should be shut out like our family, and those of others we know.

Also seems categorically unfair that siblings trump kids who are in bound, even if both inbound. THere should not be a prioritization at that level.

It's a lottery. DCPS does not owe you free preschool and pre-K at the particular school of your choice. You should have known that's true no matter where you buy.

[Anonymous]

Who deems a sibling to be more worthy of their neighbor child of same age? That seems categorically biased and unfair. Inbounds kids should all have equal status. I agree with pp.