Win-win solutions for Brent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Is this a typo? Why wouldn't under-enrolled schools have their boundaries enlarged? Wouldn't that help their under-enrollment?

Not a typo. This is the way DCPS thinks and plans. It does seem somewhat counter intuitive.

The most frustrating thing about considering solutions for Brent is that DCPS is clearly not moving in the direction of long-overdue, and smart, systemic changes to Hill feeder patterns, but rather in the direction of the odd tweak to ES districts. Any one group of parents or LSAT reps obviously can't address the planning deficit.

I'd like to see a lot of changes, including LT closing, SWS with it's own district, Tyler Traditional closing and SI taking over and giving proximity to the entire Hill, Payne and Miner becoming KIPP schools, Van Ness opening tomorrow with proximity much greater than 1500 feet. No point in thinking about any of it.



How do you sell closing LT and opening Van Ness vs. keeping LT open and keeping Van Ness shuttered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do claim to speak on behalf of others by asserting that "[m]any IB would much rather see Brent drop PreS3 in the medium-term, or even a classroom trailer or two on the small grounds." Pretty sweeping statement if you ask me.

Easy to criticize, harder to organize.

OK, what's your plan for keeping PreS3 when the neighborhood elementary schools with similar demographics (in Upper NW) dropped it 15 years ago due to crowding? Some of us would indeed rather see PreS3 go in favor of letting almost everybody IB, and OOB with siblings, come for PreK 4. That's what happens in JKLM.

This is the start of a discussion about where to go from here. What would you rather have? A chance to take potshots?


I'm pretty sure that's not how it happened. PS3 in DCPS was converted from Head Start (low SES) programs. That's why it was on the Hill and most other locations. There was never any Head Start programming in upper NW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Van Ness will have no trouble filling up--there are a ton of families in SW who don't see Amidon as an option, and don't have any closer OOB schools or charters starting in kindergarten. And since those homes are (at least currently) zoned for Wilson, they won't be particularly worried about feeder patterns out of Van Ness.

The current Wilson feed is one of the strangest boundary quirks in the entire system. You want to take bets on whether that boundary line will be worth anything by the time a prospective preschooler is ready for high school? For a bonus, good luck at Jefferson for MS while you wait for the Wilson seat to be pulled away before you can sit (if it hasn't long before)

This. You don't think everyone in DCPS isn't just itching to re-route into Eastern?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where exactly is the "rundown south wing"? How do I access it, via the Fourth Floor? While we are at it, shouldn't Brent parents and the school request a badminton court, indoor pool, food court and planetarium?

Not if it re-prioritizes the polo ponies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am a bit confused. Aren't the LSAT and PTA already established and able to solicit and process input from parents. What is the purpose of an autonomous group that seems to be comprised primarily of parents who do not have children at Brent? And why do you believe the powers that be at DCPS will share any information with the "working group." There is a reason redistricting initiative has been conducted in secrecy up to now.

*Lafayette's school boundaries working group is the model. The difference between the Brent and Lafayette on the school boundaries front is that at the former, it's mainly rising families who are concerned about possible changes, while at the latter, it's the whole school (because of the threat to the Deal and Wilson feeds).

Principal Young has suggested that that rising families, and others, could usefully provide input to the LSAT in the fall, before he meets with Kaya to offer her community input on a draft Hill boundary revision. I wouldn't call the working group autonomous, more advisory in case anybody's listening.

Rising IB parents with toddlers on waiting lists are the natural ones to be motivated to keep on top of of the boundary review and solicit community input. Parents with children already at Brent are unlikely to care much for two reasons. Even their little ones are really likely to be grandfathered in by Mary Cheh's November 2012 bill, or similar legislation, in the case of boundary changes, and they aren't worried about losing the Eliot-Hine and Eastern feeds.

Nobody expects DCPS to tell parents anything special, but it couldn't hurt to learn from Lafayette's working group. They've collected more than 1,000 signatures on a petition asking for their boundaries to stay the same (although their school is at least 300 kids over capacity). They've also met with half the DC City Council in search of more info/insight.








Lafayette has a big advantage: 2 councilmembers. Part of Lafayette is Ward 3 and part is Ward 4. Muriel Bowser should be all over this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am a bit confused. Aren't the LSAT and PTA already established and able to solicit and process input from parents. What is the purpose of an autonomous group that seems to be comprised primarily of parents who do not have children at Brent? And why do you believe the powers that be at DCPS will share any information with the "working group." There is a reason redistricting initiative has been conducted in secrecy up to now.

