Brent and SWS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with Principal Young, I heard he was doing a pretty good job.

Yeah, I don't get the Principal Young bashers. He's fine. Not the most charismatic/charming guy, but seems to get the job done. We LOVE Brent and had an utterly fantastic year. Could not imagine a better experience. But then again, my kid just finished kindergarten, so I guess I don't know what I'm talking about.

[Anonymous]

I've had several kids in the upper grades of Brent and I think the school, and Principal Young, is dandy.

[Anonymous]

We've been on the Hill since the 90s. The parents we know at Brent who like Young are your garden-variety neighborhood high SES parents.
If you're vaguely offbeat and ask for a little flexibility to do your own thing for good reason, best of luck. He's a very conservative leader who won't stick his neck out for a family in difficulty.

Many of us disliked the way he managed the language chance, sending the Chinese teachers packing after failing to support their work for several years, imposing Latin on us all, then racing ahead to impose Spanish on us all. His handling of the language chance speaks to his disdain for meaningful parental involvement. He treats his parents like a cash machine - you get no say in how things work unless you join the clubby PTA Board or are voted on the LSAT, but come under heavy pressure to pay up anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We've been on the Hill since the 90s. The parents we know at Brent who like Young are your garden-variety neighborhood high SES parents.
If you're vaguely offbeat and ask for a little flexibility to do your own thing for good reason, best of luck. He's a very conservative leader who won't stick his neck out for a family in difficulty.

Many of us disliked the way he managed the language chance, sending the Chinese teachers packing after failing to support their work for several years, imposing Latin on us all, then racing ahead to impose Spanish on us all. His handling of the language chance speaks to his disdain for meaningful parental involvement. He treats his parents like a cash machine - you get no say in how things work unless you join the clubby PTA Board or are voted on the LSAT, but come under heavy pressure to pay up anyway.

Look, the Latin idea was lame. But the Chinese teacher, while well-meaning and nice enough was pretty ineffectual - terrible classroom management, and most of the kids did not like the class. They seemed to learn very little (not that I expected much out of 45 minutes a week, but still). At any rate, the principal indeed backed down on Latin (which I thought showed flexibility) and now the kids will get 45 minutes of Spanish, which I prefer (and I think was what the majority of parents voted for - so I don't see this as "impos[ing] Spanish on us all"). At least the kids are more likely to run into the language outside of school, and therefore possibly find it more intriguing/relatable.

[Anonymous]

You make good points. I'm not arguing for Chinese, or against Spanish, at Brent; I'm in favor of transparency, open and inclusive processes, dialogue, flexibility, choices for families, trust building. In the JKLM schools, nobody is forced to study a particular language, stopped from choosing among elective specials, or prevented from switching languages if they don't like a teacher or class, which sounds perfect.

Sounds like OP has made his or her choice and is gone from this thread, but the leadership issues at Brent linger on.

[Anonymous]

Are you saying that JKLM schools offer a choice of language during the school day or is this an afterschool program for a fee?

[Anonymous]

I would have preferred Latin as big 'Up Yours" to the Jefferson feed and an acknowledgement that many families will leave for Latin and BASIS, where Latin is a requirement. Plus, in 45 minutes a week, language instruction is worthless. At least learning Latin roots would help with vocabulary.

The new language offerings in elementary DCPS are lipstick on a pig and will not offset any family truly interested I language instruction. I predict they will end in the next 5 years in place of more PE to offset health concerns or music to help with math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would have preferred Latin as big 'Up Yours" to the Jefferson feed and an acknowledgement that many families will leave for Latin and BASIS, where Latin is a requirement. Plus, in 45 minutes a week, language instruction is worthless. At least learning Latin roots would help with vocabulary.

The new language offerings in elementary DCPS are lipstick on a pig and will not offset any family truly interested I language instruction. I predict they will end in the next 5 years in place of more PE to offset health concerns or music to help with math.

+1 it also takes resources away from better, more age appropriate instruction at various levels. I'm not against language development and there's clearly demand for immersion, but it's a blunt instrument which doesn't really compete with immersion or offer pedagogic value unless the families make an extracurricular effort. If I need push multiple days of afterschool language to make the instruction remotely useful I'd rather just stick to that plan instead of the time invested during school day. Not to mention being forced into whichever language a school chooses even if it's not a preference. Latin at least has practical value for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would have preferred Latin as big 'Up Yours" to the Jefferson feed and an acknowledgement that many families will leave for Latin and BASIS, where Latin is a requirement. Plus, in 45 minutes a week, language instruction is worthless. At least learning Latin roots would help with vocabulary.

