Future of Brent Pk3?

[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.

just to be clear, in 99% of cases it is another two years of day care, preschool etc, not just one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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)

Nothing. Not to mention that there are schools nearby that usually have seats available. I've never known Appletree OK Ave to fill up in PK3. I believe the same is true for Amidon. If you really need a seat, there are seats available.

[Anonymous]

Right, so why not just get rid of PK3 at Brent and have all the inbounds kids in at PK4?

The truth is you know it's not the same...

[Anonymous]

I felt the same way when I was shut out for two years, but the principal simply isn't interested in the discussion, and neither is DCPS, the LSAT, or the PTA Board. There just isn't anybody to talk to about it at the school, other than other parents who were/are shut out.
Cold comfort, but if you've been shut out, you really appreciate Brent for K, while others may take having a gym, specials, class concerts, a good school library and playground etc. for granted.

I'm also not convinced that there's no acceptable public preschool spot for you within a couple miles of Brent if you really need/want one.

[Anonymous]

Why should Brent get special treatment? The overall point of PK in public schools is to provide quality preschool starting as early as possible for at risk kids. Gettong rid of PK3 because some families think it is unfair that they got "shut out" makes little sense. That is why DCPS does not care.

[Anonymous]

Our child is one of those IB siblings who didn't get into Brent for PK3 last year or PK4 this year. It's disappointing, but hardly the end of the world. Our child will go to another preschool for another year and be happy to be at Brent starting in K.

I think it makes sense to get rid of Brent PK3 in favor of including more IB children in PK4, but I also don't think it's going to happen and that's okay too. Free all-day PK3 and PK4 at your first choice school is a pretty big luxury. It's hard to complain too much about not winning a lottery. It's a lottery, after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I felt the same way when I was shut out for two years, but the principal simply isn't interested in the discussion, and neither is DCPS, the LSAT, or the PTA Board. There just isn't anybody to talk to about it at the school, other than other parents who were/are shut out.
Cold comfort, but if you've been shut out, you really appreciate Brent for K, while others may take having a gym, specials, class concerts, a good school library and playground etc. for granted.

I'm also not convinced that there's no acceptable public preschool spot for you within a couple miles of Brent if you really need/want one.

In fairness, there was a community meeting about the ECE program in October 2013 (?) when the option of moving to blended-age classroom was being considered. IIRC this was after a large number of inbound three-year olds were shut out for the first time. One of the options discussed was eliminating PS3, as was maintaining the status quo, which at the time was two PK3 classes, two PK4 classes, and one mixed-age class:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I felt the same way when I was shut out for two years, but the principal simply isn't interested in the discussion, and neither is DCPS, the LSAT, or the PTA Board. There just isn't anybody to talk to about it at the school, other than other parents who were/are shut out.
Cold comfort, but if you've been shut out, you really appreciate Brent for K, while others may take having a gym, specials, class concerts, a good school library and playground etc. for granted.

I'm also not convinced that there's no acceptable public preschool spot for you within a couple miles of Brent if you really need/want one.

In fairness, there was a community meeting about the ECE program in October 2013 (?) when the option of moving to blended-age classroom was being considered. IIRC this was after a large number of inbound three-year olds were shut out for the first time. One of the options discussed was eliminating PS3, as was maintaining the status quo, which at the time was two PK3 classes, two PK4 classes, and one mixed-age class:

The issue DCPS does no planning around these decisions. They had no idea how big the current PS3 class is and in retrospect it was clearly a bad idea. Mind you even if they had maintained the status quo, one IB sibling would have still be left out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should Brent get special treatment? The overall point of PK in public schools is to provide quality preschool starting as early as possible for at risk kids. Gettong rid of PK3 because some families think it is unfair that they got "shut out" makes little sense. That is why DCPS does not care.

How is it special treatment? Under the current system, if that at risk student is the oldest, they have very poor odds of getting. By doing away with PS3, their odds improve greatly.

Three PK4 classes is the right number. That would allow 56-60 students in each year. That would provide room for 80% of the IB students during the big years. In the smaller years, that would all IB students in as well as 5 to 6 OB students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should Brent get special treatment? The overall point of PK in public schools is to provide quality preschool starting as early as possible for at risk kids. Gettong rid of PK3 because some families think it is unfair that they got "shut out" makes little sense. That is why DCPS does not care.

How is it special treatment? Under the current system, if that at risk student is the oldest, they have very poor odds of getting. By doing away with PS3, their odds improve greatly.

Three PK4 classes is the right number. That would allow 56-60 students in each year. That would provide room for 80% of the IB students during the big years. In the smaller years, that would all IB students in as well as 5 to 6 OB students.

Half of inbound students not getting in is unacceptable but 8 out of 10 is okay? Not sure I see the logic here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should Brent get special treatment? The overall point of PK in public schools is to provide quality preschool starting as early as possible for at risk kids. Gettong rid of PK3 because some families think it is unfair that they got "shut out" makes little sense. That is why DCPS does not care.

How is it special treatment? Under the current system, if that at risk student is the oldest, they have very poor odds of getting. By doing away with PS3, their odds improve greatly.

Three PK4 classes is the right number. That would allow 56-60 students in each year. That would provide room for 80% of the IB students during the big years. In the smaller years, that would all IB students in as well as 5 to 6 OB students.

Half of inbound students not getting in is unacceptable but 8 out of 10 is okay? Not sure I see the logic here.

In a Big Year it would go from 40% currently and 80%. Mind that you that is including siblings. Three years ago only 33% of non-siblings got in. Last year it was 0.

In a small year it would go from 50-60% to 100%.

Also as mentioned, it seems more likely that those who did not get in might stick around one year. Two years is a harder ask.

[Anonymous]

Also as mentioned, it seems more likely that those who did not get in might stick around one year. Two years is a harder ask.

And yet, this is precisely what 100% of DCPS families did until 2008, the year DCPS rolled out non-means-tested preK. It's what all of Md. and Va. still do in 2016.


A lot of the posters on this thread are obfuscating their actual complaint, which is that they're still paying for the nanny or the church preschool, while their identical-in-every-way neighbor is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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)

Means tested preschool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

Means tested preschool.

+1 Means tested would be the most equitable. Having only pre-K 4 in areas with a PK3 population that greatly exceeds the spots available would be more equitable than the current situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

Means tested preschool.

Is this having an income cap or income-preference for pre-school access? If so, then I think I would support that. However, didn't our current system grow out of a means-tested system (head start)? I wonder why the change was made to remove the income criteria for DC? There must have been some reasoning behind that that I would like to understand.