Future of Brent Pk3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go again about the middle school problem. The thread is about PK3 so let's stick to that. The boundary is not changing. The Upcoming PK4 class is an anomaly like the current K class so it will work itself out next year just as the K class figured it out. This past PK3 lottery was fine and got plenty of IB kids in as well as all IB with siblings. There is no issue and PK3 is likely here to stay.

How many IB kids didn't get in this year? Wasn't it like 20 or so? Why not let them in? And how did the K class work itself out? You mean the got old enough to go to K?

For the people who support PS3 without having a little one coming up, why? Letting in less than 50% of the IB kids without siblings is one of the worse rates in the city.

There are at least 15 IB kids on the PK3 WL this year, and (as everyone has acknowledged) this year was an admittedly small cohort. So in a "small" year, 1/3 of IB kids are shut out, and in a "large" year (last year), 2/3 are shut out. It is not correct to say there is no issue or that it will "work itself out."

PK3 is not mandatory. People are upset because they have to pay another year of daycare. It works itself out in K which is required and all inbound students are accepted. Getting rid of PK3 wont' be a real option unless IB kids coming in at K are causing serious overcrowding issues.

So this isn't true at all. Kids that are shut out of PS3 are shut out for two years instead of one. This year there was one spot for PK4 offered (with nine IB w/siblings on the WL).

The other issue is what happens when this kids return in K. 40 of the kids were there for 3 and 4 while 30 kids were brand new. That was a large adjustment for all involved and it is totally unnecessary.

Again, ask anyone who has been through this and they will tell you they would prefer an almost guaranteed spot at PK4.

PP here. I have been through it multiple times at Brent. Youngest in K and adjustment was not an issue as far as we were concerned. I'm not sure what the big adjustments were that you endured but would be glad to know.

I am assuming your youngest attended Brent for PS3 and PK4. During that time they met several friends, got to know the school, the teachers, etc. Now think about the kids that did not get in. They arrive in a class where people have been going to school with each other for basically half of their lives. Even if they have been in pre-school (and chances are they have) things are different and you might know a handful of people.

As everyone will admit, there are very few "at-risk" IB kids at Brent. Most of the families send their kids to pre-school or have other arrangements that prepare their kids for ECE. So why pretend that PS3 is so important for the child's development.

Instead what is happening if you are driving a wedge between new IB families at 3. Of the 70 IB families that applied for PS3 3 years ago (the current Ks), 10 did not come back for K. Some moved, some went charter or private. My question is why would DCPS want to drive families away from the school system that early and to what ends?

Just to play Devil's Advocate, the Brent district is rather small and the "haves" and "have nots" have been playing with one another at Turtle and Garfield Park since they were toddlers, or longer if they attended the Hill Preschool. They see one another at Eastern Market, Labrynth, Rumsey, Yards Park, SOTH and CHAW. In large part, they are your friends and neighbors. Also, don't lose sight of the fact that some kids leave Brent after PK4 for a variety of reasons, while closely-knit groups formed in PK are broken up by K class assignments. FWIW, my child prefers play dates and recess time with his new K friends over his friends from PK who are now in a different classrooms.

[Anonymous]

This is at least the third year in a row that this issue has been raised. Take it up with Principal Young directly if you want to try to have a substantive discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is at least the third year in a row that this issue has been raised. Take it up with Principal Young directly if you want to try to have a substantive discussion.

Not the OP but I have but unfortunately he is not interested in dealing with the issue.

[Anonymous]

He's probably moving on in a couple of years but I don't see a replacement wanting to take on the headache of changing the status quo.

[Anonymous]

If you don't expect to get in for PreK3, and make a point of developing a back-up plan, you will be less likely to be angry and disappointed if you're shut out than if you erred on the side of naive optimism. The friendships we made at close-knit AppleTree LP continue to stand us in good stead. We didn't even get in there until the first week of school. I can't see anything changing on the ECE front as long as the principal stays.

Hold tight folks and you'll have a spot somewhere within striking distance of your house, and your kids will have happy K experiences afterwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP, but it is worth noting that many of the nearby PK3 programs you mention have filled with IB kids this year. Van Ness has a WL of at least 140 for PK3. So there are IB folks who were shut out of Brent and also out of 11 other PK programs on the Hill. The other nearby options aren't really available anymore.