*Lafayette's school boundaries working group is the model. The difference between the Brent and Lafayette on the school boundaries front is that at the former, it's mainly rising families who are concerned about possible changes, while at the latter, it's the whole school (because of the threat to the Deal and Wilson feeds).

Principal Young has suggested that that rising families, and others, could usefully provide input to the LSAT in the fall, before he meets with Kaya to offer her community input on a draft Hill boundary revision. I wouldn't call the working group autonomous, more advisory in case anybody's listening.

Rising IB parents with toddlers on waiting lists are the natural ones to be motivated to keep on top of of the boundary review and solicit community input. Parents with children already at Brent are unlikely to care much for two reasons. Even their little ones are really likely to be grandfathered in by Mary Cheh's November 2012 bill, or similar legislation, in the case of boundary changes, and they aren't worried about losing the Eliot-Hine and Eastern feeds.

Nobody expects DCPS to tell parents anything special, but it couldn't hurt to learn from Lafayette's working group. They've collected more than 1,000 signatures on a petition asking for their boundaries to stay the same (although their school is at least 300 kids over capacity). They've also met with half the DC City Council in search of more info/insight.





I think you give current Brent parents too little credit. They very much care about the boundary review process insofar as it potentially impacts every aspect of the school day. First, they have invested in Brent and their community for a number of years and want to see the school continue to improve. Second, albeit somewhat related, they very much care about whether DCPS is going to situate mobile classrooms on the Brent grounds, particularly if it means losing playground or other common area space, which affects everything from PE to aftercare activities. Third, they very much care because the number of students at Brent affects scheduling of specials (art, music, foreign language), as well as the time allocated for lunch, recess and other activities. Fourth, they very much care because redistricting may have an impact on property values and tax burdens.

[Anonymous]

Hear hear. Not to mention many may have younger siblings that will be affected by boundaries in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am a bit confused. Aren't the LSAT and PTA already established and able to solicit and process input from parents. What is the purpose of an autonomous group that seems to be comprised primarily of parents who do not have children at Brent? And why do you believe the powers that be at DCPS will share any information with the "working group." There is a reason redistricting initiative has been conducted in secrecy up to now.

*Lafayette's school boundaries working group is the model. The difference between the Brent and Lafayette on the school boundaries front is that at the former, it's mainly rising families who are concerned about possible changes, while at the latter, it's the whole school (because of the threat to the Deal and Wilson feeds).

Principal Young has suggested that that rising families, and others, could usefully provide input to the LSAT in the fall, before he meets with Kaya to offer her community input on a draft Hill boundary revision. I wouldn't call the working group autonomous, more advisory in case anybody's listening.

Rising IB parents with toddlers on waiting lists are the natural ones to be motivated to keep on top of of the boundary review and solicit community input. Parents with children already at Brent are unlikely to care much for two reasons. Even their little ones are really likely to be grandfathered in by Mary Cheh's November 2012 bill, or similar legislation, in the case of boundary changes, and they aren't worried about losing the Eliot-Hine and Eastern feeds.

Nobody expects DCPS to tell parents anything special, but it couldn't hurt to learn from Lafayette's working group. They've collected more than 1,000 signatures on a petition asking for their boundaries to stay the same (although their school is at least 300 kids over capacity). They've also met with half the DC City Council in search of more info/insight.








Lafayette has a big advantage: 2 councilmembers. Part of Lafayette is Ward 3 and part is Ward 4. Muriel Bowser should be all over this.

Lafayette is also twice the size of Brent. Hence, twice the political constituency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hear hear. Not to mention many may have younger siblings that will be affected by boundaries in the future.

True, even if those siblings are grandfathered.

[Anonymous]

Principal Young has suggested that that rising families, and others, could usefully provide input to the LSAT in the fall, before he meets with Kaya to offer her community input on a draft Hill boundary revision.

I think this is "Hill boundary revision" is key. Right now, everything is Balkanized and schools are pitted against one another in a zero sum game. There needs to be a comprehensive proposal that addresses longstanding Hill issues, including middle school. That is where political leadership from Tommy Wells comes into play. Oh, nevermind . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Principal Young has suggested that that rising families, and others, could usefully provide input to the LSAT in the fall, before he meets with Kaya to offer her community input on a draft Hill boundary revision.

