Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to articulate a principled rationale for eliminating PK3 other than it sucks that my neighbor gets two years of PK and I got screwed. I up pose you can move into the attendance zone of one of the WOTP schools where no PK3 is offered and you still might not get in for PK4. It's unfortunate that some are to some degree the "victims" of Brent's success in this regard, but I don't think a scenario by which 40 more three-year olds -- many of whom have siblings at Brent -- would be competing for PS3 spots at places like the Hill Preschool, Appletree, Two Rivers or Eagle Academy in necessarily in anyone's best interests.

I'm still waiting for the argument against going to PK4 only.

Brent is a public community school that is supposed to serve the interests of the community. For the past 4 years, it has some of the worse acceptance rates for ECE in the city. I'm not sure what else I can tell you to change your mind.

- PS3 is supposed to serve "at-risk" students. There are very few in the Brent district and the current odds make it very difficult for them to get in.
- IB families who do not get in are less likely to come for K and those who do (at least looking at this year). It is bad policy for DCPS to drive families away at 3 years old.
- People complain that Brent is not "diverse" enough anymore. Going to 3 PK4 classes would allow a handful of OB students during the smaller years.
- There are very few ECE seats to be had else where on the Hill. Van Ness was a one year solution. And I love how the people who say that Jefferson is too far for their MS kids are suggesting that their neighbors' 3 year olds go to A-B.

I know a lot of parents have put a lot of work into making Brent the school it is today. At the same time, they also have to understand that after a while things have to be re-evaluated. I could be off on my numbers but I think the current 1st Graders had 10 IB kids not get in for their PS3 year. In the four years since it has been 30, 25, 40 (including 9 siblings), and 20. It is time to make a change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to articulate a principled rationale for eliminating PK3 other than it sucks that my neighbor gets two years of PK and I got screwed. I up pose you can move into the attendance zone of one of the WOTP schools where no PK3 is offered and you still might not get in for PK4. It's unfortunate that some are to some degree the "victims" of Brent's success in this regard, but I don't think a scenario by which 40 more three-year olds -- many of whom have siblings at Brent -- would be competing for PS3 spots at places like the Hill Preschool, Appletree, Two Rivers or Eagle Academy in necessarily in anyone's best interests.

It would align the PK class more closely with the expected K class and with the neighborhood population, instead of having a bulge of new IB students arrive in K. This alignment would help with planning, resources, cohesion etc. In addition it would improve retention of families in the neighborhood and at the school if the likelihood of getting a PK4 spot were improved. And rather than those 40 (or really 32; I'm not sure where you got 40) three-year olds competing for the PK3 spots as you suggest, there are now 15-30 competing for PK3 and PK4 spots, so the competition issue is there anyway. And as I have mentioned in other posts, this population issue is going on all over the Hill so it is only going to get worse at every school in the neighborhood unless more spots open up (at either the PK3 level or at PK4 with no PK3).

Can you give specifics on concerns about planning, resources and cohesion, whatever that might mean, as things have played out over the past three years? I must be missing something obvious.

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to articulate a principled rationale for eliminating PK3 other than it sucks that my neighbor gets two years of PK and I got screwed. I up pose you can move into the attendance zone of one of the WOTP schools where no PK3 is offered and you still might not get in for PK4. It's unfortunate that some are to some degree the "victims" of Brent's success in this regard, but I don't think a scenario by which 40 more three-year olds -- many of whom have siblings at Brent -- would be competing for PS3 spots at places like the Hill Preschool, Appletree, Two Rivers or Eagle Academy in necessarily in anyone's best interests.

It would align the PK class more closely with the expected K class and with the neighborhood population, instead of having a bulge of new IB students arrive in K. This alignment would help with planning, resources, cohesion etc. In addition it would improve retention of families in the neighborhood and at the school if the likelihood of getting a PK4 spot were improved. And rather than those 40 (or really 32; I'm not sure where you got 40) three-year olds competing for the PK3 spots as you suggest, there are now 15-30 competing for PK3 and PK4 spots, so the competition issue is there anyway. And as I have mentioned in other posts, this population issue is going on all over the Hill so it is only going to get worse at every school in the neighborhood unless more spots open up (at either the PK3 level or at PK4 with no PK3).

