Will Van Ness Elementary School be on the same level as Brent/Maury in 3 years?

[Anonymous]

I don't see VN included in a controlled choice scenario. Same for Amidon.

[Anonymous]

Why not???

[Anonymous]

Reopening Van Ness was part of the DCPS Ward 6 middle school plan and the DME, who was directly involved in that process, would would have to contend with dozens of parents who were promised their own neighborhood school. A controlled choice scenario in which their DC could still be sent to Amidon would be a PR disaster in terms of DCPS having to defend primitive social experimentation. It was also virtually guarantee that VN would never have a core group of students from the Navy Yard comunity. The same could be said for Brent parents who will seek out other options if there is an equal chance of being placed at underperforming schools such as Tyler (non SI) and Amidon.

[Anonymous]

Let's not forget that the developers who make substantial contributions to DC pols, and probably tipped the scales in terms of getting Van Ness reopened to aide in thr marketing of their new condo projects, would likely not be happy with a Tyler-Brent-VN-Amidn choice set. Then layer the CSX Tunnel disruption on top . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget that the developers who make substantial contributions to DC pols, and probably tipped the scales in terms of getting Van Ness reopened to aide in thr marketing of their new condo projects, would likely not be happy with a Tyler-Brent-VN-Amidn choice set. Then layer the CSX Tunnel disruption on top . . .

I hope you guys are right as I am not if favor of a controlled choice policy, but I also think these are relatively minor considerations (and wishful thinking) in the grand scheme of DCPS wanting to propose something "big" to magically improve schools. On the other hand, developer lawsuits might be sufficient to stall implementation for a while...

[Anonymous]

Developers don't need to resort to lawsuits which would waste time and resources with virtually no chance of succeeding. They pick up the phone and call Gray, Bowser, Catania, Evans, et al. and cash in chits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Perhaps you should check your baggage and read my post more carefully. i neither stated nor implied that OOB students not from Capitol Hill were somehow unmotivated or academically unserious. My point, however inartfully phrased, was that socioeconomic factors, coupled with becoming a true neighborhood school, played a critical role in turning Brent around. This is a fact, not an assumption. Academic resuts results speak for themselves, as does the contrast in classroom and playground behavior in the last few years as compared to seven or eight years ago. In any event, you can't have it both ways. Any blame can't fall solely on "Brent." Children who are academically serious and have motivated families should be able to overcome whatever shortcomings may exist at the school. It happens in classrooms all around the world everyday.

Such BS about Brent history. My family has been part of Brent's history for the past 7 years. While the scores are higher now than they were then, I would say the behavior of the students is no better than it was back then. There weren't any fights on the playground! there weren't disruptive classrooms! You just made that up completely! The principal treated her staff and teachers terribly and the resources were poor-- pathetic library-- but the kids were good! Honestly! and this was back when Brent went through 6th grade, and even the 6th graders were great kids.

[Anonymous]

We will have to agree to disagree about our respective experiences and observations. It only takes a few disruptive kids when teachers are ill-equipped to manage a classroom.

[Anonymous]

Your point that OOB kids cause disruptions and fights lacks any validity with regards to Brent. I am an IB parent and I've noted that some of the best behaved kids are OOB and some of the worst are IB.

Brent would have been closed up 7 years ago because of underenrollment if it weren't for the OOB kids keeping it open while the Brent neighborhood had a dearth of families with elementary aged kids that had no interest in enrolling their kid at Brent.

anyway, I am thrilled VN is reopening and I think it is great that it is starting small. I'm sure the neighborhood will support it. I think it could be better than Brent for those families in the area. Immediately. Why deal with crossing over CSX mess to get to Brent? Note the green fields of VN that Brent lacks. And I'm sure the community is working to make its voice heard about the curriculum and focus of the reopened VN. With the DOT and the Navy Yard right there, there could be a fantastic STEM focus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Van Ness Elementary School near the Navy Yard is slated to open for the 2015 - 2016 school year. With all the new development (Whole Foods, Harris Teeter, etc) and housing springing up every year, how likely will Van Ness become a high performing, high demand elementary school like Brent & Maury? My take on this is that it will open with limited grades (PS3, PK4, K), and and a grade every year until it becomes a full fledged elementary school. I think this will allow the school to grow just as the community is growing, and that it will most likely being just as good (or even better) than Brent & Maury.