The new language offerings in elementary DCPS are lipstick on a pig and will not offset any family truly interested I language instruction. I predict they will end in the next 5 years in place of more PE to offset health concerns or music to help with math.

+1 it also takes resources away from better, more age appropriate instruction at various levels. I'm not against language development and there's clearly demand for immersion, but it's a blunt instrument which doesn't really compete with immersion or offer pedagogic value unless the families make an extracurricular effort. If I need push multiple days of afterschool language to make the instruction remotely useful I'd rather just stick to that plan instead of the time invested during school day. Not to mention being forced into whichever language a school chooses even if it's not a preference. Latin at least has practical value for everyone.

Another vote for Latin, it just seems like the best use of that 45 minute/once a week time.

Also, I can't help but notice how many of the critiques of Young's leadership relate to how it effects parents, and not how it effects students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would have preferred Latin as big 'Up Yours" to the Jefferson feed and an acknowledgement that many families will leave for Latin and BASIS, where Latin is a requirement. Plus, in 45 minutes a week, language instruction is worthless. At least learning Latin roots would help with vocabulary.

The new language offerings in elementary DCPS are lipstick on a pig and will not offset any family truly interested I language instruction. I predict they will end in the next 5 years in place of more PE to offset health concerns or music to help with math.

+1 it also takes resources away from better, more age appropriate instruction at various levels. I'm not against language development and there's clearly demand for immersion, but it's a blunt instrument which doesn't really compete with immersion or offer pedagogic value unless the families make an extracurricular effort. If I need push multiple days of afterschool language to make the instruction remotely useful I'd rather just stick to that plan instead of the time invested during school day. Not to mention being forced into whichever language a school chooses even if it's not a preference. Latin at least has practical value for everyone.

Another vote for Latin, it just seems like the best use of that 45 minute/once a week time.

Also, I can't help but notice how many of the critiques of Young's leadership relate to how it effects parents, and not how it effects students.

And because this thread began as a comparison between SWS and Brent, I'll note that SWS chose French as the world language for next year. SWS has always said that they didn't offer a language because 45 minute/week wasn't an effective use of time, but I guess DCPS mandated it. The French teacher, like many of the teachers at SWS, is an SWS parent.

[Anonymous]

The JKLM schools tend to let parents pick between several humanities enrichment offerings offered to mixed-aged classes during the school day, and the same time block, to meet the newish DCPS "Global Education" requirement - e.g. Spanish, Geography and Mandarin, or Asian Cooking, Latin and French. That sounds like the way to go.

Principal Young wouldn't even let parents talk about how Brent could meet the requirement in a way that would please as many families as possible - he imposed Latin from on high, then showed "flexibility" in imposing Spanish from on high in a big rush. He seems frightened of community discussions and research.

The Brent PTA could have invited a Janney or Murch admin in to explain how they keep the Global Education people happy, or at least at bay. Those schools support broad Global Education offerings, and not just because they're bigger than Brent.

The Global Education team loves Spanish (they help run Oyster and the half dozen other DCPS Spanish immersion programs) and won't let anybody opt out for any reason = dumb, wasteful, heavyhanded BS.

[Anonymous]

I don't have personal experience at Brent, but from what I read here, the biggest difference between Brent and SWS is that the Brent leadership seems to be very centralized with the principal at Brent. This could be good or bad, depending on whether you like the principal and agree with him on things. Leadership is very decentralized at SWS. Lots of things are run by committee or delegated out. That has its own pros and cons. So in choosing between the schools, it may be worth considering your personal preferences in that regard.

As for the languages, I tend to agree that 45 mins per week isn't going to get you very far. That said, most "specials" are only 45 mins a week, and the goal, from what I understand, is exposure, not proficiency. A once a week music class isn't going to produce a Mozart just like a once a week language class isn't going to produce a fluent speaker, but it gives everyone some background/exposure, which I think is important.

[Anonymous]

Not a fan of Principal Young based on his exclusionary practices of the many families shut out of PS3/PK4. Would rather the school move towards accommodating more kids at PK4 and eliminating PS3 rather than have second class citizens.

[Anonymous]

Not a fan of Principal Young based on his exclusionary practices of the many families shut out of PS3/PK4. Would rather the school move towards accommodating more kids at PK4 and eliminating PS3 rather than have second class citizens.

+1

[Anonymous]

^Agree 100% with both PPs above. If you love Young, you'll love Brent (if and only if).

Shutting out the majority of in-boundary families for both PreK3 and PreK4 (which Brent will succeed in doing next year if another ECE class isn't added) obviously doesn't bode well for community cohesion or, by extension, fund-raising in the long term.