I'm still waiting for someone to articulate a principled rationale for eliminating PK3 other than it sucks that my neighbor gets two years of PK and I got screwed. I up pose you can move into the attendance zone of one of the WOTP schools where no PK3 is offered and you still might not get in for PK4. It's unfortunate that some are to some degree the "victims" of Brent's success in this regard, but I don't think a scenario by which 40 more three-year olds -- many of whom have siblings at Brent -- would be competing for PS3 spots at places like the Hill Preschool, Appletree, Two Rivers or Eagle Academy in necessarily in anyone's best interests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to keep happening unless something changes (ie, more spots or only PK4). I fail to see a downward trend in recent years. There will be years where 40% get in and years where 66% get in (the 2016 lottery) but I fail to see the situation working itself out without a change at the school.

The school doesn't get to decide on its own whether to discontinue PK3. Which would be the next Capitol Hill school to do so? Peabody? Maury? SWS? Van Ness?

Hard to say, looking at the 2015 numbers:

Peabody: They offer over 60 seats for PS3 meaning more of their of their IB kids get in (60 of 80 in '14, 61 of 99 in '15)
Maury: Their numbers are as bad as Brent's. However they are getting additional classrooms in the next few years (6 or 8) which should ease the crunch
SWS: Correct me if I'm wrong by they are city wide so they don't have to worry about IB students
VN: Judging by posts on this board, it sounds like they have 2+ classes of IB students. However they have guaranteed admission for IB PS3 students. So really the question for VN is when does that go away?

Why would that go away?

I think it will stay until the school is filled up through 5th and it's clear whether a majority of the students are Title 1 eligible or not.

Totally agree. Just pointing out that guaranteed IB admission will go away before PS3 and it would be several years in the future.

Anonymous wrote:This will never happen as Principal Young has stated such in that eliminating PK3 would go against the DCPS goal of offering it throughout the city in the first place.

This in my opinion but I think Mr. Young hasn't been honest around this issue. In the past he said DCPS would be against it. During the most recent PTA meeting he said something similar, and then admitted that it was a guess as he hadn't actually asked them. He will also deflect the issue by suggesting that four PK4 classes would be too many. He is right, there should only be three.
He also isn't willing to address the known issue of boundary cheaters.

Like a lot of people, he hopes the issue will just fade away but I think he is mistaken.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to keep happening unless something changes (ie, more spots or only PK4). I fail to see a downward trend in recent years. There will be years where 40% get in and years where 66% get in (the 2016 lottery) but I fail to see the situation working itself out without a change at the school.

The school doesn't get to decide on its own whether to discontinue PK3. Which would be the next Capitol Hill school to do so? Peabody? Maury? SWS? Van Ness?

Hard to say, looking at the 2015 numbers:

Peabody: They offer over 60 seats for PS3 meaning more of their of their IB kids get in (60 of 80 in '14, 61 of 99 in '15)
Maury: Their numbers are as bad as Brent's. However they are getting additional classrooms in the next few years (6 or 8) which should ease the crunch
SWS: Correct me if I'm wrong by they are city wide so they don't have to worry about IB students
VN: Judging by posts on this board, it sounds like they have 2+ classes of IB students. However they have guaranteed admission for IB PS3 students. So really the question for VN is when does that go away?

Why would that go away?

I think it will stay until the school is filled up through 5th and it's clear whether a majority of the students are Title 1 eligible or not.

This will never happen as Principal Young has stated such in that eliminating PK3 would go against the DCPS goal of offering it throughout the city in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to keep happening unless something changes (ie, more spots or only PK4). I fail to see a downward trend in recent years. There will be years where 40% get in and years where 66% get in (the 2016 lottery) but I fail to see the situation working itself out without a change at the school.