If Watkins is a barometer, you will be waiting a long, long, long time. That's not meant to be a slight, but more of an observation that Watkins is in a far more developed area than Van Ness, is a well-established school, feeds to SH, and it still can't come close to filling itself with IB kids.

Two factors. Development doesn't necessarily equal lots of young kids. As others have noted, that area is more targeted toward young professionals than families. You also have so many options. Even if you had the potential to fill Van Ness with a critical mass a high SES kids, you will still lose a fair number to charters and privates.

I think you need to lower your expectations and hope that in 5 years it might be on par with Ludlow Taylor.

I predict the following for Van Ness Elementary:
The school will open only for PS3, PK4, K. Doing this will allow the school to start off as a school with a majority of inbound kids from high SES familes (most of the the kids living in public housing are much older). Every year, the school will add a grade and pretty much keep the demographics the same. It will have a snowball effect. Since a ton of new housing is planned, families from across the city will see Van Ness Elementary as a up and coming school, and they will also have lots of different new housing units to choose from. By the time Van Ness Elementary is a full PS3 - 5 elementary school, it will be at least on the same level as what Brent is now.

You predict or speculate? Even if you are assuming only two classes per grade, you are going to need at least 60 IB high SES kids (20 per grade). I'd be shocked if there are that many total living IB right now, but you really need 100+ to account for leakage to other options. You can't just plop a school down next to a Wholefoods, throw open the doors, and call it Brent II.

As we are seeing with Eliot-Hine right now, parents are very reluctant to have their kids be the guinea pigs. Brent did not just emerge fully formed. Lots of people continue to forget that fact. It wasn't that long ago when getting into Brent OOB was a reasonable proposition, and that was when the area around it was full on gentrified.

Van Ness needs to crawl, then walk, then trot, and then you can tell me about the marathons it will run.

The difference with Van Ness is that it will be essentially building a school from the ground up (new curriculum, new principal, new teachers, new school culture, etc), so you are much more likely to have a high rate of High SES in bound kids going to the school. You are also going to have a high number of highly involved parents putting in the effort to make sure that it's an outstanding school

As PP pointed out, Brent also has essentially been rebuilt since 2005. Phase I modernization, new principal (Dr. Wilhoyt succeeded by Mr. Young), new teachers and staff, more rigorous curriculum, new ECE program, new school culture, concurrent with inducing an increasing number of high SES in bound kids going to the school, with a high number of highly involved parents putting in the effort to make sure that it's an outstanding school. The difference between Brent and Van Ness, at least in the short term, may be the size of the IB population from which a critical mass of high SES students can be drawn. Right now, there just don't seem to be that many families lwith school age children living in Capitol Quarter and nearby condos/apartments. In Brent's case, it is a smaller school that was able to supplement a smallish IB population of elementary aged students with highly motivated families who were IB for other Capitol Hill/Ward 6 schools such as Watkins, Tyler, Ludlow-Taylor, Miner, Payne and Amidon. Van Ness almost certainly will have a substantial citywide draw crossing racial and socioeconomic barriers from day one, which will have associated benefits and burdens, and could affect the ability of nearby schools such as Ludlow and Amidon to retain more high SES students. As to the comment about a new curriculum, I wonder what the posters thinking now that we are living in the realm of CCSS?

