Anonymous wrote:^You haven't got the full picture The parents asked DCPS to deny Young a waiver to run with Latin for grades 2-5 from the fall. What they asked for was a year in a holding pattern on Chinese, with the DCPS World Languages/Global Education and Brent's leadership waiting to make a decision on the language(s) to be taught. They asked for a process affording significant community input, perhaps including a parent survey relating to language instruction, a new parent committee to consider the matter, and/or a series of community meetings.

Some of the parents, including me, wanted time to do research on how the JKLM schools have been meeting the ambiguous new World Languages requirement (e.g. Janney, which uses PTA funds to teach several languages before and after school in a more serious way than 45 minutes a week of one language, Spanish, at Brent; the Janney kids can get at least 2 hours per week of instruction).

The "renegade" parents didn't ask to jettison or adopt a specific language at all.

Anonymous wrote:^Over the winter, parents did bypass the Brent admin and PTA to start a campaign to beat back Latin instruction. They won by convincing DCPS not to grant Young a waiver to teach a dead language half-time. But the leaders, who organized meetings at their homes, had been involved in the school for years.

Parents of rising PreK3ers are tough to find and even tougher to organize in a neighborhood. The rising parents who asked DCPS not to alter with Brent's boundary found this out two years ago, and they were permitted to meet at Brent.

It could be done, but it would be an uphill struggle.

Anonymous wrote:Thank you 14:24 for standing up to the bully insistent on invalidating the concerns of those families, past or present, who are shut out for multiple years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, of course. The crux of the problem is that Brent invested heavily in the Reggio Emilia approach to its early childhood program, which promotes arts integration and mixed-age classes, right before a big wave of in-boundary 3 year olds hit the 2012-2013 PreK3 lottery. The ECE teachers pushed for the investment. Arguably, it was a short-sighted decision born of school leaders and DCPS not being on top of baby boom trends. Apparently, they weren't expecting nearly as many as the 70+ IB applicants they got in the 2012-2013 lottery, or in the 2014-2015 lottery either. Many in the neighborhood had seen the demographic writing on the wall and wondered why Brent hadn't.

Brent then cut the number of PreK3 spots from 38 to 30. Now the school is in a situation in which the majority of in-boundary families have been turned away for PreK3 for the first time without school leaders being amenable to a new community conversation on the future of preschool, despite mounting demand for one. Dialogue isn't taking place because Young, the ECE teachers, and PTA Board and LSAT leaders have decided that the ECE classes configuration should stay the way it is for years to come. The school has run out of real estate to add classroom space, at least without using portables on the cramped grounds, at a time when DCPS is renewing its committment to preschool all around the city.

I have no idea where Brent is going with PreK3. Just thought you might like some background.

This is very interesting. Unfortunately it isn't accurate. If someone wants to reopen the discussion they can approach the PTA leadership and loop I. The LSAT. The fact is that most parents at Brent are focused on academic issues, not the self-styled second class citizens who feel slighted. Also, for the record, not all parents felt that keeping PK3 was the best course of action and most of those shut out of the lotteries in the Spring of 2013 were pushing to eliminate Pk3 at the community forum held that Fall. If you want change then you need to advocate for it, not sit around and wait for the "many in the neighborhood" who were blessed with the clairvoyance necessary to have foreseen what happened in this year's lottery. Whining on an anonymous forum isn't going to get you very far.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, of course. The crux of the problem is that Brent invested heavily in the Reggio Emilia approach to its early childhood program, which promotes arts integration and mixed-age classes, right before a big wave of in-boundary 3 year olds hit the 2012-2013 PreK3 lottery. The ECE teachers pushed for the investment. Arguably, it was a short-sighted decision born of school leaders and DCPS not being on top of baby boom trends. Apparently, they weren't expecting nearly as many as the 70+ IB applicants they got in the 2012-2013 lottery, or in the 2014-2015 lottery either. Many in the neighborhood had seen the demographic writing on the wall and wondered why Brent hadn't.

Brent then cut the number of PreK3 spots from 38 to 30. Now the school is in a situation in which the majority of in-boundary families have been turned away for PreK3 for the first time without school leaders being amenable to a new community conversation on the future of preschool, despite mounting demand for one. Dialogue isn't taking place because Young, the ECE teachers, and PTA Board and LSAT leaders have decided that the ECE classes configuration should stay the way it is for years to come. The school has run out of real estate to add classroom space, at least without using portables on the cramped grounds, at a time when DCPS is renewing its committment to preschool all around the city.

I have no idea where Brent is going with PreK3. Just thought you might like some background.

Anonymous wrote:I still haven't heard anyone say why starting the Brent program at preK 4 is a bad outcome. I don't live IB for Brent, so wouldn't personally be affected one way or another, but what is the reason for not doing this? If the choice is between half the kids starting at 3 and half starting at 5 or all the kids starting at 4, what is the advantage of not eliminating preK 3 and just having the school start at preK 4? No one seems to be providing an answer to this question. The NW schools with overcrowding problems did just this and it seems to work fine. People who really want preK 3 can lottery into the open seats at other Hill schools for a year or go to a private preschool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least rank and file parents at SWS seem to have a say in how their school runs. I've watched with dismay as Brent's clubby PTA has become less and less representative since Young arrived four years ago. Brent could challenge DCPS on sticking with PreK3, like the JKLM schools did years back. DCPS doesn't seem to grasp how the arrangement is creating rifts within the school community.

I sat through several -- mostly pointless -- PTA meetings during which parents were made aware of the upcoming Board election and advised that they could put their names in the hat. Sounds like you couldn't be bothered and prefer to bitch about the parents who have stepped up and make significant sacrifices in term of time and energy. Step up or shut up.

Anonymous wrote:I still haven't heard anyone say why starting the Brent program at preK 4 is a bad outcome. I don't live IB for Brent, so wouldn't personally be affected one way or another, but what is the reason for not doing this? If the choice is between half the kids starting at 3 and half starting at 5 or all the kids starting at 4, what is the advantage of not eliminating preK 3 and just having the school start at preK 4? No one seems to be providing an answer to this question. The NW schools with overcrowding problems did just this and it seems to work fine. People who really want preK 3 can lottery into the open seats at other Hill schools for a year or go to a private preschool.