The school doesn't get to decide on its own whether to discontinue PK3. Which would be the next Capitol Hill school to do so? Peabody? Maury? SWS? Van Ness?

Hard to say, looking at the 2015 numbers:

Peabody: They offer over 60 seats for PS3 meaning more of their of their IB kids get in (60 of 80 in '14, 61 of 99 in '15)
Maury: Their numbers are as bad as Brent's. However they are getting additional classrooms in the next few years (6 or 8) which should ease the crunch
SWS: Correct me if I'm wrong by they are city wide so they don't have to worry about IB students
VN: Judging by posts on this board, it sounds like they have 2+ classes of IB students. However they have guaranteed admission for IB PS3 students. So really the question for VN is when does that go away?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to keep happening unless something changes (ie, more spots or only PK4). I fail to see a downward trend in recent years. There will be years where 40% get in and years where 66% get in (the 2016 lottery) but I fail to see the situation working itself out without a change at the school.

The school doesn't get to decide on its own whether to discontinue PK3. Which would be the next Capitol Hill school to do so? Peabody? Maury? SWS? Van Ness?

Understood. I meant a change "at the school" not a change "by the school," which is why I worded it that way.

Anonymous wrote:This is going to keep happening unless something changes (ie, more spots or only PK4). I fail to see a downward trend in recent years. There will be years where 40% get in and years where 66% get in (the 2016 lottery) but I fail to see the situation working itself out without a change at the school.

The school doesn't get to decide on its own whether to discontinue PK3. Which would be the next Capitol Hill school to do so? Peabody? Maury? SWS? Van Ness?

This is going to keep happening unless something changes (ie, more spots or only PK4). I fail to see a downward trend in recent years. There will be years where 40% get in and years where 66% get in (the 2016 lottery) but I fail to see the situation working itself out without a change at the school.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because 80% is larger than 50% by a statistically significant margin. If you can't see that, not sure how else to help you with the logic. It's hard to dumb it down any further.

NP here. While I applaud your attempt at sarcasm and condescension, you blew it by trying to hard. 80%>50%. It has absolutely nothing to do with two standard deviations or any statistical correlation. If you can't see that I'm not sure how else to help you with that logic...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because 80% is larger than 50% by a statistically significant margin. If you can't see that, not sure how else to help you with the logic. It's hard to dumb it down any further.

I'm all in favor of maintaining the status quo if it serves to keep obnoxious b*tches like you out of the school for two years. With that said, the current system helps somewhat in terms of thinning the herd going into K, as opposed to having three PK4 classes which may necessitate having to open up seats to the lottery. I think we can acknowledge that each of the past three years was a very different experience for inbound families with three-year olds and the trend since 2013, when almost half of inbounds families were shut out, has demonstrated lesser demand even without taking boundary cheaters into account.

Weren't almost half of IB families (or more) also shut out in 2015? Not sure of the trend you speak of.

Less than half in 2015 (40 of 70 left out) and even in the smaller year, half of the non-siblings are left out. The 2015 group had one of the worse rates in the city. Just as a comparison, Janney let in 75% of their IB PK4s.

Janney has something like six PK classes, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because 80% is larger than 50% by a statistically significant margin. If you can't see that, not sure how else to help you with the logic. It's hard to dumb it down any further.

I'm all in favor of maintaining the status quo if it serves to keep obnoxious b*tches like you out of the school for two years. With that said, the current system helps somewhat in terms of thinning the herd going into K, as opposed to having three PK4 classes which may necessitate having to open up seats to the lottery. I think we can acknowledge that each of the past three years was a very different experience for inbound families with three-year olds and the trend since 2013, when almost half of inbounds families were shut out, has demonstrated lesser demand even without taking boundary cheaters into account.

Weren't almost half of IB families (or more) also shut out in 2015? Not sure of the trend you speak of.

Less than half in 2015 (40 of 70 left out) and even in the smaller year, half of the non-siblings are left out. The 2015 group had one of the worse rates in the city. Just as a comparison, Janney let in 75% of their IB PK4s.