Brent parent here, and this analysis of Brent history is really off-putting. The insinuation that Only OOB families from the Capitol Hill area are "motivated" and other aren't is wrong and judgemental ( if I am being kind ). My child's classmates at Brent were overwhelming OOB from outside Capitol Hill and you are completely wrong about your analysis of the level of motivation or academic seriousness of those kids and their families. If there was a problem, it was that the school let those kids down early in their education. For sure they and their families didn't let the school down. Check yourself and your assumptions

Perhaps you should check your baggage and read my post more carefully. i neither stated nor implied that OOB students not from Capitol Hill were somehow unmotivated or academically unserious. My point, however inartfully phrased, was that socioeconomic factors, coupled with becoming a true neighborhood school, played a critical role in turning Brent around. This is a fact, not an assumption. Academic resuts results speak for themselves, as does the contrast in classroom and playground behavior in the last few years as compared to seven or eight years ago. In any event, you can't have it both ways. Any blame can't fall solely on "Brent." Children who are academically serious and have motivated families should be able to overcome whatever shortcomings may exist at the school. It happens in classrooms all around the world everyday.

Dude. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. First, while the average wealth of Brent has most certainly risen in the last fa years, it was never a high poverty school. Test scores rise as better teachers and more coordinated curriculum moves in, not only because of SES of students and neighborhood investment. Not sure what behaviors you are talking about that has improved, they have simply changed with the dominant culture of the kids in the school. And it is CompleteBS that motivated and academically ambitious families can overcome poor teaching,chaotic central office and a terrible curriculum. You then get mediocrity out of those students instead of excellence. It sounds like you think you have it all figured out, but you are spouting nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Not to take anything away from Brent (Brent should be a model on how neighborhood parents can pull together to create a great neighborhood school), but let's get this thread focused back on Van Ness Elementary. In responses to the original question on this thread "Will Van Ness Elementary School be on the same level as Brent/Maury in 3 years", I certainly think it has a chance of being on that level. It will come down to how diligent the parents are in choosing the right principal and right curriculum from the start. I also think that only opening PS3, PK4, and K would be the best way to get the school off to a good start. Looking at the neighborhood demographics in the Capitol Riverfront, you see very few families living in public housing pushing kids around in strollers. Most of the kids in public housing are older kids (approaching middle school age). However, you see a lot of families in the market rate and workforce housing in Capitol Quarter pushing young kids in strollers. I've also noticed a number of families with young children living in the Foundry Lofts at the Yards, in the Velocity Condos, and in the Capitol Hill Tower Co-ops. You now have a situation where developers can market units to young families saying that they will be zoned for the "New" Van Ness Elementary School.

In addition to the housing units mentioned above, you also have "The Lofts at Capitol Quarter" being built right now, and EYA is proposing building market-rate Condos on the lot next to Canal Park. Also, at a community meeting held earlier this year, DCHA said that if the EYA condo is successful, they would consider doing the same thing with the rest of the DCHA owned lots.

[Anonymous]

The parents don't get to choose the principal or the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Dude, not to belabor the point but Brent ceased to be classified as a Title I school only recently -- I think about four or five years ago. Not sure what you consider to be high poverty but there certainly were more DC schools with higher comcentrations of low SES students.

[Anonymous]

If Van Ness Elementary really wants to get off to a good start with kids coming from high SES families, then Van Ness should only open with PS3, PK4, and maybe K. That way the new families in Capitol Quarter should feel safe about knowing that its a good chance that a lot of those initial kids will be staying at the school until at least 4th grade.

[Anonymous]

I could be completely off-base here, but would be interested to hear some reactions. I feel like a problem with Capitol Hill schools, generally, is that there are a fair number of families who are still in their "starter" homes, and with free PS/PK, they figure they may as well stay in DC for those years, and maybe they stay for a little longer if the school is pretty good and for whatever other reasons they aren't ready to put down a down payment on a new house. And that is why you see a lot of kids leaving DC at K, first, second grade. I feel like this phenomenon would be even more pronounced for Van Ness, where most of the housing would be market-rate high-rise condos. So you may get a school that is great in the lower grades, but then loses that neighborhood feel in the upper grades and gets lots of OOB kids (and of course, the "problems" this creates is debatable on DCUM)