I think this is "Hill boundary revision" is key. Right now, everything is Balkanized and schools are pitted against one another in a zero sum game. There needs to be a comprehensive proposal that addresses longstanding Hill issues, including middle school. That is where political leadership from Tommy Wells comes into play. Oh, nevermind . . .

Tommy is advocating for Stuart Hobson to get $6 million for a parking structure. Mr. Livable and Walkable is contorting himself to court the Cluster vote (or at least avoid their wrath). Six million will modernize a whole elementary school, or help improve Eliot Hine. At the hearing last week it was made clear by Catania that the money for modernization is quickly running out. Catania also said that the prioritization of modernization funds is completely political and untethered to merit based review. Thus, put a parking garage at SH and take away something from another neighborhood school. Straight up zero-sum game. Doesn't matter to Tommy and his good governance platform . . . instead of working for a comprehensive plan to raise the fortunes of everyone, he's genuflecting to a well organized and vocal campaign that puts their narrow interests ahead of the greater good.

[Anonymous]

Seriously? Four blocks from the Red Line (Union Station) and three blocks from the H Street trolley. And we wonder why DCPS can't produce results. Profiles in stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think you give current Brent parents too little credit. They very much care about the boundary review process insofar as it potentially impacts every aspect of the school day. First, they have invested in Brent and their community for a number of years and want to see the school continue to improve. Second, albeit somewhat related, they very much care about whether DCPS is going to situate mobile classrooms on the Brent grounds, particularly if it means losing playground or other common area space, which affects everything from PE to aftercare activities. Third, they very much care because the number of students at Brent affects scheduling of specials (art, music, foreign language), as well as the time allocated for lunch, recess and other activities. Fourth, they very much care because redistricting may have an impact on property values and tax burdens.

Points taken, but parents of young children have limited discretionary time and energy. Nobody with children at the school organized a meeting about boundaries, although DCPS announced the review in January. The discussion didn't begin until March, when 47 rising IB families landed on Brent waiting lists. It will be a tricky discussion by nature, at high risk of dissolving into a mean-spirited free for all.

Situating mobile classrooms on the Brent grounds eventually may or may not be the worst outcome.

I'm having a hard time imagining parents on the blocks around G, I and Ellen Wilson being happy driving kids to a beat-up (and only partially renovated) tree-less campus, an unknown quantity of a school, one serving a different neighborhood and situated 10 feet off crazy M. Few would want kids to walk across I and Virginia to reach Van Ness. Many bought in the Brent District so they wouldn't need to deal with their kids' commutes to school.

There is surely no comprehensive win-win solution on the horizon. Compromises are going to have to be ironed out to soften some of the blows.

[Anonymous]

+1. the boundary review is a wake up call brent needs. where's the capacity planning? who's thinking in terms of managing steady increases in the k pop?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Principal Young has suggested that that rising families, and others, could usefully provide input to the LSAT in the fall, before he meets with Kaya to offer her community input on a draft Hill boundary revision.

I think this is "Hill boundary revision" is key. Right now, everything is Balkanized and schools are pitted against one another in a zero sum game. There needs to be a comprehensive proposal that addresses longstanding Hill issues, including middle school. That is where political leadership from Tommy Wells comes into play. Oh, nevermind . . .

Tommy is advocating for Stuart Hobson to get $6 million for a parking structure. Mr. Livable and Walkable is contorting himself to court the Cluster vote (or at least avoid their wrath). Six million will modernize a whole elementary school, or help improve Eliot Hine. At the hearing last week it was made clear by Catania that the money for modernization is quickly running out. Catania also said that the prioritization of modernization funds is completely political and untethered to merit based review. Thus, put a parking garage at SH and take away something from another neighborhood school. Straight up zero-sum game. Doesn't matter to Tommy and his good governance platform . . . instead of working for a comprehensive plan to raise the fortunes of everyone, he's genuflecting to a well organized and vocal campaign that puts their narrow interests ahead of the greater good.

This is just misleading at best. The $6 millions is for a full athletic field with a portion for a parking structure underneath. The athletic fields will benefit the entire neighborhood and are supported by Sports on the Hill.