I know for a fact that Van Ness admitted OOB kids for PK3 this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP, but it is worth noting that many of the nearby PK3 programs you mention have filled with IB kids this year. Van Ness has a WL of at least 140 for PK3. So there are IB folks who were shut out of Brent and also out of 11 other PK programs on the Hill. The other nearby options aren't really available anymore.

I know for a fact that Van Ness admitted OOB kids for PK3 this year.

To be clear, I meant that OOB kids got spots in Van Ness PK3 in this year's lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP, but it is worth noting that many of the nearby PK3 programs you mention have filled with IB kids this year. Van Ness has a WL of at least 140 for PK3. So there are IB folks who were shut out of Brent and also out of 11 other PK programs on the Hill. The other nearby options aren't really available anymore.

I know for a fact that Van Ness admitted OOB kids for PK3 this year.

To be clear, I meant that OOB kids got spots in Van Ness PK3 in this year's lottery.

In the initial lottery or off of the waitlist? I heard there were some siblings waitlisted this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP, but it is worth noting that many of the nearby PK3 programs you mention have filled with IB kids this year. Van Ness has a WL of at least 140 for PK3. So there are IB folks who were shut out of Brent and also out of 11 other PK programs on the Hill. The other nearby options aren't really available anymore.

I know for a fact that Van Ness admitted OOB kids for PK3 this year.

To be clear, I meant that OOB kids got spots in Van Ness PK3 in this year's lottery.

I heard that because the early action guaranteed IB admission thing, they had too many IB kids for two classrooms so had to open a third, which made space for OOB. If they don't have early action again next year, and only have two PK3 classrooms, I'll be surprised if they don't have an IB PK3 waiting list.

[Anonymous]

Regardless of whether any OOB kids got into Van Ness, I believe the point was that many of the PK3 programs on the Hill that previously had a decent number of OOB spots available no longer do (because they are filling or almost filling with IB). Overall the population of young children on the Hill continues to grow, and unless more PK classes are added, there will continue to be demand that outstrips supply. Yes, there are other options in other parts of DC, but many people choose to live on the Hill for its walkability, and so commuting to another area for PK is not feasible or desirable.

[Anonymous]

When parents come to expect free, quality PreK3 spots, many bitterly resent being shut out of nearby options in the case of bad lottery luck. But since parents earning six figures don't have a shot at free PreK3 elsewhere in this country, at least not as a group (correct me if I'm wrong), maybe we should all get a grip. Another year of day care, or private preschool, or a stay at home parent, nanny, au pair or whatever isn't going to hurt high SES kids.

[Anonymous]

Sure, the kids will be fine, but what I think the parents are asking is why the system can't be set up to be more equitable.

And I'd guess most people in that area of Capitol Hill have six figure incomes. But I don't know who wouldn't miss $15K from a $150-200K income...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When parents come to expect free, quality PreK3 spots, many bitterly resent being shut out of nearby options in the case of bad lottery luck. But since parents earning six figures don't have a shot at free PreK3 elsewhere in this country, at least not as a group (correct me if I'm wrong), maybe we should all get a grip. Another year of day care, or private preschool, or a stay at home parent, nanny, au pair or whatever isn't going to hurt high SES kids.

Isn't it possible to discuss solutions to a perceived problem (even though it is definitely a first-world problem and even though some don't view it as a problem)? Just wanting to discuss the future of Brent PK3 does not mean anyone is bitter or resentful. Yes, we all need to get a grip, but that could be said of the vast majority of discussions on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure, the kids will be fine, but what I think the parents are asking is why the system can't be set up to be more equitable.

And I'd guess most people in that area of Capitol Hill have six figure incomes. But I don't know who wouldn't miss $15K from a $150-200K income...

What would be more equitable than a lottery? (honest question, maybe more appropriate for a new thread tho)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure, the kids will be fine, but what I think the parents are asking is why the system can't be set up to be more equitable.

And I'd guess most people in that area of Capitol Hill have six figure incomes. But I don't know who wouldn't miss $15K from a $150-200K income...

+1 And the status quo may have the adverse effect of driving away families who want to stay and invest in the neighborhood and its schools on an ongoing basis.